Lt. Dan Choi: "After what he did today, I will not vote for Barack Obama"

[Prism]

Serious anger and disgust across the LGBT community today, and Lt. Choi is currently one of our strongest, most courageous, most admired, and most visible leaders.

Democrats are underestimating the current intense anger in the LGBT community at their peril.

And to have done this two weeks before an election was stupid, stupid, stupid.

This isn't chess. This is arrogant disregard.

I pray we do not have a Republican Congress come Nov. 2nd, but if it happens, it will partially be thanks to Democrats surrendering their principles for perceived political advantage. People do not go to bat for the politicians who put a knife in their backs.

President Obama's act today is costing Democrats across the nation a lot of LGBT votes.

Can the party afford them?

Edit to add link: http://twitter.com/ltdanchoi

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Democat]

2. I'm sure Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney will serve his interests better!

Dumb.

Remember Ralph Nader!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Democat]

4. How would President Palin make life worse for gay Americans?

That's comedy.

[Bluebear]

6. Your dismissal of Choi's situtation is comedy. You know nothing about this.

Obviously.

[Democat]

10. I don't dismiss his situation, I dismiss the idea of not supporting Democrats over Republicans

Republicans actively campaign against gay marriage, they would like to teach that gay men and women are "sick" in schools, and they want to make sure that hate crime laws don't include attacks based on sexual preference, just to name a few things.

To try to pretend that Republicans would be no worse than Obama is a joke - and if it helps to get more Republicans elected then it's extremely harmful.

[WillParkinson]

12. Enough of our 'allies' do the same thing....

Having a (D) after your name does not guarantee they're on our side. I'm voting for Mr. Obama, but increasingly most Democrats don't deserve my vote.

[Democat]

16. I'm not happy with Democrats either, but I will vote for them over Republicans

You can easily tell by my post history here that I'm fed up with cowardly Democrats as well, and Obama has disappointed me in many ways. However, I'm not dumb enough to vote against him and give the right wing a better a chance of winning in this election or the 2012 election. I would rather be disappointed by Obama than live through another Bush presidency.

How many members of the US military died because Nader decided that Al Gore wasn't liberal enough and helped Bush win in 2000, leading to the Iraq war? People's lives are at stake.

[WillParkinson]

18. How do you expect to hold a politician accountable...

If they know you're going to hold your nose and vote for them?

I will not deny that not voting isn't a good option, but our vote is our voice. It's the single most powerful thing we have. If you do not earn it then you do not deserve it and should not expect it.

[tavalon]

36. There you go. Name that Conundrum in four or less sentences!

Bingo.

[sansatman]

270. Why doesn't he just do what President Truman did

I voted for you in the last elections based on your alleged commitment to equality for all Americans, gay and straight, and I wanted to know where you stood on "don't ask, don't tell." I know that you’ve mentioned that you want the Senate to repeal it before you do it yourself. My question is you as the president can sort of have an executive order that ends it once and for all, as Harry -- as Truman did for the integration of the military in '48. So I wonder why don't you do that if this is a policy that you're committed to ending.

The president bristled at the dismissive question. "First of all, I haven't 'mentioned' that I'm against 'don't ask, don't ask,' he said, "I have said very clearly, including in a State of the Union address, that I'm against 'don't ask, don't tell' and that we’re going to end this policy." And then he said this:

Point number two, the difference between my position right now and Harry Truman’s was that Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy unilaterally. So this is not a situation in which with a stroke of a pen I can simply end the policy.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/10/obama_is_right_on_dont_ask_don.html

[tavalon]

35. Look, even I've been swayed to vote and to vote straight D, even though

they've fucked as all in such similar but kinder way than Bush. Lube is a wonderful thing. But let's play a little rhetorical game, just between us, the abused spouses. Just what would be the final straw that would finally stop you from voting Democratic no matter what? Just what is the one step too far? Obviously, not this, not for you. But what would finally lead you to the burning bed? Is there anything?

[WillParkinson]

113. That's a damn good question...

Will I ever get to the point where holding my nose is no longer an option?

Quite possibly. They're systematically stripping us down and too many people expect us to 'take one for the team'. How much are we expected to give up?

[ZombieHorde]

210. That is a really good question I think we should all ask ourselves.

I wish your question was an OP.

[tavalon]

254. I asked it over and over about a month ago

and got told I was being a Debby Downer and would prefer President Palin and blah, blah, blah. In other words, no honest discussion, no introspection, just a "get back in line and be grateful for what you have!".

In the end, it wasn't my side, with it's condescension and finger wagging and complaints about me being a whiner that did it for me. It was the double batshit crazy from the other side. I know without a doubt the teabaggers and the rethugs are worse, but that doesn't address the mote that seems to be stuck in our (Democrat's)collective eye. Perhaps after the election, we can talk about it. Of course, with elections every two years, I'm doubting it.

[alarimer]

263. The Democrats are spineless weasels who wouldn't know the right thing to do if you paid them.

They are utterly worthless. The Republicans are evil, but Democrats (the vast majority of the elected ones anyway, including the President) are worthless.

[Hannah Bell]

8. palin is a little voodoo doll some elements in the democratic party hold up to scare the stupid.

she's never going to be president.

someone like romney, maybe. but not palin.

[Mimosa]

165. I'm tired of Palin being used as a threat

All the time on Democratic Underground it's STFU and let Dems screw us over on health care and gay issues because if we don't president palin is waiting in the wings. Sorry, I don't scare that easily.

I'm more scared that I now cannot afford health insurance. Maybe I will be able to in 2014 but that's not just around the corner for theis sick person! *grr*

[QC]

207. I want a new bogeyman. Maybe The Reanimated Corpse of John Wayne Gacey!

:scared:

[CakeGrrl]

238. Fine, use Speaker of the House John Boehner.

I'm sure he'll make equal rights and affordable healthcare for all his very tip-top priorities.

[bigmonkey]

96. Are you actually saying that life for gay Americans couldn't get any worse?

Don't you think that's hyperbole?

[Fire1]

223. Just a fraction. n/t

[cyr330]

256. Just pointing out that the other candidate is worse

is not at all helpful. LBGT citizens feel that neither Obama nor Palin likes them. Of course Palin is much worse, but that certainly does NOT make Obama a palatable choice when they're told to still sit in the back of the fucking bus.

[LostinRed]

260. how would Palin make life worse one word

Kristallnacht

[Hannah Bell]

5. i'm not up to speed on this, but how much worse does it get than losing your job?

your comment seems silly.

[Bluebear]

7. It's typical DU blame-the-victim mentality, circa 2010

[Democat]

17. How about losing your life?

How many people died in Iraq because Nader helped Bush get elected over Gore in 2000?

Looking at one issue and not the big picture is a mistake.

[WillParkinson]

19. Wow....one issue.

Again with the 'one issue' stuff.

Technically the Iraq war is also 'one issue'. What's 'one issue' to you is my life to me and my family. Please don't think otherwise.

[Heidi]

Plenty of gay people lose their lives every year because human rights is a wedge issue not only

in our country, but in our party. It is possible to see and right many wrongs in parallel.

[QC]

59. Thank you! n/t

[reggie the dog]

24. hello, gore won florida

the abandoned recount proved that.... blame the corrupt supreme court and the voter fraud in florida. you do know that nader got about as many votes as the libertarian candidate right?????

[tavalon]

41. Voters didn't commit fraud in Florida

The electors and Republicans did. Words matter. It was election fraud, not voter fraud.

[reggie the dog]

49. you are correct

ELECTION FRAUD, thank you for pointing out my error

[Prism]

29. Many LGBT youth take their own lives because of how society treats them

Equality is far-reaching, coloring and shaping every single aspect of our lives.

When we are denied our proper place among humanity, many will choose despair.

Inequality kills.

It's why so many of us wore purple today. To remember the youth who are gone far too early, because society didn't just fail to care, it failed to protect them and it failed to understand that hostility, intolerance, and passivity can destroy people without anyone needing to lift a single finger.

That is the big picture you are failing to see.

[Hannah Bell]

34. oh, give me a break. the republicans *stole* that election. nader should take the blame, but

not gore's concession? really?

nader is responsible for deaths in iraq? are you for real?

the entire political establishment was on board for the war on terror & iraq after 911.

[tavalon]

39. Actually, I know this is completely against the DU meme

but it was the felonious five who selected Bush in 2000. In fact, no one was elected as President in 2000 - that's actually treason. Here's a bonus question for you. What famous website was started because of that very fact? And where would you go to find that rather famous website tonight?

[superduperfarleft]

76. How many people died in Iraq because the Democrats voted overwhelmingly for war?

Hmm?

[Autumn]

115. You can blame the supreme court on that one,

in case you missed it, Al Gore won the election. So no, the boogie man Nader is not to blame.

[newspeak]

145. I'm really tired of blaming the greens

how many democrats voted for Bush? How many seniors accidently voted for Buchanan? Oh, and Gore won by the way--you want to give a little blame to the Supreme Court and two justices who should have recused themselves?

[JonLP24]

155. The Dems got us into Iraq too

[Mimosa]

167. Because Hillary confirmed Iraq as an 'imminent threat' to the United States I believed her

I believed as a Senator she knew the facts.

[Lucian]

188. Focusing on Nader voters in 2000 is stupid and idiotic.

There were people who voted for other third parties in Florida in 2000 who could've easily voted for Gore, and Gore would've won with those votes.

I don't understand why a lot of idiots here blame the Nader voters for 2000. The Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and other third party voters were equally to blame during that time.

[Mimosa]

234. Deaths from war in Iraq and Afghanistan are still continuing: 17 this week

What else do you have?

[Marr]

268. You 're the one who's ignoring the big picture.

If Democrats win, after performing as they have, they will do it again, and continue doing it. And why not? It was a winning strategy.

At some point, people have to simply draw a line in the sand, or you end up with... well, with what we've got.

[Binka]

279. The Fucking Supreme Court Appointed Bush

Nader? Welcome to ignore you fraud.

[fascisthunter]

285. Hi Binka... glad to see you here still

[nofurylike]

20. how much worse? electroshocked, lobotomized, and other

forms of psychiatric torture and abuse heaped on lgbtq...s during repuke administrations....

executions, just like their ilk supported, even sponsored legislating in uganda....

worse enough for you?

do people really not listen to what repukes really intend for us, given the power?

EVERY right we have ever fought for and attained has happened ONLY by the support and dedication of Democrats willing to put their careers on the line in our support. ONLY.

the far left threw us under that proverbial bus when we had our greatest momentum in the 70s, and has repeatedly thrown us under the bus since then. for now, we are a good prop in their usual propagandizing, but that has proven as changeable as the weather.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Heidi]

25. And those "far left" folks wouldn't even be considered "far left" in most progressive countries.

Just as today's Democratic party in the US would not be considered "progressive" in most progressive countries.

Mornin', jonnyblitz! :hi:

[nofurylike]

30. ActUp was the eighties. did you even read what you're replying

to?
believe me, i know our history in far greater detail than you do.

go do your own research.

anyone who would threaten lgbtq...s with acting to allow repuke dominance is the one threatening that we better prepare to lick boots.

and wrong again, the far left threw us and feminists under what some here keep calling the bus. learn your history better before you get so fierce.

do not bother to reply. i fear you will only get even more viciously personal, and then it will only get deleted.

ps - my post was a reply to hannah bell.

[reggie the dog]

28. as someone on the far left

who supports communist/socialist/unionist and green ideals i support gay marriage with adoption, ending dadt because to me it is all a fight against living in a right wing, handmaids tale, fascist theocracy. civil rights are for all, not just heteros, i will not be free until all gays are free, who knows my own daughter may be gay (she is only 2 so i will find out later) why anyone would support politicians who could make the lives of their kids or grandkids hell is beyond me.

[nofurylike]

40. i'm not sure i understand what you're saying. i would not question

the sincerity of your beliefs and devotions, and they sound quite excellent to me.

that does not rule out there being a movement intending to co-opt your dedication.

you understand that most socialists long held that lgbtq...s were mentally ill, at best, and dangerous, bourgeois subversives who belonged in reeducation camps and asylums?

i am thankful a new generation is seeing otherwise, it seems, but that does not change the fact that the far left so many are so loyal to did us far more harm, and far less good than the democratic party has done over all this time.

i am very left, myself. and i work constantly, to exhaustion, to evolve the democratic party to a healthy left. i, and countless others, have progressed it further than we'd ever dreamt it would possibly go!

leftists ought to try working at that, instead of walking away and continually *causing* the very rightward movement they supposedly deplore in the democratic party.

thank you for engaging in discussion so peacefully.


peace and solidarity

*edit spelling

[reggie the dog]

51. as a 31 year old

i got over my homophobia by the time i was 20, i am ashamed that i used to be a racist homophobe, one year at UIC changed all that forever. I have been a staunch supporter of gay rights since a fellow student who was gay called me hyppocrtyte for calling for cannabis legalization in the name of liberty yet at the same time opposing gay marriage... there was no looking back, gay rights has equalled freedom for me ever since. I know some of the older socialists and communists wanted to put gay people into "homes" but i honestly think a rather sizeable majority of those in their 30.s and younger support gay rights, certainly a majority on the left


i also like what you say about staying to try to pull the democrats to the left.. i hadnt really considered that...

[nofurylike]

174. thank you, reggie. i understand better now. yes, i absolutely see

that younger generations of leftists are fully in the struggle for lgbtq... rights, and i am deeply moved by what you write here. much thanks!

to be continued, soon. i have to run. i just had to stop through, and say at least that much, asap.

thank you!


peace and solidarity!

[nofurylike]

219. i am very pleased to read what you are saying, i have felt

great support from you. in my humble opinion, you do the new left proud! most of us have come through periods of ignorance, but owning that and growing through that is the healthiest step we can take, and the finest example we can set.

one thing we get to feeling, is that there is a party out there that is deciding our fates. because i have worked in this party, i got to feel that it is our party. it can feel as if the 'good ol' boy' party of our past is too big to stand against, but we have actually made immense progress in growing it out of that. if we continue to assert our intention for its direction, it will continue to grow.

i know that not everyone has the chance to focus their energies there. i also know that we can not just expect people to trust that we are on the case of progressing it. i just know that it is imperative that we keep progressing our party, so that we might have a hope of taking this country all the way to a fully representative government.

thank you so much for discussing this, and so kindly!


peace and solidarity!

[Hannah Bell]

38. the "far left" threw gay people under the bus in the seventies? tell me more.

[nofurylike]

43. thank you for asking. i am going offline right now, but i will reply

more soon. are you familiar with redstockings? same time, similar battles....

i lived them.

you know castro just recently admitted and criticized cuba's policies of electroshocking, lobotomizing, mentally incarcerating, "reeducating" lgbtq...s?

among other socialist countries.


to be continued asap. i've been trying to manage to post on this, so maybe this will help me formulate that.


peace

[Hannah Bell]

52. yes, i'm familiar with redstockings. i don't know anything about the conflict you speak of except

in the general sense of middle-class feminists v. radical feminists including gay women.

as for castro, that doesn't seem to me a case of "far-left throwing gays under the bus". it seems to me a case of cubans going through the same socio-political changes in consciousness that the us did at approximately the same time, considering that homosexuality was only removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1974 and cuba decriminalized homosexuality in 1979 (in private/consenting) with liberalization (decriminalizing public sex acts, etc.) in the 80s. Castro has since recanted his views & his actions, & not just in his recent remarks.

In the US, imo, gay people weren't "on the bus" as a generally recognized part of the left/democratic coalition *until* the 70s. stonewall was 1969. you have to be "on the bus" in the first place to be "thrown off," i.e. you have to be an organized, self-conscious mass political grouping that's in coalition with a larger movement.

In the case of lesbians & the feminist movement in new york specifically, you can make the case that lesbians were on the bus from the beginning, but "the radical left" as a whole & gay people as a body -- i don't think so. The same with the cuban revolution; gay people participated, but in general not specifically as gay people ready to make organized demands on the post-revolutionary government in return for their support. Homosexuality was illegal before the revolution as well.

Thus I think your claim that the "far left" "threw gays under the bus" is off-base as a general claim. More fair to say that the "far left" was about as likely (but not *more* likely, & probably *less* likely) to consider homosexuals deviant as the larger society before homosexuals organized in their own interest to change that perception.

but i'll be interested to hear what you have to say.

[nofurylike]

173. which puts us in agreement. "the same socio-political changes

changes in consciousness that the us did, at approximately the same time ... " yes, at the same time there was agreement that we were mentally ill, or worse.

the difference is, the democratic party, evolved *by us* because of feminist/social democratic awakenings, no longer saw us that way, and started fighting for our rights in many parts of the country (including in the amer psychiatric association, resulting in the changes in the DSM manual), and succeeding locally, then in states, then nationally, in many places. they continued, and increased their fighting for our legislated rights, ever since then. which is why i understood that, until we have done the work required to create a form of government that allows for more than two parties (at least without always favoring the most privileged), it is essential that we work to evolve the democratic party. we then would work to end the electoral college, and so on, leading to a fully representational governing system.

the (white) male-dominated far left ostracized queers and feminists as harmful to their strategies. we were, to them, spoiled individualists who would stop them in their important tracks to expect people to take action over who we slept with, or whether we'd wear bras.

note how castro - someone i had fiercely admired - worded his explanation for why he hadn't 'noticed ... ' the atrocities against lgbtq...s:

they had IMPORTANT things to worry about! people were DYING!!!

as a leftist, doesn't that sound familiar? it is. and i lived it and fought the battles, to great personal sorrow, but also joy.

redstockings formed to counter male domination of the left.

when one is "thrown under" the bus, it is also instead of ever getting on the bus.

thank you for this discourse.


peace

[Hannah Bell]

178. "when one is "thrown under" the bus, it is also instead of ever getting on the bus."

i disagree, but thank you for your civility.

the struggle in cuba was waged by cubans; i don't see the distinction you're attempting to make.

i would have liked to hear more about redstockings if you have first-hand knowledge of the inside politics.

[nofurylike]

248. i don't use that phrase, myself, but it's become a concept

around DU, so....

anyway, two schools on that: juxtaposition of "on or under the bus"; and another of "at the back of the bus, to under the bus."

so, we're both correct! :)

i apologize for not being more clear about my reference to cuba. i was speaking of socialism as manifest in actual socialist governments. in the u.s., one ideological collision between socialists and socialist feminists was the treatment of lgbtq...s in socialist countries, and our place in socialist movements here. long stories....
it is how it came to realizing we could not expect support from the far left - that was brutally vicious in its dismissal of us! - but also how we branched off into factions that worked with the democratic party for feminist, and then lgbtq... goals. - thereby becoming reformers of the party itself.

redstockings has a website:
http://www.redstockings.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=77

they were also pretty confused and conflicted about lgbtq...s and issues, since they were, of course, SLURRED! by the male left as being lesbians, dykes, and so on, so they were knee-jerk in denying that.
but many were lesbians, as true of feminism in general.
everyone was so afraid that if people knew there were out, proud lesbians in a movement, it would invalidate it!

sorry i keep posting in bursts. back later....

thank you for discussing with me so kindly.


peace

[nofurylike]

269. bit more

i wrote that i'd be back, and i will check again for any reply from you, but i can not post on this thread any more. if you have more to reply, i will read it. if it seems a reply would be best, i will reply by pm. sorry.

thank you, again, for the tone of our exchange.


peace

[Bluenorthwest]

85. All of those things happened under Democrats and Republicans

And in Uganda, many of the American 'evangelists' there have ties to the evangelists Obama employs as campaign surrogates, such as Donnie 'gays are vampires' McClurkin. Look up 'Exodus International' and learn. The President constantly announces that he is opposed to equal rights because he thinks God is opposed to equal rights.
Fucking around with historic fact is not welcome here. It is not a fact that GLBT people were tortured under Republicans and not under Democrats, that is false.
Democrats have been better of course, but to imply that the Republicans had policies of torture and abuse that did not occur under Democratic administrations is wildly false.

[Hannah Bell]

179. +100. rick warren is a winger whose church is involved in the situation in uganda (which is

itself a product of the larger power politics going on in the area, with various religions acting as shock troops & foot soldiers for larger economic/political powers) -- & the keynote speaker at the inaugural. why?

[nofurylike]

220. i agree that it happened to us under both parties. the

difference is that the democratic party changed that. and it did so for lgbtq...s and feminists. it changed because we are that party - it is a feminist and an equal-rightsist party, so it progressed.

that is not so of the repuglicon party. it still wishes the same for us.

as for the religious aspects, i agree that there needs to be continual educating of this administration, and that education is happening. but it wont happen if we walk away as if it is not our job to do it.

and we will be in mortal danger if we are left to the mercilessness of the right wing.

you might recall that one of obama's greatest embarrassments, to which he did admit, was in his realizing too late that he had failed to make certain that rick warren was sufficiently vetted before selecting him to give the inaugural invocation.

to be continued....

peace

[nofurylike]

267. i'd had to rush off, and said i'd continue. i re-read, and all i have

to add is that the very policies that led to our torture are the very ones that democratic senators and representatives - state and national - have fought and changed, one by one, at risk to their careers and personal lives.

i hope that cleared something, anything up.
i'm sorry to say i can not reply further on this thread, so you might not want to reply to this here.
thank you for talking it over some, though.


peace

[QC]

55. I sure wish the central committee would send you guys some new talking points.

That one was never very good to begin with, and two years of nonstop bleating repetition haven't made it any better.

[Duncan Grant]

135. "If" I vote for Palin or Romney, you'll get to enjoy them, too. How 'bout a new strategy?

How about you ally with social and economic justice for all people? Otherwise, you'll be in the same boat as the rest of us.

Think it over.

[bobbolink]

206. How very ...... original.

:puke:

[krabigirl]

212. Like those will be the only options...

[fascisthunter]

222. I'm gonna say... tough shit!

and that's a weak weasel lie that Nader cost the election... no, the election was STOLEN by the right wing and the democrats did NOTHING about it.

[walldude]

241. The only thing that is fucking dumb here

is pretending that a persons basic human rights are a political tool that should be used to win elections. Try a little empathy. Would you just sit there and do and say nothing if you were told that you are "an abomination" that you have no right to join the military, that you have no right to marry, that you have no rights against discrimination? Would you be able to do what you are asking people to do if you were in their shoes? I seriously fucking doubt it.

[xchrom]

9. People are going to be pissed. Nt

[WillParkinson]

11. Count me among those numbers...

Mr. "Fierce Advocate" is a sheep in wolfs clothing.

[nofurylike]

13. people's glee at being able to blame and threaten democrats is

what is causing lgbt...s to vote against their own best interest, which lies in keeping democrats in office.

people exploiting these struggles to overturn democratic congressional majority, do so without slightest regard for the horrors they would willingly subject lgbt...s to at the hands of repukes.

not to mention that mr. choi is being used in the same way, obviously without a thought of the damage his saying that threatens to do to lgbt...s.

[Heidi]

14. I'll say it: Dems aren't entitled to anyone's vote, and we shouldn't scapegoat the LGBT community

if we lose elections as a result of losing the gay community's confidence. Human rights should not be a wedge issue for any true progressive.

"People do not go to bat for politicians who put a knife in their backs." <-- Reality on line 1, fellow Dems.

[WillParkinson]

15. Wow...

:fistbump: :yourock: :applause: and all kinds of other good stuff for that awesome reply! Thank you Heidi.

[Jim Sagle]

26. I'll third that.

[xchrom]

45. Spot on. Nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

53. +1000

[Solly Mack]

68. +1

"Human rights should not be a wedge issue..."

Precisely.

[Catherina]

81. +10000! n/t

[Hosnon]

83. Great line. Don't expect me to support you when your boot is firmly on my throat. nt.

[City Lights]

101. !

:yourock:

[Broken_Hero]

112. ...

:thumbsup:

[cherokeeprogressive]

130. Gots to agree with that. n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

132. Agreed.

:applause:

[mike_c]

134. +1

[Duncan Grant]

136. +7

:applause:

[Call Me Wesley]

144. Agreed; that's one reason I married you. :)

Equality is not just a concept we can come back to one day. It's a starting point for everything else.

[Heidi]

148. I wish every human being had the right to be able to compliment his/her legal spouse in this way.

Equality is the foundation for everything else, I agree 5 jillion percent.

[Puglover]

153. I love you Madam.

:hug:

[Heidi]

157. What a coincidence!

I love you, too, my sweet. :hug:

:* <-- if I may be so bold.

:miss you:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

201. Get in line. Being a mod doesn't give you a fast track to HeidiLove™.

[Call Me Wesley]

229. Hey now, that's my registered trademark.

I will sue you, your kids and the kids of your kids!

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

231. Have you ever made her a Lou Rawls impression? (Replace "Lady" with "Heidi")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-CwWMXpsX0

[Heidi]

280. CMW is more of a "Hooga, Hooga, Ooga Chaka" kind of romantic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJQVlVHsFF8

[fishwax]

169. well said, Heidi

:thumbsup:

[NorthCarolina]

183. Well said

I gained a new buddy on DU today! :applause:

[Smashcut]

196. I'm gonna add a

:yourock: to this.

;)

[Chulanowa]

205. I remember just two years ago...

When people of a certain skin color were demonized for three whole months on DU because of a vote in California. Which was apparently okay.

So what's the standard set that we're following here?

[krabigirl]

213. +1

[leftstreet]

249. +1

[datasuspect]

262. yeah buddy

[Dragonfli]

21. The LGBT Community , the poor, and believers in the rule of law

No longer have substantial representation, they are not considered "real" citizens by either the GOP or the neo-liberal controllers of our party. Who could blame any of these groups if they only voted for the handful that do represent their interests?

I would blame those that do not appear to want their votes myself.

I personally would only vote for a politician that isn't stabbing me in the back, I understand his reasons and hope more than a handful will earn his vote (and mine) in the future.

There is fertile ground and many votes just waiting for representation, will the party ever give up this neo-liberal nightmare and return to values that will get them these votes? Will they also return to the rule of law and FDR economics before the country collapses under the weight of maintaining corporate profits over the good of the people that live here?

I hope so, but it doesn't look good.

[jonnyblitz]

22. !!!

:applause: :applause:

[reggie the dog]

27. does this mean he lost his job AGAIN???

what the fuck is the problem with this man defending his country? i am a coward and would never want to be a soldier, that fact that this man may look at me and think i am appealing sexually does nothing to diminish his courage and willingness to die for his people. hell i am not gay but it doenst bother me that men have hit on me from time to time, that is what happens when you are good looking.....

[Prism]

31. It seems so

He is a sacrificial lamb in all this. He and so many others have the courage to put themselves out there and fight, and the President doesn't have their backs.

Fierce advocate, indeed.

[tavalon]

32. Did they reverse the reversed injunction on DADT so that we can finally be free of DADT

by fighting for DADT all the way to the SCOTUS? Or did I miss something? Seriously, what's today's fuckup?

[struggle4progress]

33. Anyone with half a wit knows that this litigation strategy is potentially ruinous

given the current complexion of SCOTUS. If the Administration refused to appeal the ruling, and simply ceased to enforce the law as written, it's very likely that conservatives with standing would sue for enforcement in a different District or Circuit, and thus force the matter eventually to SCOTUS. It doesn't take too much intelligence to guess how Scalia, Thomas, et al would weigh in on the issue -- and given the expansive bent of the Court (as exhibited in, say, Citizens United), one might reasonably expect a very ugly ruling that set us all back many decades on many fronts

I appreciate Choi's willingness to serve the country, but for the moment I might regard him as something of an idiot

I do not appreciate the constant moronic wedge-driving here. In November 2008, we had a rash a posts blaming Obama for California's Proposition 8. In May 2009, when the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, we had a rash of posts blaming Obama for that. There is non-stop repetitive thoughtless sarcastic noise here on this and related issues, and it doesn't help anyone plan an intelligent attack on the political problems

[Prism]

37. *What* intelligent attack?

You have failed, repeatedly, to explain the grand strategy here when the Senate is not only not guaranteed to have a favorable make-up for repeal after Nov. 2nd, but how a filibuster will be broken if delivered as promised by the likes of McCain.

Obama is to blame here. He forged the ridiculous "compromise" with Congress. He, and he alone, gave conservatives cover by promoting the absurd study. He chose not to actively lobby the Senate when it came to a vote. He chooses to appeal and reinstate DADT.

If DADT is upheld and the Senate fails to repeal, Obama will own this. It will be the biggest political fuck-up of his administration.

Stop defending the indefensible.

[struggle4progress]

42. I really don't appreciate you're putting words in my mouth: you're attributing to me

things I've never said, and I expect you know that. I've made no claims anywhere about what might happen in the Senate immediately after November 2

Your reply is typical of many of the posts I see here: you cannot carry on a coherent discussion about the complexion of the Courts or the potential outcomes of litigation strategy -- what you can do, apparently, is to rant about how FU'd you think Obama is

As Mr Obama managed to get himself elected President, I will presume he has some insight into current US politics; and as he did teach constitutional law, I will presume he has some insight into that as well. There is one other skill he has, which I suspect many of us should try harder to cultivate in ourselves, and that is community organizing: it involves going out and trying to put people in motion to accomplish specific concrete goals. Plenty of good organizing could be done around rights issues, and it would pay off handsomely inn the long run. Unfortunately, community organizing is not a matter of simply encouraging people to scream how full of shit they think elected officials are: despite what you seem to think, that hardly ever works

[Prism]

44. The LGBT community has organized itself quite nicely, thanks.

But I appreciate the patronizing lecture.

"he did teach constitutional law" - Did you tell the Fourth Amendment?

We're coherent just fine. You're simply choosing not to hear the community, choosing instead to select the most flexible and dubious rationalizations to buttress a flimsy defense of the administration no matter how reprehensible its behavior.

Lt. Choi's an idiot? Yet he's the one putting his life and career out there to do the right thing, while you and others have scurried behind repeatedly disproved legal rationales that merely excuse the President's rampant political cowardice on this matter.

I'll take Choi any day of the week.

[xchrom]

47. don't you understand president obama is the victim here -- we're all just dancers

to an increasingly tragic symphony when it comes to this issue.

[pgodbold]

74. Awwww.. most powerful leader on the planet is a victim… poor baby, kiss and make it better. nt

[struggle4progress]

48. Well, good: then I hope soon to be reading in the news about rollbacks in various states

of the odious restrictions on marriage, and I hope to be seeing real evidence of vibrant grassroots efforts to lobby Congress on DADT and DOMA

[Prism]

57. If you don't see the efforts, you've not been looking very hard.

I see that a lot on DU, people not actually paying attention to what the LGBT community gets up to but presuming anyway to explain to us the reality of our lives and issues. One poster was trolling threads just last week about how gay people never protested the Bush administration because she didn't remember it.

I mean, honestly. You've not seen any grassroots efforts on behalf of gay rights? And you're a Democratic activist?

Must be an interestingly enclosed office you work at.

Or maybe, just maybe, you don't care very much, so you never saw what was right before your eyes.

[struggle4progress]

162. I will ask you again not to put words in my mouth: it is a rude and dishonest habit

This subthread begins with my comments about the current legal environment. You are, of course, free to disagree with those comments -- but instead you choose to bait me, attributing to me a view I do not hold and have not expressed. When I object to your putting words in my mouth, and stated my general view that progressive activists really need concentrate more on community organizing -- a view that I have promoted for many issues over many years, here and elsewhere -- you continue to bait me, as if I were simply slighting one community. Naturally, my response is that if everyone is as well organized as you claim, then we should begin to see some good results -- in response to which, you continue to bait me by putting words in my mouth, attributing to me views I do not hold and have not expressed

You do not know me and are not competent to discuss what I care about or what I notice, and your claims (about what I care about or what I notice) are simply unpleasant. People who already completely agree with you on these equality issues may make certain allowances for your unpleasantness, but in the larger political world such wedge-driving tactics are likely to backfire -- and for that reason, your approach seems to me juvenile and inexperienced

[Binka]

283. Fat Load Of Pants

What self aggrandizing, narcissistic, over hyped HOOEY. You think a lot of yourself don't you? IGNORE.

[struggle4progress]

287. Have a nice day

:shrug:

[uponit7771]

77. AMEN!!! Someone should at least tell him this

[AndrewP]

150. +1

[ZombieHorde]

253. "when the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, we had a rash of posts blaming Obama"

Many of us blamed religion. LDS was mentioned often.

[LonePirate]

46. Obama is no friend of the LGBT community, We need a true LGBT suppored to primary him in 2012.

[BzaDem]

50. "President Obama's act today is costing Democrats across the nation a lot of LGBT votes."

Whether or not that's true, it has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with people not understanding the rule of law.

[liberation]

291. You keep using that term "rule of law" which does not mean what you think it means...

[stray cat]

54. the republicans have always been better in every way for the LGBT community

And the community finally understands that their future should be in the hands of the GOP

[xchrom]

56. ...

:rofl: you poor victimized thing you!

[QC]

62. Has anyone seen a stray elephant roaming around?

It seems to be lost.

[xchrom]

66. somebody here will send ralph nader out to find it. nt

[Hosnon]

58. I voted this week, mostly straight Dem. But,

God help me, back the fuck off the gay community. I will let continued ambivalence to fundamental civil rights by the President influence my vote in 2012.

[Prism]

60. I'm voting mostly straight Dem as well, but . . .

I have a feeling I'm going to be feeling very froggy in 2012. I just cannot see how I can in good conscience vote for this man and still consider myself a self-respecting gay person. Insult after fuck up after lie from these people.

In my most pessimistic predictions, I never came close to guessing what the past two years have been like with this administration for the LGBT community. I just couldn't imagine going into 2010 without an ENDA or a DADT repeal.

The wtf-ery is strong.

[Hosnon]

84. Yep. But I'm convinced that he personally supports equal rights.

His actual statements and actions as President notwithstanding.

Wait a minute...

[Dawgs]

61. Typical Lt. Dan Choi.

Not a big fan of this guy.

[QC]

63. I'm sure you're not. n/t

[Dawgs]

65. Why are you sure?

:shrug:

[Prism]

64. It's ok, we've gone so long without any political courage

When it arrives, it's a little frightening. Even off-putting.

And something we oughtn't get too used to, it seems.

[Dawgs]

67. I have no problem with his political courage. I'm impressed by it.

I have a problem with his ego. It gets in the way of his cause, which is the only thing I care about.

[Prism]

69. Someone who does what he does is entitled to an ego

He has repeatedly put his ass on the line to bring change in a way that none of our politicians and only a handful of so-called activists do.

If that's ego, we need more of it from more people.

[Dawgs]

70. Disagree.

Humility is worth respecting, not ego.

He is all about looking to have the name Lt. Dan Choi in the headline. I'd be more impressed if he was ONLY interested in his cause; which he is clearly not.

[Prism]

71. And what is your basis for that assumption?

Because this man is a genuine grassroots hero. It is not he, but us who invoke his name as an example and leader for our community. He has performed courageous acts, and the community has been inspired by them. I put his name in the headline. Just as so many others do. To honor him and say "What he is doing is important."

He has earned the accolades and the recognition. It is not ego for us to recognize one of the foremost warriors for our cause.

So just what are you basing your negative characterization on? That he's in the media so much? Yeah, he's one of the most prominent faces of DADT. We made him that face. Through our support.

You have a problem with this?

[QC]

72. Choi criticized Obama, the unforgivable sin. There's the problem.

[Dawgs]

120. You speaking for me now? I criticize Obama as much as anyone on DADT.

Your response is pathetic.

[Dappleganger]

161. Bingo!

Lt. Choi's courage is making that person feel wholly inadequate.

[ScreamingMeemie]

86. Apparently it's because he's not that nice, non-threatening man that

cooks on television. :sarcasm:

That's an actual quote from another poster here, who has problems with the gay community being vocal.

[QC]

87. We need to know our place: in the kitchen, making fabulous desserts. n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

92. Exactly. Otherwise you are big and scary and I won't support you

anymore.

[QC]

94. I WILL WITHDRAW MY CONDITIONAL SUPPORT IF YOU DON'T KISS MY ASS!

But I am an ally, by golly!

[ScreamingMeemie]

95. Now, if you will kindly get back under the back tires of that Greyhound

over there. I'm glad we finally see eye to eye.

[ScreamingMeemie]

93. Double post.

Sorry. Or perhaps I should have left it for when the other gets deleted. :)

[Sweet Charming Dem]

209. Gay men, like women, should stay in the kitchen and not be threatening

[TriMera]

266. What about lesbians? I can't cook?

:shrug:

[Sweet Charming Dem]

273. That is a bit of a pickle...

Well, are you butch or femme?

[Duncan Grant]

138. It's not Lt. Choi's ego that bothers you, it's your own cowardice.

Choi is an inspiration to untold numbers of LGBT people and their straight allies -- worldwide. And you have a problem with his ego? That says a lot more about you than him, imho.

[Smashcut]

198. That's right. We should only listen to modest leaders like Obama

who have no ego whatsoever.

Whassamatter? Lt. Choi a little too 'uppity' for ya?

[donco6]

GASP! No way.

:sarcasm:

[TheKentuckian]

75. Yeah, what a fuckhead. Not wanting his career destroyed because of his orientation.

What an ass he is for putting his life on the line for his country and resenting inequality.

I'll take a lone Choi over any thousand "sensible centrists". He is made of sterner stuff than calculating sheep bleating out excuses for shitting on our best, most self-sacrificing people with a boot on their necks because of who they love.

[Zenlitened]

140. "I'll take a lone Choi over any thousand "sensible centrists"."

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[uponit7771]

He's choosing the worse of 2 bad choices

[Touchdown]

215. Why? Did he turn you down for a date?

:shrug:

[Bluebear]

289. Is that so. nt

[Skittles]

296. yes, heaven forbid someone tell it like it really is

[pgodbold]

73. I've forwarded this DU link to everyone I know. I will vote Democratic for the midterms however

If DADT is not over and done by the time Obama runs for re-election I cannot vote for him period.

[spanone]

78. well...too bad mr choi....good luck with your republcian president

[boston bean]

79. -10000000000000000000000

[Jakes Progress]

90. Too bad

those uppity gays don't know their place. Is that what you mean?

[Duncan Grant]

139. You'll be ass deep in it, too. Maybe you could considered a new strategy?

How about we all ally with one another for social and economic justice for all people? The ultimate win/win.

[Smashcut]

200. I guess you'll be enjoying one too.

[fascisthunter]

225. there's plenty of room for you

you'll be there too

[Jamastiene]

232. And who will be your president too when said Republican wins?

That little meme cuts both ways. Remember that.

[Robeson]

80. k&r.

[_ed_]

82. The hostility to gay equality on this site is sickening

This is not a progressive site; it's just another Democratic party website. Gays are only valuable when their wallets are open and their mouths are shut.

[muffin1]

88. Wish I could rec your reply!

...well maybe I just did.

:thumbsup:

[City Lights]

100. !

:thumbsup:

[Upton]

116. As is the hostilty shown to President Obama.

And you're right, this is a Democratic site...meaning all kinds of Democrats. Not just those whom you approve of.

[Cleobulus]

119. That's not even a close comparison, and the fact that you even make it is sickening...

Comparing the hostility towards the most powerful man on the planet that he has rightly earned to the hostility many here have towards the most basic civil rights of an oppressed minority is just fucking sick. Also, this may be a Democratic site, but when the fuck did it turn into Stormfront against Gays?

[Upton]

131. I'll tell you what's sickening..

you referring to DU as "Stormfront against Gays"...Just what planet do you live on?

[Skittles]

297. Planet Reality

[Jakes Progress]

124. What a stupid comment.

Or is it just revealing.

The hostility toward the president is because of his actions and his conscious decisions. The hostility of the administration toward gays is just bias and prejudice.

This is a Democratic site. A tenet of the Democratic party is equal treatment for all regardless of things like sexual orientation. If you or someone else has problems with fighting for equal rights, then maybe this isn't a place for you. If on the other hand someone is fighting their inner bigotry and trying to overcome their biased hatred, they can learn a lot here.

[Upton]

127. Give me a break..

I believe in equal rights for everybody. What I don't believe in, is continually bashing President Obama and his administration over this one issue to the exclusion of everything else. Has the president done anything you approve of?

Repubs are the real enemy...remember?

[boston bean]

129. Repubs who would fight in a court of law defending DADT? nt

Or are you saying, so what if the Dems act like repubs on this one, we got other important shit to do?

[Lucky 13]

172. ANYONE against my full equality is my enemy. nt

[Jakes Progress]

192. You believe in equal rights for everyone

who doesn't complain about the president. Okay. I get it.

[Smashcut]

202. "one issue"

"pet issue"

You've just shown your hand.

You're not a real supporter, regardless of what you "believe." Neither is Obama.

"Repubs are the real enemy...remember?"

Keep telling yourself that. We don't really believe it anymore.

[cherokeeprogressive]

133. President Obama made a lifestyle choice. Sexual orientation isn't a choice.

You cannot make a real comparison here, and in any case, I don't agree that there is "hostility" shown to President Obama at DU. It's a matter of perspective. Some here just don't adore him as much as others do, and somehow that is seen as hostility.

[_ed_]

151. So,

when Obama tells me that he doesn't want my brother, cousin, or several friends to be able to get married or serve openly in the military, we're not supposed to be hostile to him?

Or do you care more about the man than you care about equality? Really, which is it?

[QC]

158. "do you care more about the man than you care about equality?"

That really is the heart of the matter, isn't it?

[Jamastiene]

236. President Obama has earned this disgust

directed at him. He needs to know that actions speak louder than words. Gay people get tired of him saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. His words say a lot, but his actions speak volumes.

Last I checked, President Obama DOES have rights. Gay people? Nope. We don't have civil rights yet.

You try living without your civil rights for a while, then see if you don't get pissed off too.

[Duncan Grant]

141. Thank you for saying so. You're right, this is not a progressive site.

The lack of empathy for LGBT people discourages me most of all. Especially when the rubber hits the road.

[Heidi]

149. And it won't BE a truly progressive site until ALL of us befriend the alert button, en masse,

and stop rising to the bait laid by those intent on making human rights a wedge issue. Those folks are not true progressives in any truly progressive nation in the world. Human rights are the starting point for everything else, as my husband says over and over and over and (is right about).

[Dappleganger]

164. In agreement with you.

Perhaps I should say so more often, it's certainly how I feel and try to act every day. This shit angers me so much it's indescribable.

[Jamastiene]

233. +1,000,000,000,000

[Jakes Progress]

89. Come play the new DU game.

It's called "Bait the Gays". First you carefully insult a whole community with insensitive and snide comments. Then you use the mods to silence the replies. Fun for the whole Democratic family. Well. not the whole family if you know what I mean.

[QC]

91. +1

[Heidi]

98. Some of those deleted replies were vile things said to LGBT folks and about human rights.

I only know this because I'm diligent about following the DU Rules. :)

If you think someone is breaking any of the rules listed here, or if you think someone might be a disruptor, please click the "Alert" link on the offending post so the moderators can deal with it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[boston bean]

102. No, you are wrong about the first delete in this post. it was a baited response to a

person who felt it necessary and wrongly point out the lt. choi is not not lt, he is mr.

Also, if you look to above, not to far, you will see another lovely response to mr. choi and how it's too bad for him.

[Heidi]

109. I said "some."

I agree 100 percent (or more) with your assessment of that post.

[boston bean]

111. what else was deleted in this thread?

edit to add, i am not trying to give you a hard time, but i don't see any of the baiting remarks have been deleted.

[Upton]

99. On the contrary..

I thought the DU game at GD was called "Bash the President"...Fun for everybody, particularly the Repukes, who just love watching us eat our own.

[ScreamingMeemie]

103. Nope, it's more of a "Bait the Gays" tournament here.

The other game is "To tell the Truth" when it comes to the President's actions, or non actions with regard to certain policy.

Hope I have cleared that up for you.

[Upton]

105. I've got an idea..

why don't you try a new game, it called "Tell the Truth About the Republicans" they are the REAL opposition after all. And much more of a threat to LGBT rights that President Obama.

Then again, maybe you don't see it that way, for I've actually observed Log Cabin Republicans being praised here while our Democratic president gets bashed..

[ScreamingMeemie]

108. I believe in holding a politician's feet to the fire when it comes to campaign

promise versus actual policy.

I believe in it being okay to not be a lock stepping, slobbering, lovesick schoolgirl when I look upon elected officials.

I believe, when it comes to the rights of our LGBT community, there isn't much difference between the two parties.

And,

I believe in telling the truth, instead of running the country like it's a freaking football game, where all that matters is a win for the D team, regardless of whether it disenfranchises, breaks or otherwise harms one's constituents.

That's what I believe. And it's not happening now, not here.

[JonLP24]

166. cboy4 would be so disappointed

Edit: I just find the whole the whole thing rather ironic...particularly when you and at least one other sports forum regular attacked cboy for questioning Obama's dedication to gay rights.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=215x112037#112056

[Upton]

170. Things change Jon..

that was well over a year ago. Not to mention it was part of some trash talking in the Sports Forum.

We have an important election right around the corner, and I've finally gotten tired of seeing these Obama bashing threads every single day.

[Jamastiene]

237. Time to throw this one back at y'all.

It is called bipartisanship. Our own party practices bipartisanship. Get over it.

[QC]

107. Those ungrateful queers are so mean to him!

:cry:

[Duncan Grant]

143. As David Byrne used to say: Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.

And this "Bait the Gays" game continues with Admin's approval...

[foxfeet]

168. Absolutely.

[RetroLounge]

239. "with Admin's approval.."

exactly...

But hey, we did a DU poll, so all is well now.

RL

[QC]

245. And that poll certainly has emboldened the bullies, hasn't it?

Not that they were ever exactly shy and retiring, of course, but they are really feeling their oats the past couple of days.

[RetroLounge]

258. Exactly...

:hi:

RL

[Romulox]

97. Choi's courage is inspiring. I'm straight, but truth *resonates*. k/r. nt

[Tsiyu]

104. Surely even straight people can get Lt. Choi's message

Unless straight people (and I be one) just became incredibly stupid.

This is called looking ahead at options. And it's two years away.

We have an election right now to get through which does not involve electing or not electing the POTUS, so there isn't any sense trying to act like saying "I will not vote for Obama in 2012" is ruining anything for anyone.

Sincerely, though I supported Obama in the general, I share Lt. Choi's disgust for many of Obama's decisions. If a braver, more progressive type challenges Obama in 2012, I will support that candidate - at this point.

And as a voter, that is my right. Kiss my ass if you don't like it.

And don't try to get all "pragmatic" on me. My choices for rep this time are a "Pro-life Democrat" and a wife-abusing Repuke. It sickens me that these are my choices in 2010, and I applaud Lt. Choi and others who are sick to death of living in a homophobic, misogynistic theocracy in twenty fucking ten.

Who the hell is giving them shit for wanting to change that through their right to vote?

[The Stranger]

106. Absolutely wrong.

The Administration has to defend the military.

CONGRESS ARE THE ONES THAT REFUSED TO CHANGE IT.

IT IS POLICY AND HAS TO START WITH THEM.

[_ed_]

114. "Defend the military"

You're both legally and morally wrong. The DOJ does not have to defend unconstitutional laws. Pres. Clinton refused to defend the HIV ban in the military in the mid 1990s.

Do you have any other hollow talking points?

[The Stranger]

137. The Attorney General is obligated to defend the policies of the Executive.

I'm not "morally and legally" wrong. The appropriate procedure is for the Congress to change the policy and allow a new policy to be implemented. The Attorney General can't just decide to give up the case.

That is why they are defending keeping people locked in cages without hearing, trial or Due Process in Cuba.

[_ed_]

152. Yes, he can

You are ignorant of the legal system. If you are correct, why didn't the Clinton DOJ defend the HIV policy in the 1990s? Stop making things up to defend bigotry.

[The Stranger]

154. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4582603

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[Jamastiene]

240. Are you implying that our military are not capable of defending themselves?

Are you sure you do not want to walk that statement back some?

[Iggo]

110. I don't blame him.

[LawnLover]

118. I love the guy, but this is just ignorant

The anger of the LGBT community over this decision is misplaced, and failure to vote for Obama is pretty much the same as voting for the people who would like to return to the dark ages.

The decision made to fight the judges ruling and reinstate DADT has to do with matters of law and preserving our methods of law making, and nothing whatsoever about the President's stance against DADT. As unpopular as it may be, it had to be done. The White House wants Congress to change the law, not a single judge.

People are not thinking, here, they're reacting emotionally. But this decision has nothing to do with emotion.

[Jakes Progress]

121. There is a parallel.

For years Democrats took the vote of the black community for granted. I mean, who are they going to vote for - republicans? Now we have a fairly substantial black conservative movement. If the republicans weren't such asshats and would kick the tea party to the curb, they could make significant takeovers of votes here.

If you take someone for granted, if you keep putting them off and down, you will get a reaction. It may not make sense, but it is no stupider than the administration treating the GLBT community the way it does.

[LawnLover]

159. You miss the point

This is not a case of ANYONE taking the LGBT community for granted. It's a matter of precedent, nothing more. This could be a law about dog catchers or pot smoking and it would amount to the same thing. The government will always vigorously attack any attempt by a single judge to overturn laws that should be overturned by Congress. The response is automatic -- not meant to condemn any specific lifestyle.

[Jakes Progress]

185. You miss the truth.

It is not automatic. As a matter of fact, the administration thought about not appealing. That is why it took so long. it is a convention, one that has been overlooked in the past when the law was patently discriminatory or unconstitutional. The decision to go ahead is political. The president was not forced into this. It was a choice. I know this meme has gotten great play here from the apologist squad, but it is simply not true.

[Jakes Progress]

193. Now what was that you were saying?

First read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/doj-accused-of-hypocrisy-_n_771722.html

Then try posting that again with a straight face. (Pun intended)

[nofurylike]

265. thank you for trying to clarify, LawnLover. your info is helpful for

any who sincerely wish to understand what is happening around DADT.

it is true that this is a very emotional matter, but it is also true that there are factions exploiting the feelings of lgbtq...s on this and other matters.

please keep information coming for those of us not already too far convinced to even look at facts.

thanks again!


peace

[Bluebear]

272. "Lifestyle" eh? Gotcha. nt

[BzaDem]

180. "Now we have a fairly substantial black conservative movement."

Obama will get 90-95% of the black vote in his re-election. Bank on it.

[Jakes Progress]

186. You keep thinking that. That way you don't have

to do anything for your constituency. When they leave you, you will just shake your head and wonder what happened. So as it ever was.

[Dawgs]

122. Good luck with your response.

Most likely will turn into a bunch of responses telling you how much you hate gays and their cause; and that they just all need to shut up.

I tried criticizing Choi(not his cause) above, but apparently I was telling all gay people to shut up.

It's really getting quite pathetic.

[Jakes Progress]

125. Damn. Those pesky people just won't let you alone will they?

[Tsiyu]

126. Attacking the messenger is not constructive

It detracts from the message

Every politician or spokesperson must be bold and assertive to get their message across.

Attacking Choi for these traits - when Obama and every other Dem politician displays them as well - is simpy a distraction and I think you know that.

Distractions are pathetic.

[LawnLover]

156. I don't blame Choi

for feeling the way he feels. This is an emotional topic. But if he took a moment to think about the consequences of Obama's failure to appeal ANY ruling striking down an established law, he might understand.

This is a touchy subject, but I think it needs to be approached pragmatically, not emotionally.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

123. I don't blame him one bit.

Right now, for folks like Lt. Choi, it is the chicken and Col. Sanders all over again. Sure, a Democratic Col. Sanders won't send that chicken off to the slaughterhouse, but being kept in a tiny pen in the backyard as a "pet" isn't so fucking hot either.

[blindpig]

128. k&r

The hubris of this Administration is really beyond my comprehension, it is the politics of aristocracy.

[AtomicKitten]

142. Well alrighty then!

------> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102100569.html

* edited for better link

[EFerrari]

146. Isn't that the same AP that has been attacked here all week

for trying to tank Democrats? Today, they're respectable? It's hard to keep current!

[AtomicKitten]

147. The point: It is more complicated than some here seem to think. nt

[EFerrari]

175. I don't know about you, but I've never been very satisfied when

someone tells me the issue is just too difficult for my pretty little head.

[AtomicKitten]

177. Your feigned outrage that Pres Obama can't just snap his fingers is duly noted. nt

[EFerrari]

182. LOL. And your big fat straw man is getting a work out today!

[AtomicKitten]

187. I actually have thought you're smarter than this obsequious posture you choose to maintain here.

I apparently misjudged you.

[EFerrari]

189. "Obsequious" doesn't mean what you think it means.

ob·se·qui·ous audio (b-skw-s, b-) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

Full of or exhibiting servile compliance; fawning.

[AtomicKitten]

190. That's precisely your behavior toward this issue and the "heroes" it has spawned.

It's also a convenient way to bolster the US vs. THEM meme perpetrated on this board.

The funny thing is that that is the strawman here.

[EFerrari]

194. I haven't posted a single word about Howard Dean

that is servile or fawning in any way.

I have described his effectiveness. And there is no reason why that should be construed as "us v. them" except, apparently, by people who are always looking for contention. :)

ETA: Or about Dan Choi, either. What's funny is that the same arguments are being used against both.

lol

[QC]

211. Now that you mention it, though, we do see a lot of obsequiousness around here, though.

Perhaps the word she wanted was supercilious.

[QC]

226. Snap his fingers? I thought he used a magic wand. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

227. You wish. Apparently. nt

[BzaDem]

181. When the issue is in fact much more complicated than you make it out to be in your posts

one has to wonder.

[EFerrari]

184. Well, I hope that proves useful for "one".

lol

[boston bean]

191. When one twists oneself into a pretzel to not support letting the ruling stand

one has to wonder.

[donco6]

160. My head is spinning with the spin!

That and all the deleted subthreads.

[boston bean]

163. oh all those deleted sub threads were allowed allowed to stay for hours

on end.

then once the gay baiter was proved wrong and he was made a fool of, only then were they deleted.

[donco6]

171. Probably at his request. N/t

[ruggerson]

218. Why do you even bother Atomic Kitten?

What is your intent when you click on these threads?

Is it to engage in in dialogue with people who have spent their entire adult lives advocating for civil rights for gay citizens and know infinitely more about these subjects than you do?

Is it so that you might learn something from them?

Or is it just to antagonize people?

You already stated, months ago, that you were alienated from gay people and their allies on this board and you thought their conduct wasn't a good way of getting you to support their goals.

Great. So move on. Trust me, we will get full and across the board equality with you or without you.

What whe do, both online and off, is speak the truth to those in power and work to pursue equal status unrelentingly, so that it becomes a reality sooner rather than later.

What you do is attack us for it.

It's neither useful for you or for us.

[AtomicKitten]

224. Your participation here is spotty at best. What's your excuse?

I have for years worked for a nonprofit organization processing grants for LGBT and CHOICE issues, mostly legal. My understanding of these issues comes from an overarching perspective interacting with these clients and sometimes their adversaries whereas yours often seems to promote the Us vs. Them played-out theme here at DU.

If offering more information, in this case yet another legal opinion and perspective on what is obviously a much more complicated issue than some here admit to is making you cranky, put me on ignore. Your ad hominem attacks lend nothing to the debate and don't invalidate my participation here. I will refrain from reciprocating due to my utter lack of interest.

* edited - theme, not meme

[ruggerson]

243. Our fight is witih those in power

Yours is with us, apparently.

There is no position to invalidate. As I noted above, in various ad hominem attacks, you have already stated that the LGBT community here has alienated you and has made you shy away from their positions on equality.

You think that somehow adds something positive to the discussion. I fail to see it.

[AtomicKitten]

246. Ignore. Use it. nt

[ruggerson]

247. Another positive addition to the discussion

n/t

[Starry Messenger]

176. He's oppressing the President.

:cry:

Choi for President.

[donco6]

195. Think of everything Obama has to lose!

Private jet.

Big House.

Servants waiting on you hand and foot.

And then compare it to what Choi has lost:

Job.

Pension.

Reputation.

I mean, really, how can Choi HOPE to compare his silly little plight to Obama's?

[Starry Messenger]

204. Don't forget the post-Presidential speaking engagements.

Just one man can put that all in jeopardy. It's a precarious existence being the most powerful politician in the world.

[QC]

214. And those board of director appointments! n/t

[TriMera]

199. .

He'd have my vote. What would we call it? The Under the Bus Party?

[Call Me Wesley]

197. My, I so wish I had it that easy to

slip out of the military, since we have the draft here:

"I'm gay."
"Okay, you're out."

In fact, the real answer would have been:
"So? You look like infantry to me! Welcome!"

And this would have been in the early eighties.

Are you defenders of DADT really so afraid of LGTB people? That you have to bend backwards to defend an abstruse law that was build by monkeys who don't hear, don't see, don't say anything and worship a status quo, because change is so hard to accomplish and someone might not like it?

There was a time when Europe was falling behind you. This time has long gone. With laws like the DADT and inequality, you lull yourselves back into stone age. Obama could've changed it. After inauguration, he was the kid in the candy store with an unlimited platinum card. He had it all, and he could've kept his promises. He didn't.

As fine as it seem to click 'Like' on 'I support equality' on facebook, it's quite the same to watch the French street fights right now and 'Like' the revolution.

Speaking as an European, we fought for these rights, and we fought hard for it. We used all our constitutional rights to pressure, and believe me, we're good at it. There might be a car burning or two in the end, no biggie, but at one point the 'I don't see anything' was crushed and laws were changed.

This was before the internet, which now has become a powerful instrument (unless your political activism is the shape of a 'Like' button, then it's, I apologize for offending anyone, just laughable.) Send out emails, fill in the contact forms of your representatives, and demand equality. Gather, be present. It can be done. We've done it.

Don't limp behind the old continent. Makes you look awkward.

[donco6]

203. We're so far behind you now, we'd have to send Columbus to find you.

I'm afraid our long dark night is only beginning.

[Call Me Wesley]

208. I truly hope not that the dark night is only beginning.

And hey, we'll set fire to Columbus' ship, anyway. ;)

Interesting is that the press here is full of the DADT and Tea Party. There was an excellent analysis of the current Obama state in DER SPIEGEL this week and I hope they will put it up on the English section. As soon as they do (hopefully,) I'll post it.

[donco6]

217. Is this the article:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,724418,00.html

Looks interesting.

[Call Me Wesley]

221. No, sorry, that's just about the teabaggers using Nazi sentiments.

The article I was referring to was a commentary, and they usually don't translate them, but it might be worth it now.

If it's translated, I'll let you know.

On edit: I didn't see it, but here it is: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,723814,00.html

[Jamastiene]

242. I never thought I would see the day when America

would be the backasswards country compared to the civilized world, but here it is. We are so far behind and so backasswards at this point, I'm wondering which way is up.

[Catherina]

216. Amazing. 51 unrecs from other fierce advocates. How disgusting. n/t

[Mimosa]

235. How can one view un-recs?

I can only see rec's.

[LAGC]

271. If a thread is hot, you can extrapolate it from the Top Ten:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

Look under the "Just Recs" section and at the moment you'll see this thread has 137 recs, which means if you take that number minus the net recs, you can figure out how many unrecs there are.

[QC]

244. The Pragmatic Sensibles do not appreciate discussion of our pet issues. n/t

[Bluebear]

294. or kicking the pet threads. nt

[rucky]

228. On the bright side, Obama has 2 years to fix this.

If he hasn't permanently alienated the LBGT community by now.

[Better Believe It]

230. You will not find a single DU'er who will vote for Barack Obama ....

this year.

Obama isn't running for any office in this election.

So what's the big deal all about?

And Obama may not run for President in 2012.

Choi did not say he won't vote for any Democrats or Republicans this year.

Did people catch that?

[Bluebear]

282. It doesn't matter. He dissed O-man.

:silly:

[Terra Alta]

250. dupe

[Terra Alta]

251. I don't blame him.

As a bisexual woman I am angry too.. not to the point of not voting for Obama in 2012 but it's getting there. Why are the LGBT community constantly thrown under the bus by the administration?

[Name removed]

252. Deleted message

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

[cyr330]

255. Here in San Francisco. . .

There is such visceral anger and hatred of Obama. The LGBT community is fucking sick and tired of being told to wait, wait, wait. They've been some of the Democratic Party's most loyal supporters for years and years and years. Obama has made promises he is unable to keep, and he continues to string along the LGBT community, only making it much worse. If he doesn't want to lose their support for the general election, I would advise him to do something NOW. I'm not speaking lightly, as I have NEVER seen the level of anger in such a predominantly Democratic/Progressive city such as San Francisco.

[Mimosa]

257. How many of the 'sick and tired' are over 50?

II'm very curious because I was involved in gay rights during the 70s. Back then only super radical perverts with nothing to lose were completely out of our closets and openly declared we were gay and wanted all the same rights as straights. There was a whole lot of radicalism back then.

'Marriage' wasn't among the goals for gay men, women or transgendered as a rule. Back then we tended to believe marriage was a patriarchal institution designed to subjugate women and children. It was not until the early to mid 1980s that the LGBT community began to recognise that there might be something some of us might benefit from.

I wish I could convey how far I think we have come since 1970, not to mention the most oppressive decade of the 1950s (before my time but about which I learned from scarred and wise gay rights veterans).

I don't get 'hating' President Obama. I think many of us thought he was bolder and stronger than he now appears. It's almost as if once he was inaugurated somebody told him exactly how much they would allow him to accomplish. And if he tried to overstep those limits, he would be brought down. Other presidents have been brought down. :(

[nofurylike]

274. i wish i could express just that as well as you just did, Mimosa!!

thank you!!

"I wish I could convey how far I think we have come since 1970, not to mention the most oppressive decade of the 1950s (before my time but about which I learned from scarred and wise gay rights veterans)."

brought tears to my eyes. wow, what we've come through, ah?


peace and solidarity!

[jonnyblitz]

278. well I am in my 40's, lived through the AIDS mess in the 80's,

gay navy vet, and have no use for him. COme on, it's the 21st century, there is no way we should settle for being dissed from a DEMOCRAT like this. what in HELL is his PROBLEM?

[Tx4obama]

259. DADT UPDATE: Breaking News: Gates narrows who can OK discharges under 'don't ask, don't tell'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4583640

[sam sarrha]

261. Obama has nothing to do with what is happening, they have to change th law first.. then you can

join.. the attorney general must, by law, review any change to any lay overturned by the courts.. the standing law must be replaced by another allowing gays into the military.. it is a necessary legal process of our government..

the Tea Party however can pull anything out of their ass at any time and believe it true. the REAL world doesn't work that way.

this whole Tempest in in a Tea Pot is just Tea Party disinformation to make Obama look bad..
this guy is either ignorant or a Tea Party'r ..that was Redundant:argh: :banghead:

[Bluebear]

281. 'this guy is either ignorant or a Tea Party'r' ....this guy is a hero & you should be ashamed

by your accusation.

[sam sarrha]

292. a judge can not change legislation.. a general can express opinion.. the US AG has to evaluate and

file a brief, then the congress can write legislation to change the situation.. the previous Bill must be over written.. if people go willy nilly changing legislated by opinion they are opening a can of worms for the GOP/Xings/Dominionists to waste millions of dollars, tying up the courts/congress/supreme court for literally years while feeding every nut case TP'rs with another fake Crusade for Old Testament Bullshit.. but when don properly it can be done efficiently in weeks in an orderly fashion.

if you never want to see gays in the military, or see them treated fairly in the work place.. be my guest and fuck everything up not following the proper long established judicial/congressional proper parliamentary procedures. which is the definition of ignorance.. and the destructive/divisive/emotionally fueled witch hunt methods of the GOP/TP'rs/Fundi Xings will burn them at the stake of public opinion with their shameless insidious propaganda..

i never said he wasn't a hero... ignorance and Tea Partyer are interchangeable. i immediately associate anyone spewing bullshit about Democrats/Obama/Liberals/the Facts as Tea Party'rs/GOP/fundi Xings. not that there aren't things i don't like about Democrats/Obama/Liberals. i am not a Democrat, i am an Anti-Fascist.. but i support and vote a straight Democrat ticket.. i would never under any conditions ever vote for or support a ReThuglican. i wouldn't piss on one if he were on fire. but you don't have your facts straight, you have framed this situation with a discursive Emotional Tag. i understand. i am so disgusted with the divisive nature of the Fasco-cleptocratic-corporate media/Dominionist GOP/Koch's flying monkey Tea Party that i can not even watch the news anymore.

[Shining Jack]

264. K&R

That man have all my respect and admiration. :patriot:

[krkaufman]

275. Vote Nader write-in. nt

[CakeGrrl]

277. Yes. The Repubs/Teabaggers thank you!

oops, almost forgot

:sarcasm:

[zenprole]

276. Selective Projection

Dan Choi is the real thing. He should pick a wimpy, centrist Democratic district and run for Congress.

As for Obama and the disgusting Valerie Jarrett, try not to think of their craven refusal to take a stand as throwing the LGBT community under the bus. It's just Obama's way of sorting out who's left to betray, then urging them to vote Democratic in a few weeks.

[farmboxer]

284. I will not cut off my nose to spite my face

I will vote Dem and then do my complaining later. Repubs are counting on Dems cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

[fascisthunter]

286. no... republicans are counting on dems to turn their back on us

[Better Believe It]

288. Why would anyone want to cut off their nose? Just askin.

[JohnnyCougar]

290. Oh please

Can we have this fight after the election?

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You KNOW it's going to happen. You know that under Obama, DADT will eventually be repealed.

But the fact is, Democrats have to hold their ground in some pretty fucked up, right-wing districts in order to remain in power in the House, and especially in the Senate. What people don't realize is that almost 25% of this nation's population resides in California, New York, and Illinois. Those states are mostly liberal, but they give us only 6 out of 100 Senators.

What this means is that Democrats naturally have to be able to win in conservative states in order to control the Senate. And the bottom line is that you can't expect a lot of liberal favors right before an election.

So the people bitching about this and saying they won't vote for Obama or Democrats are only playing into the GOP's strategy. And we all know what the GOP thinks about the GLBTQ community.

[Bluebear]

293. 'You know that under Obama, DADT will eventually be repealed.' - we know nothing of the sort.

But thanks for your assessment that this is only "bitching".

Whatever.

[JohnnyCougar]

295. It is bitching

Every group can't have everything they want right before an election. To get elected, you have to appeal to a broad group of people.

The party that has the most self-important constituents loses. All the time. You have to make sacrifices and compromises in order to win. The narrow ideology of the right is going to hurt them in the future. It would be hurting them right now if Democrats could be more unified and show up to the polls.

But let's see how much progress is made on GLBTQ issues when the Republicans are in charge of the House. Let's try it your way. Let's make Democrats lose and see if any progress is made.