No wonder this place is depressing 24/7

[impik]

Every little thing becomes this massive energy consuming scandal. Someone from the administration said something stupid about Homosexuality, they apologized few hours later, they have an excellent record of fighting for these causes - and so called "Liberals" still just can't find a way to forgive them for choosing two words poorly. Like "Liberals" never said anything stupid.

19 days before an election in which our entire Democracy is in jeopardy, people just keeps looking for reasons to be depressed and find excuses to justify some inexcusable decision to sit this one out.

I always thought that we are the mature side. Apparently, we're not. We completely lost any sight of the big picture, and who our friends really are. How sad.

[polichick]

1. Message boards are the perfect places to express anxiety...

That's all people are doing - sort of like you just did.

edit:typo

[AtomicKitten]

2. Distraction Central. nt

[Number23]

69. You got it. Never let it be said that only teabaggers are prone to manipulation

Some bloggers must be paid by how many "educated liberals" they can deceive per week.

[GoneOffShore]

3. Emma Goldman, Joe HIll, "Mother Jones" and other activists past

are rolling in their graves as we wallow in energy wasting word play and self doubt.

As well as setting up the circular firing squads (Had to make that plural because there multiple ones about).

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

5. The "big picture" is we're about to lose the House to a party of criminals and nutbags

And the White House seems to be just fine with it. Nothing could be more depressing than that.

[NJmaverick]

13. The White House is out fighting the good fight

your comments make zero sense.

[NJmaverick]

14. oops

wrong spot

[jgraz]

20. Obama 2.0 -- "common cause w/Republicans" on education reform, trade and energy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9311395&mesg_id=9311395

If my comments still make zero sense to you after reading the above post, check back here. I'll try to walk you through it.

[NJmaverick]

22. Thanks I missed that article, now I was able to give it a big fat unrec

like it deserved

[jgraz]

23. Yes, god forbid someone post actual quotes from Obama

From the New York Times, no less.

On the bright side, your ability to type with your fingers in your ears is quite impressive.

[displacedvermoter]

39. When it really, really doesn't matter what others are saying as

you go about your daily business of defending all action by this Admin, you don't need to put your fingers in your ears.

That NY Times article sent chills up my spine, but not because I was surprised, but because it confirms my greatest fears. The only thing I am looking forward come Obama 2.0 is how some folks will spin the moves Obama will need to make to coexist with this new GOP friends. I am sure they will be consistent,though!

We'll hear about his smile, his skinny shoulders, and his great mind. We will still not deserve him, and we will never get another such chance again in OUR ENTIRE HISTORY!!!

[NJmaverick]

59. So what you are saying

is if your agenda is to go about attacking the Admin daily you don't need to have any facts.

Got it

[NJmaverick]

55. LOL!

so if it has a quote from Obama the article must be good:rofl:

[displacedvermoter]

25. You are Uncreccing Something that you didn't read?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

56. You know this how?

[Whisp]

27. that is just not true

but I know you want it to be and THAT is the depressing part.

the wh is not find with letting the GOP criminals take over but there seems to be more than enough just here that would like it fine just to make their 'point' and told you so. nose spite face crap

wtf?

[treestar]

29. Now Obama is responsible for election results too?

[jgraz]

33. Yes. Next question?

[treestar]

36. There is no reasoning with somebody who gives zero consequence

to the campaigning going on in each state and district and the candidates there, and the voters in each election.

[jgraz]

42. There is no reasoning with someone who can't reason

Once again, I never said anything close to what you're alleging. But the suggestion that the President, as the head of the party, does not bear a large part of the responsibility for the upcoming losses is absurd.

[NJmaverick]

61. What about all the people that attacked and undermined the democrats and the President for the last

2 years?

[jgraz]

72. If you lose politically, you employed a losing political strategy

It's really that simple.

The President undermined himself with his timidity and lack of spine. The people who pointed this out are not to blame.

Of course, if you want to blame to "professional left" you'll also have to acknowledge the President's failure to properly plan for their so-called "attacks". Was the President's agenda really so fragile that someone like Jane Hamsher could undermine it? That borders on political malpractice, IMHO.

[NJmaverick]

77. I asked about the people that undermined the Dems at every turn

do they have any responsibility for their actions?

[jgraz]

79. You mean like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln?

Yeah, they certainly bear some responsibility, but Obama didn't have to coddle them like he did.

[NJmaverick]

81. No, I mean like FDL

[jgraz]

83. Seriously? FireDogFreakingLake cost us the election?

Do you realize how lame that sounds?

[NJmaverick]

85. What's lame is the free pass you are giving

and your unwillingness to make people accountable for their own actions.

[jgraz]

93. It's not a "free pass". It's an enormous amount of respect and credit

for doing what they can to help preserve progressive values. If a Democratic administration can't stand up to that, maybe they should consider a career outside of politics.

[NJmaverick]

94. Helping the GOP regain power, is the exact opposite of "preserving progressive values"

[jgraz]

96. They did everything they could to change the failed political strategy of this administration..

While you did everything you could to enable the failed political strategy of this administration.

Tell me again who's helping the GOP to regain power?

[NJmaverick]

98. They did everything the could to undermine and hurt the Dems and the President

something the GOP greatly appreciates

[jgraz]

101. See, you're doing it again.

Your inability to distinguish progressive criticisms from genuine attacks is truly damaging to the Democrats and to political discussion in general. If you are truly sincere about wanting to help Democrats win, you need to take a long look in the mirror.

You. Are. Not. Helping.

[NJmaverick]

103. By doing you mean holding people accountable for there own actions

I don't give people free passes because they claim to have certain values

[jgraz]

104. And do you hold yourself accountable?

You supported a political strategy that is about to hand the House to the Republicans. Do you feel any responsibility for that?

[NJmaverick]

107. Yes I do, that's why I would never undermine the Dems and help the GOP

[jgraz]

109. So what did you do to divert them from this disastrous course?

We're about to lose the House. Surely you did something to steer them off of this strategy. Care to share?

[NJmaverick]

111. Your mistake is that they didn't follow a "disastrous course"

That gross mis-perception is the heart of the problem. Maybe you would like to share how you have defended the Dems from the constant attacks (most of them inaccurate or over blown)

[jgraz]

115. So we're NOT going to lose the House?

If you lose politically, you employed a losing political strategy.

[NJmaverick]

117. With all the people attacking and undermining the Dems that's a real possibility

a very real possibility.

[jgraz]

120. If you lose politically, you employed a losing political strategy.

Which part of this do you not understand?

[NJmaverick]

140. What you fail to understand, to the detriment of our nation

is WE ALL LOSE if the Dems lose. You desperately need to understand that key concept

[jgraz]

142. So you should probably stop helping them lose

Dontcha think?

[NJmaverick]

143. Well now the second concept you need to understand

supporting the Dems = HELPING

attacking the Dems = HURTHING


This idea shouldn't be that difficult

[jgraz]

144. Yes, we all understand your simplistic thinking. Unfortunately, it's dead wrong.

Here's reality:

Supporting a losing political strategy = HURTING

Criticizing a losing political strategy = HELPING


This idea *isn't* that difficult, and I'm willing to bet that you understand it perfectly.

[NJmaverick]

145. sigh

I made it as simple as possible and still you fail to grasp it.:eyes:

[jgraz]

146. Your problem is not that I don't understand you

Your problem is that I precisely understand you.

And the more you respond, the more obvious you make it to others.

[NJmaverick]

147. bullshit

:eyes:

[LanternWaste]

151. Or someone cheated. Or someone played an ace card. Or, or, or.

"If you lose politically, you employed a losing political strategy."

Or someone cheated. Or someone played an ace card. Or, or, or.

Actually, in the last game of chess I played, I had a very good strategy, albeit I lost because I made tactical errors during the mid-game (and of course there is a precise and relevant difference in form, format, content, definition and structure between strategy and tactics).

But again, far be it from me to dissuade anyone from a dogma of absolutism. I myself try to allow for numerous solutions to a problem until each one is validly and objectively ruled out; however again, I would not attempt to dissuade anyone from holding onto one and only solution as it makes a worldview much easier and convenient-- and many people like to think in convenient and easy ways :shrug:

Magic thinking indeed.

[LanternWaste]

150. Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I imagine many people take exception when one of their own sacred cows gets as much of the blame as they themselves are dishing out.

"We have seen the enemy.." and all that

[NJmaverick]

60. What about the people who have attack the Dems and the president for the past 2 years

do they have any responsibility?

[jgraz]

75. Not 1/100th as damaging as those who enabled a losing political strategy.

The ones who cheered on the agenda that directly led to the upcoming loss of the House have a lot to answer for.

[NJmaverick]

78. So you are giving those people a free pass?

they don't have to be responsible for the consequences of their actions?

[jgraz]

82. Who, exactly, are you talking about?

Undermine and attack the President?

You mean Fox News?

Or the Chamber of Commerce?

Or the Congressional Republicans?

Or the Teabaggers?

Or fake Dems like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu?

Or clueless "stratgerists" like Rahm Emanuel?


You can't mean liberal bloggers and posters on DU. Cuz no administration could possibly be so incompetent as to let them affect the outcome of a huge election.

[NJmaverick]

86. Add FDL and their ilk and you have a pretty good list

[jgraz]

95. So you think that a random liberal blog can take down the Obama administration?

Please tell me you're joking.

[NJmaverick]

99. I have to say this is one of the oddest and most baffling arguments

people who spend countless hours on websites claiming that websites don't matter:shrug:

[jgraz]

102. It's baffling because you don't know how to counter it.

What I'm saying is inarguably true. You can dodge it, you can try to kick up dust, but you can't deny it: if you lose politically, you employed a losing political strategy.

No blog can change that. Ever.


And there are many things people spend hours doing that have no effect on elections. I think I'll go do one of them now.

[NJmaverick]

105. there's NOTHING to counter

nice try though

[jgraz]

108. So you agree, then. OK, cool.

• Obama and the Dems employed a losing political strategy.

• You supported that losing political strategy.

• You bear some responsibility for upcoming losses.

Q.E.D.

[NJmaverick]

110. We agree that you are wrong

[jgraz]

116. If you lose politically, you employed a losing political strategy.

Irrefutable.

[green917]

131. +1,000,000,000

You're absolutely correct! If the President and his team had done what the vast majority of the American people had wanted (brought us the "change" they promised us), this argument would be moot because we would be looking at electoral landslides next month (in our favor). Instead they capitulated to and held hands with the other side (and the conservative members of our own party) and never really took a stand on anything that they campaigned on!

You're absolutely right: If you lose politically, you have employed a failed political strategy and no blog, blogger or journalist can be blamed for that!

[lamp_shade]

6. Well said, impik. Sad indeed. Big rec from me.

[VMI Dem]

7. Gays don't deserve how good this admin is to them.

[Raine1967]

8. Yes, that is exactly what the OP said.

I suppose I should add a :sarcasm: here.

This kind of hyperbole is exactly what stops people from having a legitimate conversation about topics like this.


You know DAMN well this is not what the OP was saying.

[boston bean]

9. It's a broad brush attack against members of the community, yet OP's like this remain.

They cannot understand how their defense of this makes them at the very least look like homophobes.

You don't hear them advocating loudly for LGBTIQ, you do hear them loudly telling LGBTIQ to STFU.

[SeattleGirl]

10. News flash: Not everything that happens every day is about

"the community." There are other people in this country who also have things that are important to them that may not be what is important to "the community." Doesn't make those things illegitimate than your concerns are.

There IS a larger picture here.

[boston bean]

11. When LGBTIQ have the full rights, I will have full rights, nothing trumps it.

And that is the BIG picture.

[SeattleGirl]

16. I disagree.

Two wars? Poverty? Not enough jobs? An economy that is still struggling to recover?

Do you deserve full rights? Absolutely, no question about it.

But I'm sorry, your issue is not the only issue. It's not the only thing people are focusing on. Should the fight for equal rights keep going until the goal is accomplished? Damned right. But what I'm hearing in your response is that nothing else should matter until that happens, and I'm saying that for many other people, people who don't know where their next meal is coming from, people who have just been laid off, etc., GLTB rights are probably not going to be at the top of the list. That IS the big picture: There are many people in this country, and for each of those people, different things are important. That doesn't diminish your needs; it means that other people may have different needs than you. You may not like it, but it's the reality of life.

[boston bean]

21. This is not MY issue. It is our issue.

And if someone like you would let people advocate for their rights without poo pooing them at every corner the issue just might get better more quickly.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I am worried about all those things you list, but because those things are happening or that I worry about them, doesn't mean I think LGBTIQ community should take a back seat and STFU for bigots.

[SeattleGirl]

24. Several things:

I am not "poo pooing them at every corner of the issue".

I do not thing the community should "take a back seat and STFU for bigots."

Why is it that when someone has a slightly different take on something, or offers an opinion that doesn't align exactly with someone else's, that someone else (and I've seen other people on DU do this, so I am not singling you out) automatically thinks they are being told to STFU, when that is not what is being said? I honestly don't understand that. I am capable of having a different opinion on a subject, any subject, with someone else without either of us telling the other to STFU. If you think someone is wrong about their opinion, instead of accusing them of telling you to shut up, why not try another tack, and try explaining why you feel they are wrong or misguided or something. And I mean explaining, not just saying "I think this IS the BIGGEST issues, and if you don't, you're wrong"? What happened to conversation? Not everyone who has a different opinion than someones else is an ass or a bigot or anything like that.

[boston bean]

26. Why did you call it "YOUR" issue? Why did you feel you had to separate yourself?

If you can answer that truthfully, you will have the answers to the questions you asked me.

[SeattleGirl]

32. Sorry, I'm not playing that game. I asked you several questions.

If you don't want to answer them, just tell me.

But pulling a bait and switch? Nope, not going to play.

If you can answer ME truthfully, then I will answer your question.

Simple as that.

[boston bean]

37. Oh no, it's not that I don't want to answer them

It's just hard to answer them in the context of this thread, when you separate yourself from the issue.

And, I have answered you, already.

I don't think, nor did I ever say that LGBTIQ was the only thing in the entire world that mattered. As a matter of fact there are many important issues. What I did say was that we shouldn't be telling people to wait or shut up (for political expediency) about advocating for their rights.

Listen, there is nothing wrong with a group of people pushing the government to do the right thing. NOTHING wrong with it. It should be something we should all be proud of and partake in often.

The only reason I can think that someone on a board like this may disagree with that is for political expediency to not alienate bigots for votes.

So now, maybe you can answer my question. Why did you say "YOUR issue"?

and on edit, what i meant by nothing trumps it, there is nothing that would make me less likely to fully support the LGBTIQ community, no matter what else is ever going on in the country. Again, we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[SeattleGirl]

46. Again, I am not, nor have I said, to shut up.

Please don't keep repeating that where I am concerned. Perhaps others have told you to shut up; I don't know. But I haven't.

And no, there is nothing wrong with people pushing the government to do the right thing; you and I are in complete agreement about that.

And I said "your issue" because it seems to be the most important one to you. I did not mean it as a slam. But I repeat that it is not the most important issue to everyone else in the country, just as what might be my most important issue is not the most important one to other people. I can live with that. I don't think it diminishes the importance of what is at the top of your list, or what might be at the top of mine. I don't think people should stop fighting for what they want, and in many cases, for what SHOULD and had BETTER happen. Is it not better that there are many people out here fighting for many different things, because there are many different things that ARE important? I'm not saying one is more important than another; I'm saying that there are lots of things that are important.

[boston bean]

51. So what is the big deal with some, who do not let the LGBTIQ community

handle this the best way they see fit.

A lot of the posts here are not in support of the advocacy, but a criticism of it.

The criticism, when you get down to the nub of it, is yours is not the only issue and we need to focus on other things, and this LGBTIQ stuff is just to damned divisive. So when you hear those words from Valerie Jarrett, a theme has been created. And the people who should have your back are basically telling you to please pipe down and go vote wait another day or week or year for your rights.

Sorry, I think what the LGBTIQ community is doing is working and if it gets them their rights sooner rather than later, great. I wish more people would help them.

[SeattleGirl]

54. boston bean, take a look at my response down thread to

Ramulux (my response is #53).

Perhaps you will understand a little more where I'm coming from (and it's not from a place of STFU).

[Whisp]

97. I am in the Women's Community.

Do you stand up to women being called sexist names here?
Is it ok with you if that woman happens to be a disliked repug - then she can be called vile names? I've seen that happen here. I've also seen a lot of pure filth sexism here that passes as acceptable when there is no way on gawds green earth that an equal disparaging remark against a gay person would stand here.

How about the Black Community. Have you done your part and share of supporting them and the inequalities they also live under?

How many posts have you made for Women and Blacks lately?

The uber critics hanging on every word out there, every interpretation or misinterpretation of DADT, and DOMA, day in and day out. over and over. misinformation, outright lies... turns me off actually. It's like gay equality is the last fight to be had, and it's not. Lots of people have lots of inequity problems.

Now I'll be getting the buckshot up my arse and called homophobe I'm sure but I'm sick of this shit already.

[boston bean]

118. Um, I belong to Emily's list, look for a post from me today, I don't remember seeing your reply.

I am a woman, a feminist, and I am not a lesbian.

I have spoken out against racism, I went to a town hall in 2009 where i stood up to a bunch of bigoted pos teaparty assholes.

I stand up for all rights. Got it. It's one thing I do NOT compromise.

[CreekDog]

45. Pretend it's the 1950's for a moment and replace GLBT with the word "black" and how does it sound?

you have people in the USA who do not have Equal Opportunity protection, who are not allowed in the military, etc.

i understand and agree that wars, health care, and the economy are important but so are civil rights long denied.

[SeattleGirl]

47. And I absolutely agree with you, CreekDog

Nowhere in my exchanges with boston bean did I say that GLBT rights are not important. Please don't imply that I have.

[CreekDog]

52. but you did "tier" them, absolutely and I'm being completely fair to you by the way

...when I point that out.

i'm just wondering how we had a civil rights movement when we were fighting the cold war.

why did MLK keep pushing and pushing for one group's gains? i mean there were wars, poverty and huge societal problems.

but that guy, he just kept on.

i'm just trying to get through to you...even though you think your statement sounds completely reasonable --it's not.

it's the kind of statement i would have, or could have made a few years ago. but i can't now.

let's take away one of your rights and you let us know when is a good time to get it back to you.

i'm hopeful this exchange won't go the way of typical DU exchanges.

[SeattleGirl]

57. Your assessment of me is incorrect.

Yes, MLK did keep pushing and pushing, and he was an admirable man for doing so.

People who keep pushing and pushing for civil rights for all are also admirable.

Please explain to me how I "tiered". I'd really like to know. I am always open to learning, and if, as you said, my statement was not "reasonable", then tell me how. There have been times in my life where someone has explained something to me in a way that truly does open my eyes; and where I have done the same for others. Thanks.

[CreekDog]

92. i don't know who is saying don't do anything else but this

perhaps someone was saying that. if so, i disagree.

by the same token, if anyone says, don't do these civil rights so we can do everything else...that's what i'm talking about. especially when it's said that those things benefit everybody while GLBT civil rights benefit *some* people.

[SeattleGirl]

119. CreekDog, I'm not saying don't do anything about civil rights.

Not in the least. I'm saying that we should keep pushing for civil rights for all people while we also push for the other things that are also very important. And while GLBT civil rights would primarily benefit the GLBT community, I also believe that civil rights for all benefits all.

[CreekDog]

123. okay, on the one hand, you say all fights should go forward simultaneously

i'm with you there.

but civil rights for the minority contrasted and/or prioritized against a "civil right" that a larger group might benefit from seems to always suggest that minority rights aren't as much of a priority when something else (say, a policy that affects everybody, like a tax cut, or economic improvement, or foreign policy). i mean to say, when you contrast it like that, there's never a good time.

furthermore, when you bring up "wars" --homosexuals are fighting in them as we speak. when you bring up poverty, homosexuals experience poverty (and have fewer legal protections against losing their jobs than non-homosexuals). not only that, if you aren't homosexual, you can be fired if they simply think you are homosexual! did you know that? thus, an equal protection change to protect gays would protect everyone else too.

[SeattleGirl]

129. I have no quarrel with you there, CreekDog.

I'm just saying that there are all kinds of wars that are being fought, would you not agree? That is not to diminish one for another. I'm saying that there are many issues in this world, even just in this country, that are important. For each individual person, one issue may take precedence over another on a personal level for them, and for each of those issues, there will be a group of people for whom that particular issue is the most important one. Just because another group may have an issue that to them is more important, it does not diminish your issue, or mine, or the person next door's issue. What I'm saying is that while civil rights for all IS important, for each individual person, it may not be the top issue in their minds at a given time.

Again, that does not diminish the importance of civil rights for all. I'm saying that if, for instance, you had a room filled with 100 people, and you asked each person individually what the most important issue for them is, not all of them are going to say civil rights, even if somewhere in their minds they may think that hell, yeah, everyone should have equal rights. EVERYONE. But maybe John Q. Public has a sick child, and doesn't have insurance, and therefore cannot get the care they need for their child. For that time that they are dealing with that, the issue of civil rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is probably not at the top of their list.

What I'm saying is that at any given time, even though an issue like civil rights for all is an extremely important one, it may not be at the top of the list for every single person (and of course, there are those people out there who, unfortunately, DON'T want civil rights for all) because there are other things in their immediate lives that are more important to them at any given time. What I often see on threads like this are people who insist that the issue of civil rights be the number one issue in everybody's mind, over and above anything else, and then get angey when it's not. And I'm saying that it's not realistic in the "real world." And btw, what I am NOT saying is that it isn't important. It's just that you (and I mean a general you, not you in particular) cannot get pissed off when that issue isn't number one for everyone. Well, I guess you could get pissed off, but I don't know how productive it would be. It would seem to be more productive to keep pushing at Congress, at Obama, at whomever can help effect change, pick up more people along the way as their circumstances change, and have as many allies who are fighting alongside as possible.

[ampad]

73. Out of curiosity

Are you stating that the GLBT community civil rights issue is comparable to African American civil rights movement? Not trying to start an argument just asking.

[CreekDog]

88. I'm not comparing the particular civil rights movements

I'm comparing the reasons for not progressing now versus reasons that didn't stop progress then.

does that make sense?

but now that you mention it, civil rights are civil rights.

[Fire1]

112. Fail. Don't even try it. n/t

[CreekDog]

124. I did

and you haven't posted an argument against doing so, just an order.

[Whisp]

28. whats with the scrabble tiles?

if I don't understand what that means and ask does that make me a homophobe?

cheap throwing around that word lately, sickening actually.

puke worthy

[treestar]

35. You're doing nothing for the community

If we believed you, we would think it unreasonable and too difficult to please and too easy to turn off. This is politics. It's not worth the effort for the Democrats to try for the fundie vote. If we went by the posts on DU these days, it wouldn't be a stretch for them to give up on the gay vote (I don't think they will, but think those posting on DU with such bitterness are a small minority).

[Raine1967]

65. You assume a lot about things.

perhaps they can understand. Perhaps you want them to be more loud?

I disagree -- and let me make this clear: this is NOT a broad brush attack. IF I were to talk your post at a literal value-- you are not happy that they are not loud enough. I would not do that, BTW. I actually hear them (who ever "THEY ARE") advocating loudly. I do not hear them hear them saying STFU.

Perhaps I should STFU myself -- According to you -- I am not they -- and so I have no right to speak. Good thing DU is not my barometer on when and where I should say something or not.

[NJmaverick]

15. You're right

[CakeGrrl]

18. Exactly right. And I wonder if

that's what some of these posters want - not an actual discussion, but an echo chamber to amp up the angry sarcasm.

I wonder how these threads are helping to advance progressive causes? Hopefully this isn't what some are trying to pass off as "activism".

As Bill Maher said, people need to wise up and learn the difference between "a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy". Fat damn chance of seeing any progressive causes see the light of day when the Republicans get some more control.

And if people think the President is going to be doing the major suffering when that happens, then they have their head up a dark place.

[Psyche]

38. Great post!

However, I do think Obama will suffer, because I believe he genuinely cares.

[no limit]

12. "they have an excellent record of fighting for these causes" really? what record you looking at?

That one memo Obama signed that one time. Wow, what an amazing record.

[uponit7771]

34. Their record is on GOP.org

[NJmaverick]

17. A very wise and perceptive post

Well done:applause: :applause:

[no limit]

40. So you agree they have a good record for fighting for LGBT issues?

Jesus, the absolute denial seen in this thread would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[NJmaverick]

64. The FACTS say they have the BEST record of any presidential administration

but why let the facts get in the way of your rant.

[Whisp]

19. rec to you impik.

i'm sorry to say it feels like the fight will never end, no matter what Obama or his people do or don't do.

there is going to be expectations of perfections and nothing less is acceptable. Arent' we there yet? (my husband had an impatient father and while he was driving with his 3 loud young sons in the back bouncing around and screaming, Are We There Yet? Wahhhhhhhh! he would keep one hand on the wheel, reach over with his other and just pummel and flail away till they listened. Of course they avoided any punches so don't go all child abuse on me anyone, please.

People in washington are not to make any mistakes, they must be above us all and cater to each of our individual needs, tailor made for millions of people who find their need just a little different than their neighbours need.

[treestar]

30. Recommended

I don't know what people get out of it. All we can do is vote for people who support what we support, we can't demand specific results - it's politics, not the purchase of a product. And to go out of your way to minimize the number of people supporting any issue just accomplishes zero. I don't see what satisfaction people get out of it.

[frylock]

31. unrec for the so-called "Liberals" bullshit callout

[Ramulux]

41. Would you feel the same way...

if you were a homosexual? I am guessing if you were a member of the demographic whose way of life was flat out insulted, you wouldn't think this was a non-issue. Yeah she apologized but she still said it, I am not saying all of us need to dwell on it but lets call it out for what it was, an incredibly insulting, ignorant statement made by one of the highest ranking public officials in this country. We have a right to be pissed about this, and DU is exactly the place to express those frustrations.

[SeattleGirl]

53. True, Ramulux, but there is also such as thing as forgiveness.

Surely you can't be saying that if someone says or does something that is offensive, and then apologizes, you will never ever forgive that person? That is like saying that you don't believe that someone can learn from being shown that their words and/or actions are hurtful, offensive, etc. People CAN and DO learn, all the time.

To answer your question, may I give you an example from my own life? This is not about homosexuals, but about African Americans. I am white, and live in a very racially mixed neighborhood. Before Washington state converted to vote-by-mail, my polling place was an apartment building several blocks from my home. The building is a security building, and thus, the doors are always locked, so you either need a key, or someone has to let you in. On voting day, there was usually someone near the door to let voters in, but sometimes, there wasn't. So, you had to bang on the windows of the room where the voting was taking place to get someone to let you in.

In 2004, I was at my neighborhood caucus, and in my small discussion group was an African American couple who where probably in their 60's. The subject of our polling place came up, and this couple talked about how they felt it was yet another way to try and suppress the black vote. That brought me up short, and was a shock to me, not that they felt that, but because it had not entered my mind! To me, trying to get into the building sometimes was an annoyance; to them, it was something completely different. It opened my eyes to yet another of some of the more subtle ways that racism plays out in this country. Now, does that mean I'm a racist? No; it means that because I am white, those kinds of things were under my radar. Thanks to that couple and what they said, my own knowledge and awareness increased, and I am thankful for that.

As to your specific question, about whether the person you were asking it of would feel the same way if they were a homosexual, I'm guessing that they would. Just as I will never fully understand what it is to experience life as an African American, because I am white, many people will not fully understand what it is like to be a homosexual because they are straight. That doesn't automatically mean that a white person is a racist, or that a straight person is a bigot. It means that they aren't black (or another racial minority) or they aren't lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, etc. To require that they fully understand is not realistic. To point out when they say something that is insensitive, and why it is insensitive, is a good thing, because like me in that caucus, their awareness could be raised, and they could be all the better for it, and even become more of an ally. But for the offended person to refuse to forgive, or to refuse to entertain the idea that the person who offended them may not have been doing it as a way to deliberately hurt you, is a big mistake in my book. We are all flawed creatures, regardless of our race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. There are some people out there who, yes, are fucking assholes, but there are many other people out there who are not, and who can and do learn from having something pointed out to them. When we run into such a person, how much farther might we get when we accept their apology rather than keeping our backs turned to them?

[AndrewP]

122. Well said

[SeattleGirl]

128. Thanks. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

43. Do mature peple talk about the "so-called liberals"?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[lamp_shade]

44. K&R... 62 recs.

[CreekDog]

49. They may have "excellent" intentions, but they don't have an "excellent record" yet

sorry, that's just reality.

while i'm hopeful, that's not the same as being proud.

[NJmaverick]

63. The best record EVER for a presidential administration in terms of GLBT issues

is not "excellent"?:shrug:

[CreekDog]

67. in terms of laws and protection against discrimination in the military?

the laundry list of accomplishments notwithstanding.

[NJmaverick]

68. In terms of ALL GLBT issues, which is how it should be

don't cherry pick to try and make a point

[CreekDog]

84. I guess mentioning EEO and DADT is just cherrypicking then

whattttever.

[NJmaverick]

87. Not looking at the WHOLE picture

is cherry picking. In fact it's pretty much the definition of cherry picking

[CreekDog]

90. It's just that people were expecting a whole pie

and got 1 slice.

and then court appeals/requests for stays make it seem like the rest of the pie was put on backorder.

so i am looking at the whole pie.

and i've been here pushing for health care reform (yes, even the bill that passed) and financial reform and so forth all along.

remember? i'm not some troll that people can say was against the admin all along. nope.

if anything i've wanted the Obama administration to actually put more fight into their initiatives but they seem to give up ON THEIR VERY OWN POLICIES before i am ready to.

:crazy:

[Chulanowa]

50. It's not Democratic Underground...

Unless lots of people are trying to put Democrats under the ground.

[NJmaverick]

62. !

:thumbsup:

[Hekate]

66. Spot on. That does seem to be the new motto around here, doesn't it?

:thumbsup:

[Number23]

70. ,,,

:loveya:

[TheWraith]

74. I wish I could give this plus infinity.

This place can be so insane sometimes. I just was reading another thread filled with nothing but Obama bashing using 100% pure premium Teabagger talking points about how he was responsible for TARP and how he destroyed the economy.

[treestar]

76. +2

[jillan]

80. Bingo! It sure feels that way, doesn't it?

[BklnDem75]

100. +100

Well played!

[great white snark]

113. .

:yourock:

[AndrewP]

121. A-fucking-men

[liquid diamond]

125. Damn.

+1

[HughMoran]

130. +infinity

[Tarheel_Dem]

133. Best post of the day!

:thumbsup:

[LittleBlue]

71. There's little to be excited about. Let's go down the list

Upcoming midterm election: looking bleak
Upcoming presidential election: looking uncertain
Hope and change: .....
Economy: people are still losing their jobs
Gays: have gotten pretty much nothing except pokes in the eye
Wars: still going
Torturers: still free
Banksters: still in business, except with our money

What exactly do I have to get excited about?

[Psyche]

91. Says who?

Upcoming midterm election: looking bleak - According the the GOP OWNED MEDIA
Upcoming presidential election: looking uncertain - According the the GOP OWNED MEDIA
Hope and change: ..... You really think over 30 years of GOP destruction can be undone overnight with less than 60 votes? GROW UP.
Economy: people are still losing their jobs - But there would be a lot more job loss without the stimulus, and if Obama can get a public works bill through there will be more jobs on the horizon.
Gays: have gotten pretty much nothing except pokes in the eye - I'm sorry - did you miss the overturning of Prop 8 in CA and the GLOBAL HALT OF DADT???
Wars: still going - tell me the alternative. You are really okay with the BushCo gasoline that was thrown on that hornet's nest?
Torturers: still free - Are you an attorney? How stupid would the administration look it they tried to do this, and LOST IN COURT? Think it through. I want BushCo in the HAGUE - but LEGALLY it's never going to happen because they LEGALLY covered their collective backsides.
Banksters: still in business, except with our money - And we're going to make money on that investment. Besides, the alternative is...... ?

GROW UP. It's not black and white. Stop whining about not getting your Perfect Progressive Pony™.

The alternative is YOUR WORST NIGHTMARE.

[donco6]

127. LOL!

Gays: have gotten pretty much nothing except pokes in the eye - I'm sorry - did you miss the overturning of Prop 8 in CA and the GLOBAL HALT OF DADT???

A: Overturning Prop 8 happend with NO assistance from Obama.

B: Global Halt of DADT is being APPEALED by Obama.

Wake up.

[ThomCat]

132. Overturn of Prop8 and Halt of DADT

Um, which of those did this administration have ANYTHING to do with?

Last I checked, Obama openly opposes Marriage Equality. The homophobes quote him and claim him on THEIR SIDE.

And Obama is fighting FOR DADT in the courts. He is also doing everything possible to stall efforts to overturn it politically, and did absolutely NOTHING, gave NONE of his political capital, none of his influence, none of his persuasion to pass a bill to overturn it.

So, yes, Gays have got nothing but pokes in the eye. That's absolutely right.

[Donnachaidh]

89. so calling people with valid concerns sad and immature helps how?

that high horse must be tired of all the riding it's been getting lately. :eyes:

[proteus_lives]

106. delete

[Fire1]

114. K&R

[Umbral]

126. That's the ticket - scold them, try to shame them - That'l get out the vote!! nt

[slay]

134. Awwww

whatever

[tavalon]

135. I think this place is depressing these days because when we had a

common enemy it was easy to overlook everyone's pet issues in favor of the bigger cause - saving our nation. Now "we" run it and it turns out we don't have the oomph to overlook things in favor of the bigger cause because it just isn't as black and white as it used to be. I never, ever, ever, thought I would say this but it was easier here during the Bush years.

And no, we were never all that mature, just focused on a common enemy. Now, we've formed a circular firing squad.

[tledford]

136. For our democracy to be in danger, we would have to have one. eom

[PVnRT]

137. I agree completely

In fact, we should put you in charge of what people should and should not be offended by. You know best, of course.

[The Uncola]

138. Ya know what depresses me?

People who claim to be Democrats, ragging on "Liberals" like asshole Regressives and blaming "Liberals" for their OWN failures. You sound exactly Rush Limpdick or Bill OhReally or any other loudmouthed RW bloviating fool. And you have the unmitigated gall to question other peoples "maturity?"

[KossackRealityCheck]

139. Well said.

"I always thought that we are the mature side." I did too. Big mistake.

[Betty Karlson]

141. "they have an excellent record of fighting for these causes"

No they haven't. That's the whole point.

[clarence swinney]

148. Happy Happpy here

Reply to Conservative Bob Livingston on Big Government
 
C LARENCE SWINNEY says:
October 15, 2010 at 11:15 am
Sorry Bob Your creation ?”Big Government” by Reagan + Bush
is not our imminent threat to Democracy.
It Is Your creation of WSA–Wall Street Of America–
Your pals created the Great Redistribution of Income and Wealth to 1% or 1.2 million ultra rich. Yes Bob! You. You. You.
Let 1% go from 20% ownership of Total Financial Wealth in 1980 to 43% in 2009.
From Ten percent of Total Income to 24% in 2009
Yes Bob, You created a Third World called Wall Street Of America formerly United States Of America.
You Bob increased spending by 80% and Debt by 170% from 1980 to 1989.
Yes! You Bob increased spending and debt each by 100% from 2000-2009
Yes! You Bob created our current Big Government. You.
Yes! You created 99,000 net new jobs in 20 years just enough to cover new entries into the work force.
Yes! It was not Clinton or Carter who in 12 years created 222,000 per month.
Yes! It was you who freed banks where large investment Gamblers could own all our bank assets for their Gambling Empire.
Yes! It was you who modernized financial empire to allow unrestricted Gambling in your new CASINO DERIVATIVE OF AMERICA
Yes! It was you Bob who in eight years in the Bush created 31,000 new jobs per month lowest since Hoover.
Yes! It was you Bob who allowed the ultra rich to rush into the Casino Derivative and leave investments  in stocks which built businesses, assets, and jobs. You Bob.
Yes! You knew Bob that Casino Derivative had no assets. You knew.
Yes! You knew Bob that Casino Derivative adds no value to our economy. You knew.
Why Bob why did you push down Middle Class 120,000,000 workers who from 1980 gained nothing.
That Bob is knows as creating a Third World Population. Yes Bob you you you did it.
prove me wrong with numbers and facts not rhetoric .
clarence swinney--olduglymeanhonest mad mad mad--political historian-lifeaholics of america-burlington nc

 kick their xxxxx

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

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