Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:42 PM Jun 2013

Michelle Obama confronts protester, threatens to leave fundraiser.

First Lady Michelle Obama experienced a rare face-to-face encounter with a protester late Tuesday – approaching the activist and threatening to leave a fundraiser if the person did not stop interrupting her speech.

Obama was addressing a Democratic Party fundraiser in a private Kalorama home in Northwest Washington when Ellen Sturtz, 56, a lesbian activist interrupted her remarks to demand that President Obama sign an anti-discrimination executive order.

Mrs. Obama showed her displeasure – pausing to confront Sturtz eye to eye, according to witnesses.

“One of the things that I don’t do well is this,” she said to applause from most of the guests, according to a White House transcript. “Do you understand?”

A pool report from a reporter in the room said Mrs. Obama “left the lectern and moved over to the protester.” The pool report quoted Mrs. Obama as saying: “Listen to me or you can take the mic, but I’m leaving. You all decide. You have one choice.”

the rest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/04/michelle-obama-confronts-protester-threatens-to-leave-fundraiser/

512 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Michelle Obama confronts protester, threatens to leave fundraiser. (Original Post) JaneyVee Jun 2013 OP
Sick of people treating the first couple like garbage. Pragdem Jun 2013 #1
Im sick of not having my civil rights n/t FreeState Jun 2013 #56
Michelle Obama didn't take away your civil rights. n/t ucrdem Jun 2013 #80
Her husband can sign an executive order today for federal employees FreeState Jun 2013 #82
Then Ms Sturtz should take it up with him. ucrdem Jun 2013 #91
Please do mention it FreeState Jun 2013 #94
I don't remember any first lady from the 60s, 70s or 80s ucrdem Jun 2013 #104
Several were - FreeState Jun 2013 #123
Stumping is a different issue. This was an ambush ucrdem Jun 2013 #140
A political fundraiser n/t FreeState Jun 2013 #148
At a private house. nt ucrdem Jun 2013 #151
That they were invited to and paid for n/t FreeState Jun 2013 #153
I would have paid twice that ucrdem Jun 2013 #159
Ambush? Really? AngryOldDem Jun 2013 #265
Wait for what security? ucrdem Jun 2013 #334
And we certainly dont want people's rights to interfere with a hoity toity fund raiser. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #497
This message was self-deleted by its author nebenaube Jun 2013 #184
That's because things are getting desperate. 50% of the country is in poverty and rhett o rick Jun 2013 #163
This lady paid $500 to stab Michelle in the back ucrdem Jun 2013 #173
President Obama is a member in good standing of the 1% club. You hope he will be nice to you. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #177
President Obama has refrained from bombing Iran. ucrdem Jun 2013 #180
You must be kidding. He nominates people that he doesnt agree with??? He nominated her because rhett o rick Jun 2013 #183
Lets see, Pritzker is a Dem and Romney is a puke? ucrdem Jun 2013 #185
Both propose the same policies. Democracyinkind Jun 2013 #258
And the only difference is what they have labeled themselves? If Romney changed parties rhett o rick Jun 2013 #324
So now she knows a little how gays and lesbians feel dbackjon Jun 2013 #357
That has nothing to do with this issue treestar Jun 2013 #284
Was this heckler the only person that paid $500 to attend? Sheepshank Jun 2013 #342
This heckler wasn't protesting Poverty or Penny Pritzker. n/t whathehell Jun 2013 #330
You think job discrimination is not about poverty? Read and learn, you look daft saying that Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #338
Don't be so quick to attack...If you "read and learn", from my post, for starters, you'll see whathehell Jun 2013 #414
What is that supposed to mean, that it was OK to heckle Hillary but not Michelle? Beacool Jun 2013 #378
Exactly. 1983law Jun 2013 #203
+1 JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #351
You really think it's best for your rights to be at the whim of the President? jeff47 Jun 2013 #162
+1 treestar Jun 2013 #282
Are you telling the LGBT community to, "Stop fighting for nearly useless crap,"? rhett o rick Jun 2013 #331
The president does not have that power. jeff47 Jun 2013 #370
Obama's not going to sign anything right now cause the SCOTUS is currently deciding the DOMA case nt Tx4obama Jun 2013 #202
Don't bother trying logic davidpdx Jun 2013 #273
posts like yours make it easy for me to find who needs to get added to Full Ignore ZRT2209 Jun 2013 #231
Great T-shirts!! Beacool Jun 2013 #379
Her husband gets no credit even though he has done more for gay rights WI_DEM Jun 2013 #422
+1 Jamaal510 Jun 2013 #477
don't bother trying to explain that to people who are too dumb to understand ZRT2209 Jun 2013 #230
Or trying to discuss with people dbackjon Jun 2013 #361
Which ones? Do tell. demosincebirth Jun 2013 #102
Gays have all their civil rights? Really? n/t FreeState Jun 2013 #149
They can do anything they want that is legal. Even marry in many states. demosincebirth Jun 2013 #156
many states? quakerboy Jun 2013 #187
In NC it's not recognized as legal. Hell even my Civil Union was nullified and I'm straight. TalkingDog Jun 2013 #332
Hilarious. No marriage under Federal law, tax law, immigration law, Social Security law Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #341
Careful here, Call Me Wesley Jun 2013 #451
I'm beginning to think that it also might apply to some, here. demosincebirth Jun 2013 #482
Take it up with repukes. Zoeisright Jun 2013 #146
Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #150
So who's speeches did Dr King interrupt? rbixby Jun 2013 #160
^THIS^ SunSeeker Jun 2013 #165
+ a million. graham4anything Jun 2013 #255
Do you think his marches interrupted anything? MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 #325
He didn't, but he also didn't go and interrupt JFK making speeches rbixby Jun 2013 #333
Gee, how are these individuals being compared to Martin? Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #344
Aside from the disrespect here, the other issue is with SCOTUS rbixby Jun 2013 #352
Interesting, you are enraged that this heckler is not viewed as the same as MLK Sheepshank Jun 2013 #353
What the hell are you talking about? My point is that this woman is NOT counterpart Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #479
pardon me...I cleary missed the "didn't" Sheepshank Jun 2013 #500
You were very nasty while also dead wrong. Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #506
I take it back Sheepshank Jun 2013 #507
This message was self-deleted by its author merrily Jul 2015 #511
You really don't see the difference? Sheepshank Jun 2013 #356
Which claim is disingenuous? MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 #415
Did you notice that posts #146 and #150 were both rude yet only one got rhett o rick Jun 2013 #504
Sigh. MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 #505
+ 100 million skeewee08 Jun 2013 #340
well, i'm a "minority" hopemountain Jun 2013 #188
^^Exactly! rbixby Jun 2013 #355
This message was self-deleted by its author dbackjon Jun 2013 #360
welcome to Full Ignore ZRT2209 Jun 2013 #232
I don't have anyone on ignore, so I'm not sure about LuvNewcastle Jun 2013 #279
You can set up so their posts leftynyc Jun 2013 #293
Interesting Capt. Obvious Jun 2013 #304
That person is fascinated by his ignore list, like a little boy who just discovered his penis QC Jun 2013 #319
I know Capt. Obvious Jun 2013 #320
I'M GOING TO ALERT ON YOU!!!!111! YOU SAID FUCK!1!!!!!1 QC Jun 2013 #323
DUzy! HangOnKids Jun 2013 #447
Obama has done more than any previous President treestar Jun 2013 #283
Amen!!!! There is a lot of work to be done still but he has made more inroads that all of mfcorey1 Jun 2013 #336
Wow. We have plenty of rights? But you have more and that's God's will? Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #337
I am tired of the exaggeration treestar Jun 2013 #455
Since when do we need to rank issues? Fearless Sep 2013 #509
This post is one of the most bigoted responses to a post made by a minority DUer idwiyo Jun 2013 #359
Sadly, that post is entirely typical, both for that member QC Jun 2013 #381
Please accept my apology for this post. I am ashamed it's here and even more ashamed idwiyo Jun 2013 #400
There is no need for you to apologize. You are always on the side of the angels here. QC Jun 2013 #401
There is nothing bigoted about the fact treestar Jun 2013 #457
ONE right LGBTQ minority doesn't have? ONE right? Are you serious? How can one be so ignorant idwiyo Jun 2013 #470
I wasn't going to post in these threads but your post has moved me to respond. yardwork Jun 2013 #472
I really wish you didn't have to respond to this crap. Please accept my apologies. idwiyo Jun 2013 #474
I want to thank you for your wonderful responses! yardwork Jun 2013 #480
You and QC made me cry today. This shouldn't be happening, the bigotry I mean. idwiyo Jun 2013 #493
Care to elaborate on which rights you don't have? William769 Jun 2013 #473
You are a bigot by definition if you only care about other issues Fearless Jun 2013 #481
that is a flat out lie dsc Sep 2013 #510
How many rights do I need dbackjon Jun 2013 #362
Their panties are all in a bunch because we cannot criticize the Obamas adigal Jun 2013 #418
Yup! dbackjon Jun 2013 #420
Nobody is saying that people can't criticize Obama, Jamaal510 Jun 2013 #478
It's never enough and it will never be enough Floyd_Gondolli Jun 2013 #373
So you are saying you are ok with Discrimination? dbackjon Jun 2013 #459
And you obviously have the right to be totally insulting theHandpuppet Sep 2013 #508
I doubt a blatant showing of disrespect is going to help that cause rbixby Jun 2013 #307
You mean the blatant disrespect Bigots are showing GLBT posters here on DU dbackjon Jun 2013 #367
I am sick of being treated as a second class citizen dbackjon Jun 2013 #354
Looks like Ms. Sturtz paid $500 to have her ass handed to her. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #2
I would have liked to see her take the mic and let Michelle Obama walk. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #11
Hell Yeah MattBaggins Jun 2013 #34
welcome to Full Ignore ZRT2209 Jun 2013 #233
Dear heart, your community has had the LGBT community on full ignore for years now Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #346
Might as well add me too while you are at it. n/t Jamastiene Jun 2013 #433
I'm sure all the others that also paid leftynyc Jun 2013 #297
exactly!!! Sheepshank Jun 2013 #347
Yeah...because that would have won the crowd over to her cause. gcomeau Jun 2013 #404
Everyone thinks that their issue is the only one on the plate. LiberalFighter Jun 2013 #3
exactly ZRT2209 Jun 2013 #5
As if each & every person is supposed to work on each & every issue. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #17
i think the point the other poster brought up is correct though. this event was in a private HiPointDem Jun 2013 #244
Civil rights are important and not a pet cause FreeState Jun 2013 #58
Mrs. Obama cannot sign an executive order of any kind jberryhill Jun 2013 #158
She was acting as a proxy for her husband by talking at a fundraiser muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #262
They're important enough to not be protected by presidential whim. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #168
Wasn't it the President who signed the order that federal benefits treestar Jun 2013 #285
treestar, federal benefits are denied to LGBT people Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #348
Quite the contrary. He could have and should have done that in 2008 but choose not to. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #503
Good for Mrs. Obama. The disrespect was way out of line. Laurian Jun 2013 #4
But Code Pink deserves our respect and admiration for heckling the President? brooklynite Jun 2013 #9
I don't believe I said anything about Code Pink. I was only commenting on the Laurian Jun 2013 #12
Not referring to you... brooklynite Jun 2013 #13
i don't care for code pink but at least he is an elected official JI7 Jun 2013 #14
What about Laura Bush? oberliner Jun 2013 #267
This is just as bad and wrong. N/t xoom Jun 2013 #322
you have a definite point there CatWoman Jun 2013 #33
I recall the time they did something to Condi treestar Jun 2013 #458
And if this had been an anti war protester at a Bush speech MattBaggins Jun 2013 #35
Michelle is NOT an elected official. nt DevonRex Jun 2013 #55
Michelle is a wonderful woman MattBaggins Jun 2013 #86
She's a strong woman who handled it her way - not like a Stepford wife. DevonRex Jun 2013 #121
Please keep your words in your mouth instead of trying to stuff them inside of mine MattBaggins Jun 2013 #124
Ok. Some of the rhetoric has upset me. I apologize. DevonRex Jun 2013 #142
No problem MattBaggins Jun 2013 #145
FLOTUS is NOT a legitimate target or a go-between flunky. CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #218
She was speaking at a political fundraiser muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #263
What about this? oberliner Jun 2013 #266
Neither was Laura Bush oberliner Jun 2013 #269
Excellent post. n/t Laelth Jun 2013 #363
What if this would have been a gun nut? Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #197
If wishes were horses MattBaggins Jun 2013 #199
What if you suddenly turned into a cheese sandwich? muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #264
I just want to point out that if I turned into a cheese sandwich I'd be delicious AngryAmish Jun 2013 #326
This was a paid fundraiser at someone's home. Beacool Jun 2013 #406
What if frogs had wings? Jamastiene Jun 2013 #435
+1 n/t RKP5637 Jun 2013 #40
"She got right in my face." BeyondGeography Jun 2013 #6
What did she expect? CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #219
Turnabout is fair. riqster Jun 2013 #289
It is fair n/t BeyondGeography Jun 2013 #298
Michelle Obama is definitely NOT somebody I would choose to f*ck with Number23 Jun 2013 #7
That must be against the rules of heckling or something ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2013 #16
Snork. n/t Comrade Grumpy Jun 2013 #213
Welcome to Full Ignore ZRT2209 Jun 2013 #234
Right. You expected to show your ass and get away with it because she'd NEVER respond. nolabear Jun 2013 #22
+1 Blue_Tires Jun 2013 #369
THIS krawhitham Jun 2013 #64
Bravo, Michelle! Whisp Jun 2013 #99
I was thinking the same thing. onpatrol98 Jun 2013 #399
Meanwhile, it's a private fundraiser, they'll probably be a Q & A afterward where she could address JaneyVee Jun 2013 #8
Boo fucking hoo. The most influential woman in the world threatened to walk out... Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #10
Let's review what was accomplished... brooklynite Jun 2013 #15
During Bush One's reign of terror, 4 of my fellow activists purchased Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #36
How'd the Election turn out? brooklynite Jun 2013 #41
Senior Bush lost. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #43
Actually, no he didn't brooklynite Jun 2013 #47
SENIOR. BUSH ONE. THE DAD. THE OLD ONE. LOST TO CLINTON. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #53
Sorry, didn't catch that... brooklynite Jun 2013 #62
You will always opine, even directly after confusing Bushes and pontificating about your Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #376
slow... keep up. b/t nebenaube Jun 2013 #190
Exactly treestar Jun 2013 #286
Bravo! Earth_First Jun 2013 #18
That's what woodchucks do! I'm mad as pancakes! I'm going to create a Whitehouse.gov petition... Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #46
Unlike Bobbie Jo Jun 2013 #294
The audience didn't come to listen to Ms. Sturtz bleat away and interrupt ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2013 #19
exactly MFM008 Jun 2013 #27
Exactly. A private Dem fundraiser that she had been invited too, no less. Number23 Jun 2013 #181
Michelle Obama was not elected to anything; has no political power REP Jun 2013 #25
Yes, I know. That is why I used the word "influential" and not the word "power." Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #39
I don't smoke out of a hat ... REP Jun 2013 #105
I assume you felt the same way 1983law Jun 2013 #210
Was she heckled? Common Sense Party Jun 2013 #214
I remember so. 1983law Jun 2013 #236
When? What happened? Common Sense Party Jun 2013 #311
There's this. 1983law Jun 2013 #318
So you are implying that we should set today's standards from assisnine past actions? Sheepshank Jun 2013 #368
"Was Ms Obama being a lady?" What the HELL do you mean by THAT? As opposed to a WHAT??? DevonRex Jun 2013 #28
Many DUers were praising her husband for being such a gentleman for addressing Medea... Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #42
He was being The President - Obama style. nt DevonRex Jun 2013 #52
Was she too uppity? Did she not know her place well enough? REP Jun 2013 #115
No. The protester wasn't uppity enough. The protester should have accepted Michelle's Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #135
Yes, Mrs. Obama was being a lady. blue neen Jun 2013 #29
We had a thread about this. "Ladylike" and "being a lady" are unacceptable terms here. Common Sense Party Jun 2013 #215
^^good catch^^ Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #308
This is how it will seem to many people MattBaggins Jun 2013 #37
You mean the lazy RW-enabling MSM? They'll be all over it CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #238
so, how exactly does one handle it hopemountain Jun 2013 #486
Bill Clinton was the best at it. MattBaggins Jun 2013 #488
how so? hopemountain Jun 2013 #490
No MattBaggins Jun 2013 #491
How is she the most influential woman in the world? BainsBane Jun 2013 #54
Married to the president. I am aware of women heads of state. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #72
Michelle doesn't control an empire BainsBane Jun 2013 #78
She has the ear of the emperer. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #107
Emperor? leftynyc Jun 2013 #295
Because she is the wife and chattel of her husband jberryhill Jun 2013 #164
That's it exactly. "Chattel". Never thought I'd see it on a site filled with Feminists. Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #403
Pomp and circumstance is not real power. Jennicut Jun 2013 #93
Pomp and circumstance is afforded to those who can curry favor. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #97
The Presidency does not "control an empire." treestar Jun 2013 #288
Angela Merkel controls the economic fate of Europe. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #343
They never heard of Angela Merkel, I guess. Jennicut Jun 2013 #85
Yes, that's a far better choice. BainsBane Jun 2013 #88
That's twice today davidpdx Jun 2013 #275
You know I did a search BainsBane Jun 2013 #471
Could be davidpdx Jun 2013 #498
She acted like a bully and should be ashamed FreeState Jun 2013 #61
This. +1 Apophis Jun 2013 #95
Was she being a lady? one_voice Jun 2013 #103
Apparently a lady doesn't stand up for herself. DevonRex Jun 2013 #189
and she must be an "elegant" one at that! grrrrr. n.t hopemountain Jun 2013 #489
"Was Ms Obama being a lady?" Is that caucasian speak for uppity? Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #130
Was it caucasian talk for calling Obama a gentleman when dealing with Medea Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #137
His destruction of Medea was "Presidential". What elected office does Michelle hold? Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #147
She was speaking at a fundraiser for her "Presidential" and gentlemanly Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #192
Yes, he is a gentleman. Whisp Jun 2013 #198
So no "elective" office? You sound as ridiculous as ever. I asked you a.... Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #220
What about Laura Bush? oberliner Jun 2013 #268
Excuse me, but was anyone arrested at the Michelle Obama event? You'll note that I did not.... Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #389
My point is that Laura wasn't an elected official either oberliner Jun 2013 #421
if you don't know the history of the inequality between men and women Whisp Jun 2013 #350
what?! them's fightin' woids.. PUT UP YER DUKES11!11!1 dionysus Jun 2013 #377
Dion, where've you been? I haven't seen you in forever. Great to see you. Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #387
A bit harsh 1983law Jun 2013 #212
"Was Ms Obama being a lady?" CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #221
"because a commoner challenged her" Summer Hathaway Jun 2013 #249
Ms Obama doesn't need to be a 'lady' and put up geek tragedy Jun 2013 #300
Clearly, the couple handles hecklers differently. President Obama is calm (to a fault IMO) apples and oranges Jun 2013 #374
Tomorrow on FOX: Michelle rude to lesbian proud2BlibKansan Jun 2013 #20
Ha! So true! n/t Inkfreak Jun 2013 #30
Reminds me of Ted Turner harrassing Madeline Albright when she was SoS. ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2013 #21
Apparently, Michelle Obama is not as patient as her husband. Brigid Jun 2013 #23
Good for her!!! That's exactly how you should deal with a heckler! Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #24
Shouting and interrupting are not the way auntsue Jun 2013 #26
that was eye opening. nt boilerbabe Jun 2013 #31
"Yet another hero confronts the tyrants!!!!" alcibiades_mystery Jun 2013 #32
We have certainly entered The Twilight Zone Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #310
sounds like Michelle has a huge chip on her shoulder quinnox Jun 2013 #38
No, she's a mother shawn703 Jun 2013 #44
So people wanting equality dbackjon Jun 2013 #408
Nope shawn703 Jun 2013 #412
Do you like it when people interrupt you? Brigid Jun 2013 #45
Figures BainsBane Jun 2013 #48
yep, not a worshipper of the First Lady. I know, I don't know my place (like that protester) quinnox Jun 2013 #60
Taking shots at the First Lady is just plain low BainsBane Jun 2013 #67
you have a strange definition of taking shots then quinnox Jun 2013 #75
A president is very different from a First Lady BainsBane Jun 2013 #98
I take it you would treat any of us the same? treestar Jun 2013 #287
Hecklers are interesting. Jennicut Jun 2013 #57
Not having your civil rights isnt something worthy of heckling about FreeState Jun 2013 #66
Civil rights are not really going to change through a First Lady. Jennicut Jun 2013 #129
They are trying to get Obama FreeState Jun 2013 #133
And wives are merely proxies for their husbands jberryhill Jun 2013 #169
Very rudely heckling FLOTUS at a private function is assholish BuddhaGirl Jun 2013 #143
+1 FreeState Jun 2013 #63
Funny. Right wingers say the same bullshit about her having a "chip on her shoulder" Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #77
well, I've always known you were a BOG-er type, where whiffs of any criticism of the Obamas are quinnox Jun 2013 #87
You even went after Sasha Obama Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #182
oh bullshit, but go ahead and keep making shit up quinnox Jun 2013 #247
You nailed the progression down Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #313
+1 about winger memes uponit7771 Jun 2013 #96
Yep and yep. Number23 Jun 2013 #179
Spot f%@king on. great white snark Jun 2013 #383
You write for Fox don't you? one_voice Jun 2013 #106
nope, just favor the protester over those in power quinnox Jun 2013 #114
Where did I say that the protester had a chip on their shoulder? one_voice Jun 2013 #138
fine, since you answered, I will answer quinnox Jun 2013 #144
Welcome to Full Ignore - good luck advocating from there ZRT2209 Jun 2013 #235
what the fuck ever quinnox Jun 2013 #242
So why wouldn't it be OK if the protestor was a right winger treestar Jun 2013 #290
So you believe in silencing all voices, regardless of the content or cause? LonePirate Jun 2013 #299
That's this person's only chance? treestar Jun 2013 #462
How many of those opportunities involve speaking directly to the First Lady? LonePirate Jun 2013 #463
who the fuck cares that you 'never liked her in the first place.' Whisp Jun 2013 #112
wow, so does it shock you that not everyone is in love with Michelle? quinnox Jun 2013 #125
quinnox finds Sasha Obama haughty alcibiades_mystery Jun 2013 #126
I know, I should have to go to Gitmo for not being properly adoring of Michelle quinnox Jun 2013 #131
Whatever, superhero alcibiades_mystery Jun 2013 #134
you left out satanist, neo-nazi, serial killer, and quinnox Jun 2013 #139
What are you alcibiades_mystery Jun 2013 #141
Hey, how've you been! jberryhill Jun 2013 #170
OMG treestar Jun 2013 #291
Oh, it's the "uppity" meme again. From you. DevonRex Jun 2013 #191
yup, expected coming from that one JI7 Jun 2013 #211
I AM surprised it came from so many other people, though. DevonRex Jun 2013 #216
This presidency has shone a light in many corners. -nt CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #225
Yeah. It has. Obama might as well DevonRex Jun 2013 #229
Chip fits nicely with "articulate". Pirate Smile Jun 2013 #195
"Never liked her in the first place" CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #222
yea, whatever quinnox Jun 2013 #245
Sure, racist misogynist assholes never liked her. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #303
Just call her an uppity and surly Negress while geek tragedy Jun 2013 #301
your bitter tears are nectar to my soul.... dionysus Jun 2013 #358
No. 'Do you know who I am' was Resse Witherspoon. Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #385
Have to treat people who act like children like they are children shawn703 Jun 2013 #49
Is that why the straight community discriminates against gay people so brutally? Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #388
What are you going on about now? shawn703 Jun 2013 #392
Not as classy as her husband! n-t Logical Jun 2013 #50
Welcome to Full Ignore - good luck advocating from there ZRT2209 Jun 2013 #237
Put me on full ignore too please... Democracyinkind Jun 2013 #260
LOL Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #314
LOL, think I give a crap? n-t Logical Jun 2013 #475
Gotta love this CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #240
Nothing wrong with me thinking she handled it wrong. And Obama handles it right. n-t Logical Jun 2013 #476
The First Lady is a ceremonial position BainsBane Jun 2013 #51
She also takes her share of racist crap from the media. ucrdem Jun 2013 #68
If she doesn't want the heat from politics then she needs to stop making political speeches TheKentuckian Jun 2013 #366
A fundraiser at a private home BainsBane Jun 2013 #425
Very strange that someone would heckle the First Lady. Even stranger that people would support that BenzoDia Jun 2013 #59
Even stranger that peope dont support gay rights on a democratic board FreeState Jun 2013 #69
Heckling the first lady is a poor way of supporting gay rights. BenzoDia Jun 2013 #71
So you disagree with how the civil rights in the past were pushed FreeState Jun 2013 #74
Terrible straw man argument. BenzoDia Jun 2013 #100
i can't think of any similar instance, actually. where the first lady was heckled at a private HiPointDem Jun 2013 #272
You might as well heckle Martha Stewart or Emeril Lagasse over that BainsBane Jun 2013 #73
You know she wasnt talking about a bill right? FreeState Jun 2013 #79
Okay, Michelle doesn't issue executive orders BainsBane Jun 2013 #81
Her Husband does n/t FreeState Jun 2013 #83
If the point is to persuade her to talk to her husband BainsBane Jun 2013 #84
So when this was done in the 60s it was great FreeState Jun 2013 #92
I don't recall any civil rights activist heckling First Ladies BainsBane Jun 2013 #101
Obama's not going to sign anything right now cause the SCOTUS is currently deciding the DOMA case nt Tx4obama Jun 2013 #207
Even stranger that people HERE would support that. ucrdem Jun 2013 #76
why not? we supported anyone who heckled bush. La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2013 #110
Heckling George is fine. Heckling Laura is not. BenzoDia Jun 2013 #116
did you make this rule up today? because i am pretty sure deriding laura and the twins La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2013 #119
If people did that, they're being petty. And it's not any less so than hecking the current First La BenzoDia Jun 2013 #128
Yes and no MattBaggins Jun 2013 #154
Michelle Obama is not Bush. ucrdem Jun 2013 #117
yes it does. its not the heckling you are against. its the heckling of a democrat La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2013 #122
Glad I cleared that up for you then. Next lesson: Michelle is not Barack. n/t ucrdem Jun 2013 #132
Bush was POTUS, signer/vetoer of legislation. CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #224
i wonder how many find heckling outrageous when republicans are in office La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2013 #108
Not a D vs R thing. It'd be just as tacky to heckle Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan. nt BenzoDia Jun 2013 #113
please, people here were ecstatic when someone threw the shoe at bush La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2013 #118
If people here cheered someone throwing a shoe at Laura, I'd say they're being tacky. BenzoDia Jun 2013 #120
So...you can't differentiate between Laura Bush and George Bush? (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #174
I would not in a million years have heckled President Nixon or Eisenhower. graham4anything Jun 2013 #257
+1 Jamaal510 Jun 2013 #485
Woman arrested after interrupting Laura Bush speech oberliner Jun 2013 #270
Beating up on a former President's wife doesn't make it okay to do it to a current President's wife. BenzoDia Jun 2013 #495
I wish politicians had the freedom to handle these classless assholes like comedians do. Pragdem Jun 2013 #65
They do have that freedom MattBaggins Jun 2013 #157
aww her speech was interrupted. such a travesty. that woman can get fired in 37 states for being gay La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2013 #70
And Obama can do exactly nothing to stop that. jeff47 Jun 2013 #175
But an executive order would protect people for the next 3 and a half years at minimum muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #271
No, it wouldn't. jeff47 Jun 2013 #364
No, it is about federal contractors muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #384
It's useless unless you can show significant numbers being victims of discrimination. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #393
Gosh, this took all of one google search: muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #395
Gosh, 0 of those would be protected by an Executive Order. jeff47 Jun 2013 #397
Kathleen works at a university muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #402
No, the EO would cover people working for the executive branch. jeff47 Jun 2013 #419
No, federal contractors. From the WP article: muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #427
Not what I'm arguing. But thanks for continuing the battles against straw men. jeff47 Jun 2013 #444
You are requesting a strawman muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #445
For it to do any good, you'd have to show that some discrimination has happened. jeff47 Jun 2013 #446
I have given an example - the university muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #454
Welcome to Full Ignore - Good luck advocating from there!!!! ZRT2209 Jun 2013 #239
Your post is pretty ridiculous. Sheldon Cooper Jun 2013 #316
ohh some unknown person on the internet is ignoring me La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2013 #321
^^this^^ Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #315
Not much of a strategy there. CBHagman Jun 2013 #89
Because this straggly of heckling anyone close to the president FreeState Jun 2013 #127
I would think more because the supreme court is working on a DOMA ruling bhikkhu Jun 2013 #178
"how stupid that would be"? Why would it be 'stupid' at all? muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #274
No, the precedent would be the president putting himself above the supreme court bhikkhu Jun 2013 #349
DOMA is about marriage; this is about employment discrimination muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #382
The supreme court decision could be broad, or it could be narrow bhikkhu Jun 2013 #390
Are you claiming there are laws that state "discrimination by sexuality must be allowed"? muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #394
Hmm, private fundraiser versus a protest to sign an antidiscrimination order. rug Jun 2013 #90
I tell you what, anybody who harasses MY spouse to get ME to do something DevonRex Jun 2013 #204
What gets me about this is why people think POTUS needs influencing CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #243
How nice that you are allowed a spouse! That must be great. Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #396
Great. Harass all of us who have been fighting with you FOR your rights. DevonRex Jun 2013 #413
Does your spouse have the authority to change public policy? rug Jun 2013 #443
Neither does Michelle. DevonRex Jun 2013 #448
Her spouse does. rug Jun 2013 #449
I see that bigoted language is okay DevonRex Jun 2013 #450
Do you? Pray tell, show it to me. rug Jun 2013 #456
I raised valid points about how Michelle is being talked about HERE. You minimized it DevonRex Jun 2013 #460
some think that their issue is the most important one in the world. demosincebirth Jun 2013 #109
LOL. La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2013 #111
+10000000 FreeState Jun 2013 #136
You're not making sense nt. demosincebirth Jun 2013 #155
She is making perfect sense to those that value equality dbackjon Jun 2013 #461
Oh my, another " holier than thou" group member. demosincebirth Jun 2013 #484
I wish her Husband would have done the same thing to that "You Lie" guy. BlueStreak Jun 2013 #152
Absolutely perfect. Brigid Jun 2013 #166
I wish she'd direct that anger at Republicans. SunSeeker Jun 2013 #161
+1 ucrdem Jun 2013 #167
People get assassinated at events like this jberryhill Jun 2013 #171
+1000 CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #223
Or protest Republican candidates at the Reagan Library? muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #276
Why wasn't the heckler supporting Bradley Manning? jberryhill Jun 2013 #172
She's not a politician -- she didn't run for office -- she VOLUNTEERS her time and efforts MotherPetrie Jun 2013 #176
Yes. Thank you for pointing that out. ucrdem Jun 2013 #186
MotherP, DevonRex Jun 2013 #193
she should stay away from "political" fundraisers then if she is above it all. nt boilerbabe Jun 2013 #201
Yet another "uppity" reference. DevonRex Jun 2013 #206
That's a truly shitty post from you muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #277
Oh no. No way. Michelle stuck up for herself. Period. In this thread she has been called DevonRex Jun 2013 #416
Then you're calling the wrong DUer a racist, aren't you? muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #424
No I am not making DevonRex Jun 2013 #428
Again, you need to read the posts before you make stupid, offensive remarks about them muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #430
In a VERY close setting in a private home. No cameras. No DevonRex Jun 2013 #437
It was a fundraising speech for the DNC; not about 'hungry children' muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #440
I say that calling her unladylike, classless, graceless, above it all, are buzzwords. nt DevonRex Jun 2013 #441
This was a stupid fucking move by the protester & the wrong target. Pirate Smile Jun 2013 #194
I am not a violent person.. HipChick Jun 2013 #196
Yep skeewee08 Jun 2013 #335
Obama is going to have a harder time signing it now because it will look like he caved to a heckler. Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2013 #200
When has caving ever bothered him? n/t leftstreet Jun 2013 #205
+1000 forestpath Jun 2013 #228
violates terms of service - alerting ZRT2209 Jun 2013 #248
Be careful... Bobbie Jo Jun 2013 #453
I think this violates DU rules. I'm alerting this to the mods. ZRT2209 Jun 2013 #246
I came to a fantastic decision after seeing this latest BS from you. Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #317
Where were you when Kucinich was running? Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2013 #339
Obama's not going to sign anything right now cause the SCOTUS is currently deciding the DOMA case nt Tx4obama Jun 2013 #208
DOMA is about marriage, not employment discrimination by federal contractors muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #278
We know how that will go.... Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2013 #345
Elvis, Justin, etc. What I see here, is more of the same. TheMadMonk Jun 2013 #209
Is there video of this altercation? Common Sense Party Jun 2013 #217
At least she didn't get a pump thrown at her rightsideout Jun 2013 #226
I don't have a problem with the protest. When it comes to forestpath Jun 2013 #227
"but has frequently chickened out in the most egregious ways when it comes to upholding them." Summer Hathaway Jun 2013 #251
Habeas corpus. Due process. MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 #292
This message was self-deleted by its author Summer Hathaway Jun 2013 #439
You MUST be joking. Obama's DOJ defended DOMA for years. forestpath Jun 2013 #494
You do understand Summer Hathaway Jun 2013 #496
hadn't realized this was in a private home. a little different situation than a public one. pretty HiPointDem Jun 2013 #241
What if there was no Q&A or schmooze time? LonePirate Jun 2013 #305
what if she is a space alien? and other hypotheticals. you pay for a private session because HiPointDem Jun 2013 #429
There is never a guarantee of access LonePirate Jun 2013 #432
yeah, i'm sure sturtz was in danger of being murdered by the first lady. there's no comparison HiPointDem Jun 2013 #436
Michelle Obama was a guest and the protester had her say.. Cha Jun 2013 #250
here's what i think he said: ucrdem Jun 2013 #252
Lol, Cha Jun 2013 #253
How long do you realistically think it will take for ENDA to pass? muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #280
But it would suck later.... Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2013 #328
I can't tell someone to "sit down and shut up" when it's their rights concerned muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #380
They can in an off-year election - particularly given their base Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2013 #438
37 Senators and 73% of the public support it; it is not a 'bomb' muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #442
IF it's not legislation and only an EO then the next GOP President could over turn it w/ another EO. Tx4obama Jun 2013 #466
Passing an EO does not preclude passing a law muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #469
+1000 n/t Tx4obama Jun 2013 #465
Michelle Obama 46 for President 2024, 2028 after Hillary 45 graham4anything Jun 2013 #254
GOOD for Michelle! nt Raine Jun 2013 #256
Yahoo reports this, and their usual neanderthal regressives grunt in unison, bones in hand: HughBeaumont Jun 2013 #259
"Michelle Stares down Protester".. rofl Cha Jun 2013 #261
I wonder what this "liberalism religion" is? HughBeaumont Jun 2013 #312
Both that group and Code Pink have been rude to to the Obamas davidpdx Jun 2013 #281
So you think rights are earned by quiet subservience? Constitution says otherwise. Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #398
The constitution says nothing about screaming at people like children davidpdx Jun 2013 #499
I was kicked out of another thread about this and want to clear something up... Pragdem Jun 2013 #296
A word to the wise, Pragdem... CTyankee Jun 2013 #306
I will heed that advice. Pragdem Jun 2013 #327
Yep, ya never know around here... CTyankee Jun 2013 #329
no you won't, too late quinnox Jun 2013 #464
Well I see the bus has gotten much bigger. William769 Jun 2013 #302
I applaud the courage of anyone using civil disobedience in support of civil rights. LonePirate Jun 2013 #309
This message was self-deleted by its author JaneyVee Jun 2013 #365
Let's just keep discriminating against millions of people and pretending that we don't is Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #391
You can fight discrimination in much more effective ways than childish rudeness. phleshdef Jun 2013 #405
Agreed dbackjon Jun 2013 #410
FLOTUS was a boss last night. politicasista Jun 2013 #371
Well, I am getting tired of being a second class citizen dbackjon Jun 2013 #411
I am tired of seeing people attacking potential allies, Jamaal510 Jun 2013 #487
I don't get heckling KingFlorez Jun 2013 #372
Bottom line: This was fucking rude. Blue_Roses Jun 2013 #375
I don't really have a problem with the protester or Obamas actions. NCTraveler Jun 2013 #386
See Cha's excerpt in Comment #250 regarding what WH said just hours before Michelle's speech. n/t Tx4obama Jun 2013 #468
Uh, "in your face" is how it's done. Don't be shocked... Eleanors38 Jun 2013 #407
Uh, "in your face" is not how it's done by all, and that style frequently generates nasty responses. whathehell Jun 2013 #417
Sounds like you want to get in on something. Eleanors38 Jun 2013 #426
I like Michelle Obama too and follow her example too. whathehell Jun 2013 #452
I think we are in basic agreement. Public communication can be touchy. Eleanors38 Jun 2013 #467
Yes, I think so, too. whathehell Jun 2013 #483
A question to those who supports Sturtz's heckling of Mrs. Obama Bodhi BloodWave Jun 2013 #409
Just listened to the audio apples and oranges Jun 2013 #423
She should have taken the mic if she had something to say. bravenak Jun 2013 #431
That was a bit petulant on the First Lady's part Prism Jun 2013 #434
you know i am not at all upset with her. she did what most people do when they get unnerved La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2013 #492
Yeah, her reaction doesn't phase me. Prism Jun 2013 #501
yeah esp because we seem to lack values when it comes to venerating our leaders La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2013 #502
... Chakab Jul 2015 #512
 

Pragdem

(233 posts)
1. Sick of people treating the first couple like garbage.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:46 PM
Jun 2013

People that shout over others deserve nothing but being dragged to the nearest exit and having the door slammed in their face.

FreeState

(10,572 posts)
82. Her husband can sign an executive order today for federal employees
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:26 PM
Jun 2013

Have you called and asked him too?

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
91. Then Ms Sturtz should take it up with him.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:29 PM
Jun 2013

Heckling Michelle is way out of line.

p.s. next time on the phone with BO I'll mention it.

FreeState

(10,572 posts)
94. Please do mention it
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:31 PM
Jun 2013

as for protesting the way it was done tonight and in the 60s with the civil rights movement, why is it wrong now but was perfectly fine in the past with civil rights?

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
104. I don't remember any first lady from the 60s, 70s or 80s
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:36 PM
Jun 2013

taking shit from hecklers. Rosalyn Carter wasn't so popular but nobody publicly harassed her that I recall. Hillary, possibly, but Michelle is not Hillary and BO is not Bill. Babs, hell no. So why is it okay to heckle Michelle?

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
140. Stumping is a different issue. This was an ambush
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:54 PM
Jun 2013

at a "private" fundraiser, not a public appearance, though evidently media were at the ready. A gotcha IOW and a really ugly one.

AngryOldDem

(14,061 posts)
265. Ambush? Really?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:11 AM
Jun 2013

Sorry, not much sympathy for Mrs. Obama here. Hecklers are part and parcel of political events, and you learn to deal with them. Obama has done so masterfully. Others have just stopped, waited for security to escort the assholes out, and continued on with the speech.

You don't give disruptors one more second of attention that they do not deserve, and you definitely don't let them control your message and let them have the final say, no matter what they're yelling about, because that is **all** that's remembered at the end of the day. Mrs. Obama should know better.

Leaving in a huff is embarrassing, and just emboldens others to see how far they can push her at her next event. She needs to learn to deal.


ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
334. Wait for what security?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:55 AM
Jun 2013

Maybe you haven't noticed but the Obamas don't seem to have any. If Michelle didn't shut her down that heckler would still be yacking.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
497. And we certainly dont want people's rights to interfere with a hoity toity fund raiser.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 12:14 AM
Jun 2013

The gay community came out in numbers in 2007 to support "hope and change". Were they disappointed. Pres Barack Obama could have easily ended the discrimination of gay federal workers. But he didnt. I can understand the disappointment of the gay community. I have friends that are directly affected. Knowing what they have gone thru for the last 5 years lessens the concern for Ms. Obama's embarrassment. When there is a gross injustice, somehow I have a hard time blaming the protestor.

Response to FreeState (Reply #123)

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
163. That's because things are getting desperate. 50% of the country is in poverty and
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:14 AM
Jun 2013

Pres Obama nominates Penny Pritzker. His version of Mit Romney. Apparently he has no clue.

But your response is for the down trodden to be polite. Children are going to bed hungry in our country and you worry about this. Your priorities are misplaced.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
173. This lady paid $500 to stab Michelle in the back
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:21 AM
Jun 2013

so poverty is not an issue here, and neither is Penny Pritzker, and I think you well know it.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
177. President Obama is a member in good standing of the 1% club. You hope he will be nice to you.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:26 AM
Jun 2013

The nomination of Penny Pritzker should shown the most ardent Obama followers that he doesnt support the 99%. He supports the 1% capitalist vultures like Penny Pritzker, Obama's Mit Romney.

There is a class war on and I know it hurts but Pres Obama has sided with Wall Street and the 1%, ala. Penny Pritzker.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
180. President Obama has refrained from bombing Iran.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:30 AM
Jun 2013

He also got ACA passed and initiated an economic recovery that soon even you won't be able to ignore. I'd be satisfied with that but he's done a hell of a lot more too.

p.s. Pritzker appt doesn't mean jack because BO calls the shots or haven't you been paying attention the last 4 years?

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
183. You must be kidding. He nominates people that he doesnt agree with??? He nominated her because
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:37 AM
Jun 2013

she helped him and he wants to return the favor. He has nominated Republican after Republican. But somehow you rationalize that is ok because he has a nice smile. He supports Bush's Patriot Act, domestic spying and indefinite detention. His wealth makes him part of the 1% and he is acting like it.

How do Penny Pritzker and Mit Romney differ??

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
324. And the only difference is what they have labeled themselves? If Romney changed parties
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:03 AM
Jun 2013

today would you embrace him?

Some apparently dont care what Penny has done as long as she calls herself a Democrat.

The Ruling Elite want us to believe the war is between the D's and the R's. After all, that takes no thinking at all. You dont even have to go to civics class. "D's" are good and "R's" are bad. If someone changes their letter from "R" to "D", they automatically become good.

The war is between the Ruling Elite 1% and the rest of us. And there are Democrats that belong to the Ruling Elite.

Some of the 99% want badly to side with the Ruling Authoritarians, hoping for some of that tinkle down, I guess.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
357. So now she knows a little how gays and lesbians feel
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:38 AM
Jun 2013

We get stabbed in the back by Obama, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and here on DU all the FUCKING TIME.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
342. Was this heckler the only person that paid $500 to attend?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:12 AM
Jun 2013

did the rest of the attendees pay $500 to hear a heckler interrupt Michelle, or did they pay to hear Michelle?

The heckler was an ass....and a selfish one at that.

The message was fine, hijacking the venue wasn't.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
338. You think job discrimination is not about poverty? Read and learn, you look daft saying that
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:07 AM
Jun 2013

A coalition of nonprofit organizations has released a comprehensive report detailing ongoing discrimination against LGBT American employees. Titled “A Broken Bargain: Discrimination, Fewer Benefits and More Taxes for LGBT Workers,” the study was helmed by the Center for American Progress, the Movement Advancement Project, and the Human Rights Campaign, which termed it “the most comprehensive report to date about issues faced by LGBT workers.”

The report has determined that among the estimated 5.4 million LGBT workers in 93% of U.S. counties, nearly 2 million leave their positions each year due to workplace discrimination. In addition, these workers are far more likely to be poor. An estimated 21% of LGBT couples have incomes close to the poverty line, compared to 6% of straight couples.

The study also draws attention to the absence of federal protections for LGBT workers and their families, which can still be denied benefits related to health, retirement, and disability in the United States. Under federal law, these employees can still be fired for their sexual orientation and gender identity.
http://www.advocate.com/business/2013/06/04/hrc-study-reveals-ongoing-discrimination-against-lgbt-workers

whathehell

(29,067 posts)
414. Don't be so quick to attack...If you "read and learn", from my post, for starters, you'll see
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:07 PM
Jun 2013

I never SAID there was no relation, but my point was, she wasn't protesting poverty IN GENERAL,

she was protesting discrimination, job and otherwise, against LGBT people, half of whom are WOMEN

by the way, who, gay and straight, have been systematically discriminated against forever.

Beacool

(30,249 posts)
378. What is that supposed to mean, that it was OK to heckle Hillary but not Michelle?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:08 AM
Jun 2013

Hillary has been heckled since forever. She knows how to take it in stride. She even had to use a bulletproof vest on occasion when speaking for healthcare reform back in the 90s.

 

1983law

(213 posts)
203. Exactly.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:10 AM
Jun 2013

Well said and I support your point. Besides, that whole "heckling" is just a walk in the park. Folks need to thicken up the skin a bit

JustAnotherGen

(31,828 posts)
351. +1
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:33 AM
Jun 2013

It's not Michelle Obama's job to do that - I didn't vote for her - and she is NOT an elected official.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
162. You really think it's best for your rights to be at the whim of the President?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:14 AM
Jun 2013

What do you think will happen when a Republican wins the White House? You really think your rights will remain when they are only protected by an executive order?

Stop fighting for nearly useless crap, and put your energy where it belongs: Congress.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
282. +1
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:19 AM
Jun 2013

I am so sick of hearing about the things "Obama could do with the stroke of a pen." Since there are so many things, he can't get to them all. And where a Republican president could undo them "with the stroke of a pen" why make such a big deal of it.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
331. Are you telling the LGBT community to, "Stop fighting for nearly useless crap,"?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:35 AM
Jun 2013

Or did I misunderstand. The President has the power to end this discrimination now, but you tell them to "Stop fighting for nearly useless crap,"? Sure it might go away if a Republican gets the WH, but why would Pres Obama deny these rights. He had the ability in 2008. Just think of the pain that could have been alleviated.

I agree that Congress should be pressured, but there is more than one road.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
370. The president does not have that power.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:54 AM
Jun 2013

The EO only applies to the executive branch of the federal government. An area where the LGBT community is not currently experiencing discrimination - The Obama administration isn't firing people for being gay.

You are doing the eqivalent of attacking the Governor of New York because "gay marriage" is illegal in South Carolina.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
202. Obama's not going to sign anything right now cause the SCOTUS is currently deciding the DOMA case nt
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:09 AM
Jun 2013

WI_DEM

(33,497 posts)
422. Her husband gets no credit even though he has done more for gay rights
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:06 PM
Jun 2013

than all the presidents before him combined.

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)
477. +1
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:47 PM
Jun 2013

Even the radio show host Stephanie Miller has said that (and she happens to be gay herself). Just by Obama being the 1st incumbent president to announce his endorsement of gay rights, for instance, he has done a great deal to help many gays out of the closet. I just got through saying on another thread that so many liberals are quick to blame the wrong people for the lack of progress in this country. They blame Obama for not closing GITMO even though he has tried, and they blame him for unemployment lowering too slowly among other issues, when the blame should be places mainly towards the people on Capitol Hill. They're the ones blocking jobs bills and thwarting efforts to close GITMO. They're the ones who have been hate-mongering against gay people. Far too many liberals seem to forget about the checks-and-balances system and equate a president with a king.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
361. Or trying to discuss with people
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:44 AM
Jun 2013

Who don't give a shit about equality for all Americans


Threads like this expose the bigots, those who value political points over fairness.


You easily make the above list.


I am glad you are ok with discrimination. WHy the hell aren't you a republican?

quakerboy

(13,920 posts)
187. many states?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:40 AM
Jun 2013

Last time I looked at Wikipedia, it was 12 states. Approximately 25%.

And it is explicitly banned in 28 states.


So... your portrayal is not exactly accurate.

TalkingDog

(9,001 posts)
332. In NC it's not recognized as legal. Hell even my Civil Union was nullified and I'm straight.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:51 AM
Jun 2013

Bad example.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
341. Hilarious. No marriage under Federal law, tax law, immigration law, Social Security law
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:11 AM
Jun 2013

In 29 States it is perfectly legal to discriminate in housing or employment against LGBT people and there is no Federal Law to prevent is.
You sound very uninformed, and yet typical of the straight community.

Response to Zoeisright (Reply #146)

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
325. Do you think his marches interrupted anything?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:06 AM
Jun 2013

Did King do private speeches for the hyperwealthy? Or was he out there sweating, getting abused and arrested?

rbixby

(1,140 posts)
333. He didn't, but he also didn't go and interrupt JFK making speeches
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:54 AM
Jun 2013

I'm just saying that there's a respectful form of civil disobedience, and then there's the way that just makes you look like an asshole.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
344. Gee, how are these individuals being compared to Martin?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:15 AM
Jun 2013

To pretend there was no civil disobedience during those times is absurd. Compare leadership to leadership.
Being happy to continue legal discrimination against minorities makes the entire straight community look less than excellent and far from decent.

rbixby

(1,140 posts)
352. Aside from the disrespect here, the other issue is with SCOTUS
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:33 AM
Jun 2013

It would be unwise for the president to make any changes until after the supreme court rules on DOMA.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
353. Interesting, you are enraged that this heckler is not viewed as the same as MLK
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:34 AM
Jun 2013

To try and draw a parallel between an organized march vs. the sudden appearance of a heckler at a paid fundraiser, is hillarious.

And without too much brain power, it pretty easy to see that the joint effort of thousands, of tens of thousands of individuals coming together to promote one unified messages. The power that one person, MLK has to bring those kinds of numbers together in an oprganized march (trust me this wasnt a spur of the moment gathering), vs, one heckler assuming all those that paid $500 for a ticket are there to listen to them instead of the speaker on the agenda.....you really don't see the difference?

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
479. What the hell are you talking about? My point is that this woman is NOT counterpart
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:09 PM
Jun 2013

to a great leader, that to suggest a comparison is a bunch of bullshit. How you got the opposite out of that I have no idea. The proper comparison would be to other regular people and things they did in terms of civil disobedience. That is what I said.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
506. You were very nasty while also dead wrong.
Sat Jun 15, 2013, 11:33 AM
Jun 2013

Short apology for that blizzard of verbiage from bullshit city. But hey, all you wanted to do was ring that bell.

Response to rbixby (Reply #333)

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
356. You really don't see the difference?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:37 AM
Jun 2013

I think you are simply yanking our collective chains. One of the most disingenious statements you have made today. Here is the difference:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2949617

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
504. Did you notice that posts #146 and #150 were both rude yet only one got
Sat Jun 8, 2013, 02:21 PM
Jun 2013

hidden. The post that supported the First Lady got to stay while the other post got hidden. Just sayin.

hopemountain

(3,919 posts)
188. well, i'm a "minority"
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:40 AM
Jun 2013

but please don't do me any favors and scream for me. screaming at michele obama is rude. disrespect does not win friends or get someone to hear you. on the contrary, it repels the very people you want to hear you.

IF i had the money to go to a fundraiser, i would have gotten the first lady's attention by first, being respectful of her as a person. i would have asked the hosts how i could arrange to have my issue/concern heard - a private phone call, or request advice on how to effectively & directly communicate my concerns.

with all individuals, there is a common ground. can you identify it and call upon it's power? save the immaturity, disrespect and anger for the assholes who deserve it when you see THEM - getting people on your side does not happen when you shove it down their throats.

sure, you got attention. what did it accomplish? alienation. the very thing you are trying to overcome.


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #146)

LuvNewcastle

(16,846 posts)
279. I don't have anyone on ignore, so I'm not sure about
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:08 AM
Jun 2013

this, but are there different stages of ignore? Can you half-ignore someone on DU?

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
293. You can set up so their posts
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:44 AM
Jun 2013

don't show and you can set it so they also can't send you DU mail. That's full ignore.

Capt. Obvious

(9,002 posts)
304. Interesting
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:36 AM
Jun 2013

In response to the quote, "I'm sick of not having my civil rights" you respond with, "welcome to full ignore"

How magnanimous of you.

QC

(26,371 posts)
319. That person is fascinated by his ignore list, like a little boy who just discovered his penis
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:55 AM
Jun 2013

and can't keep his hands off it.

Capt. Obvious

(9,002 posts)
320. I know
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:57 AM
Jun 2013

I didn't know the same phrase would be repeated ad nauseum throughout this thread.

It's annoying the fuck out of me.

His threats of alerting are funny though.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
283. Obama has done more than any previous President
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:20 AM
Jun 2013

And you have plenty of rights. The right to free speech, etc.

mfcorey1

(11,001 posts)
336. Amen!!!! There is a lot of work to be done still but he has made more inroads that all of
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:01 AM
Jun 2013

the previous Presidents. The republicans are waiting for the day that they can undo all of the positive legislation for the LGBT community. Hopefully the next president will be a Democrat who will continue the work. I think that he gets little credit for anything that he has advocated and actually done. If we erase the thing for the LGBT community that has happened under this administration, it would be damaging.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
337. Wow. We have plenty of rights? But you have more and that's God's will?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:02 AM
Jun 2013

Unreal to see this open bigotry on DU. This person thinks it is ok that there are no Federal laws to prohibit discrimination against LGBT people, thinks the 29 States that allow discrimination in employment and housing show that LGBT people have 'plenty of rights'. No right to not be evicted for being gay, but still, plenty of rights.
I am amazed that anyone is ok with this on DU. Plenty of rights, said about a minority group that is fired for existing in most of the nation. Plenty! Can not marry nor file as a household nor jointly, as THIS POSTER CAN.
Plenty of hubris, arrogance, and open contempt for equality is what I see here. Plenty.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
455. I am tired of the exaggeration
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:55 PM
Jun 2013

When you have every other right. And President Obama has done more to make progress than any other president. I don't think gay marriage is the only issue or even the number one issue.

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
509. Since when do we need to rank issues?
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 12:17 AM
Sep 2013

This, one concern at a time BS is just that. It's bull shit. Everyone deserves to be treated equally under the law. You and I, everyone. That's all.

idwiyo

(5,113 posts)
359. This post is one of the most bigoted responses to a post made by a minority DUer
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:39 AM
Jun 2013

(in this case LGBTQ) I have seen on DU so far. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Just in case you decide to self-delete:

you responded to this post:



with this:

QC

(26,371 posts)
381. Sadly, that post is entirely typical, both for that member
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:21 AM
Jun 2013

and for DU discussions of LGBT issues in general.

It's easy to think that maybe things have changed a bit around here, but then comes a thread like this one to remind us that everything is pretty much the same as it ever was, that many, if not most, DUers still believe that LGBT people are just a bunch of impudent pony-demanders who need to sit down and shut up.

idwiyo

(5,113 posts)
400. Please accept my apology for this post. I am ashamed it's here and even more ashamed
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:07 PM
Jun 2013

because you are right.

Again, please accept my apology.





treestar

(82,383 posts)
457. There is nothing bigoted about the fact
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 05:00 PM
Jun 2013

There there is only one right you do not have. And people who give no credit to Obama for what he did already while making as if it is the only issue that matters are just wrong. There's always going to be some new demand. I am a woman and we don't have all our rights all the time, or some are threatened, but this is the US where we can talk about it, protest and I don't go around saying I have no rights. Not when looking at women in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for instance.

If I am a bigot for caring about other issues, then fine. I don't think gay marriage is the only civil rights issue there is. Or the only issue that matters. And there is free speech. And the rest of the bill of rights. You should be ashamed for not caring about anyone or anything else.

idwiyo

(5,113 posts)
470. ONE right LGBTQ minority doesn't have? ONE right? Are you serious? How can one be so ignorant
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:11 PM
Jun 2013

and dismissive about LGBTQ minority rights AND claim they are a Democrat is absolutely beyond me.

Never mind you don't even know what this particular incident was about because according to you, right to marry is the ONLY right LGBTQ minority doesn't have in US.

Your bigotry toward LGBTQ minority became even more clear after this statement (capitalisation is mine for clarity):

there is only one right YOU do not have.


You assumed I am gay because I care about equality? I guess straight person just can't possibly be passionate about minority rights. I am not going to buy an explanation that it was a mistyping, this is clearly more than that. With that statement you draw a line between 'us' and 'them'. If this is not bigotry, I don't know what is.

It IS bigotry to say to a member of severely disadvantaged minority 'shut up and be happy with what you have'. You only dare to say it because this is about rights LGBTQ minority doesn't have. You wouldn't dare to say it if this was race related issue.

I dare you to post 'you should be happy you have a right to abortion at all' in the next OP that talks about yet another attempt to take that right away. I will be waiting.

No wonder you have such a twisted idea what Universal Human Rights are all about. I don't have a reason to be ashamed because I believe EVERYONE has the right to be treated equally, to have an affordable housing, to have means to make a living, to have a right to Bodily Integrity, right to free education, right to free Healthcare. Those are just few of the Universal Human Rights, there are more.


P.S. I can't believe I was told I should be ASHAMED because I care about Universal Human Rights. On DU, of all places.


yardwork

(61,622 posts)
472. I wasn't going to post in these threads but your post has moved me to respond.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:03 PM
Jun 2013

First of all, I'm a woman too, as well as being gay. So I'm affected by the "war on women" just as much as you are. I mention this because there seems to be a misconception that all gay folks are men. This puzzles me. Maybe you never heard of lesbians. I'm one.

Second, we lack a whole bunch more rights than just one. I can be fired just for saying that I'm gay. Please let that sink in. I'll repeat. I can be fired just for saying that I'm gay.

Also, I can be kicked out of my apartment complex just for saying that I'm gay. Apparently you didn't know that. It's true.

Furthermore, there are thousands of other mean things that people can do to me just because I'm gay that they aren't allowed to do to any other minority groups. You know all those laws and statutes that guarantee "equal rights" to people and list the many ways in which they can't be discriminated again? Well, apparently you never noticed this but being gay isn't included in most of those laws and statutes, certainly not in my state. So it's perfectly legal for people to discriminate against me just for being gay.

yardwork

(61,622 posts)
480. I want to thank you for your wonderful responses!
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:17 PM
Jun 2013

I really appreciate it. More importantly, hundreds and perhaps thousands of people reading but not posting on DU - many of them young people, teenagers who are gay - are reading your posts and maybe feeling just a little bit of hope.

You'll never know if you saved a life today. Very possibly so.

idwiyo

(5,113 posts)
493. You and QC made me cry today. This shouldn't be happening, the bigotry I mean.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:24 PM
Jun 2013

Definitely not here on DU, and most definitely not IRL.

There is nothing more important than equality for all, without damn tags attached to it. There is no need to decide what should be done first, it's perfectly realistic to do more then one thing at once.

This is NOT 'gay rights' issue. It affects ALL of us., one way or another. This is Universal Human Rights issue - some of us have more rights and some of us have less rights and there is no reason and no excuse whatsoever for it. It's that simple. At least it is for me.





William769

(55,147 posts)
473. Care to elaborate on which rights you don't have?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:18 PM
Jun 2013

I'll match you easily.

LGBT people are up to over 1400 rights denied.

Come on inquiring minds want to know!

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
481. You are a bigot by definition if you only care about other issues
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:23 PM
Jun 2013

Or if you favor one over another.

dsc

(52,162 posts)
510. that is a flat out lie
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 05:29 PM
Sep 2013

Gays can be fired, simply for either being gay or merely perceived to be gay, in nearly 3/5 of states, including such places as Texas (2), Florida (4), Pennsylvania (6), Ohio (8), Michigan (10), Georgia (11), NC (12), VA (13). But we have all our rights.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
362. How many rights do I need
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:48 AM
Jun 2013

And can I have some of yours?


FUCKING INCREDIBLE.


So we should be happy with 1/2 rights and just shut the fuck up?

 

adigal

(7,581 posts)
418. Their panties are all in a bunch because we cannot criticize the Obamas
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:23 PM
Jun 2013

Not when MO acts like a child, threatening to take her ball and go home.

Not when President Obama drops drones on innocent children.

THERE WILL BE NO CRITICISM OF DEMOCRATS HERE. EVER!!!!

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)
478. Nobody is saying that people can't criticize Obama,
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:58 PM
Jun 2013

but it goes too far when people start acting like he is some king who can disobey the checks-and-balances system and just do anything without Congress's approval.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
459. So you are saying you are ok with Discrimination?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 05:11 PM
Jun 2013

That gays should just shut the fuck up because we have gained a few rights?


theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
508. And you obviously have the right to be totally insulting
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:59 PM
Sep 2013

Do you even realize how bigoted and insulting that post was? Jeezus.

rbixby

(1,140 posts)
307. I doubt a blatant showing of disrespect is going to help that cause
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:39 AM
Jun 2013

Also, see my post on this thread below.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
367. You mean the blatant disrespect Bigots are showing GLBT posters here on DU
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:51 AM
Jun 2013

Or the blatant disrespect Obama and his fellow bigots show GLBTs all the time.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
354. I am sick of being treated as a second class citizen
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:35 AM
Jun 2013

And having people LIKE YOU defend bigotry


fUCK THAT

MattBaggins

(7,904 posts)
34. Hell Yeah
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:47 PM
Jun 2013

I adore Michelle, but I also have a huge place in my heart for civil disobedience and protesters.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
346. Dear heart, your community has had the LGBT community on full ignore for years now
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:18 AM
Jun 2013

You keep repeating the obvious, as if anyone would care that you do what you always have done, avoid facts and brag about it.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
297. I'm sure all the others that also paid
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:02 AM
Jun 2013

their money to hear Mrs. Obama speak would have been thrilled to have their night ruined by this woman who was shouting down a person with no power to do anything.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
347. exactly!!!
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:20 AM
Jun 2013

so many assume the heckler "gets" to do this because she paid for a $500 ticket. Well, if I had been one of the other participants I would have been pissed if all my $500 bought was a surprise-time listening to a heckler with a personal agenda.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
17. As if each & every person is supposed to work on each & every issue.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:26 PM
Jun 2013

Yes. For an activist, at one specific point in time, "their" issue is the only one on the plate.

Their are 8 "issues" that I currently actively involved in. In a few of them, there is some coalition cross over in a case by case basis. BUT, if I am a partner in one focused action over any one of those 8, I'm not going to bring up the others.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
244. i think the point the other poster brought up is correct though. this event was in a private
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:56 AM
Jun 2013

home. it wasn't a public space where you're drawing public attention to your cause by violating the normal rules of politeness, or demonstrating that there's a constituency for your cause by gathering a lot of people to violate the rules.

i don't see how this one individual doing this in a private home achieves anything except alienating the person she's trying to win over. the other poster mentioned alternatives, like calling the host & asking about face time. i presume the reason for attending such fundraisers is *access*, & i presume there's some access built into the event. so why be rude?

the reason public protesters violate 'civility' is because they *don't have* access like people who can buy into private fundraisers do.

FreeState

(10,572 posts)
58. Civil rights are important and not a pet cause
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:17 PM
Jun 2013

thanks for your support on making it so federal LGBT employees have the civil rights as you do.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
158. Mrs. Obama cannot sign an executive order of any kind
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:10 AM
Jun 2013

And going after her as a proxy for her husband is driven by sexist assumptions.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
262. She was acting as a proxy for her husband by talking at a fundraiser
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:02 AM
Jun 2013

There's nothing sexist about it at all.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
348. treestar, federal benefits are denied to LGBT people
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:24 AM
Jun 2013

You are thinking of a provision for certain (not all) Federal Employees to be able to share benefits with their partners just as other couples do. These are not the 'federal benefits' such as Social Security as we still can not name our partners to get survivor benefits, we still can not file to the IRS as anything but single and on and on and on....
What he did was a positive, but a tiny one, effecting only those in the employee of the government directly. Contractors can still screw us. As can any employer in 29 States, all of whom can simply say 'you are fired for being gay'.
Speaking about very important things without the proper education can seem arrogant and dismissive, even bigoted. Are you incapable of looking up the details of the order you speak of? No. So the 'question format' is an affectation.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
503. Quite the contrary. He could have and should have done that in 2008 but choose not to.
Sat Jun 8, 2013, 02:17 PM
Jun 2013

That's why the heckler was heckling. This discrimination could have been ended 5 years ago. There is no excuse.

It's too bad that the first lady was inconvenienced but under the circumstances, considering the inconvenience for the gay community, I think this action was warranted.

Laurian

(2,593 posts)
4. Good for Mrs. Obama. The disrespect was way out of line.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:55 PM
Jun 2013

This protestor did her cause no good with this behavior toward the first lady.

Laurian

(2,593 posts)
12. I don't believe I said anything about Code Pink. I was only commenting on the
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:17 PM
Jun 2013

situation described in the OP.

brooklynite

(94,587 posts)
13. Not referring to you...
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:22 PM
Jun 2013

...I'm thinking about some other folks here for whom any "progressive" groups deserve praise, no matter their behavior.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
267. What about Laura Bush?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:21 AM
Jun 2013

HAMILTON, N.J. — A woman wearing a T-shirt with the words "President Bush You Killed My Son" and a picture of a soldier killed in Iraq was detained Thursday after she interrupted a campaign speech by First Lady Laura Bush.

Police escorted Sue Niederer, of Hopewell, N.J., from a rally at a firehouse after she demanded to know why her son, Army 1st Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, was killed in Iraq. Dvorin died in February while trying to disarm a bomb.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/17/nation/na-laura17

treestar

(82,383 posts)
458. I recall the time they did something to Condi
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 05:06 PM
Jun 2013

There were plenty of DU posts condemning them for that. I think there are many DUers who would not have thought much of anyone doing the same to Mrs. Bush either.

MattBaggins

(7,904 posts)
35. And if this had been an anti war protester at a Bush speech
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:49 PM
Jun 2013

I appreciate someone who is willing to stand up and make their voices heard.

MattBaggins

(7,904 posts)
86. Michelle is a wonderful woman
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:28 PM
Jun 2013

She is also someone who actively campaigned for her husband and is a de facto public figure. She has her husbands ear and is a legitimate target for someone who wants to give voice to a cause.

She should have used humor and defused the protester with more elegance.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
121. She's a strong woman who handled it her way - not like a Stepford wife.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:45 PM
Jun 2013

You cheer the heckler but Michelle has to STFU? For fucking what?

MattBaggins

(7,904 posts)
145. No problem
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:02 AM
Jun 2013

I really admire the First Lady.

I just also have that rebel streak in me that loves protesters standing up for a good cause.

I have a bit of an issue with the "how DAAAAAARE she do that to Michelle" idea.

CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
218. FLOTUS is NOT a legitimate target or a go-between flunky.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:46 AM
Jun 2013

The protester needs to learn how government works and go after the people who are REALLY standing in the way of progress and passing lasting legislation.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
263. She was speaking at a political fundraiser
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:05 AM
Jun 2013

She was being party-political, and was thus 'a legitimate target'.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
266. What about this?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:20 AM
Jun 2013

HAMILTON, N.J. — A woman wearing a T-shirt with the words "President Bush You Killed My Son" and a picture of a soldier killed in Iraq was detained Thursday after she interrupted a campaign speech by First Lady Laura Bush.

Police escorted Sue Niederer, of Hopewell, N.J., from a rally at a firehouse after she demanded to know why her son, Army 1st Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, was killed in Iraq. Dvorin died in February while trying to disarm a bomb.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/17/nation/na-laura17

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
197. What if this would have been a gun nut?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:53 AM
Jun 2013

How many death threats do you think the President and his wife have received over the last 5 years?

What if this lesbian had been a gun nut?
Or, just deranged?

This could have turned out much, much worse than Michelle just offering her the microphone.

People need to think things out before they post on the internet.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
264. What if you suddenly turned into a cheese sandwich?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:10 AM
Jun 2013

I can't see what your "what ifs" have to do with this at all. You say "people need to think things out before they post on the internet", but I want you to apply that to your own post, because it just seems irrelevant.

Beacool

(30,249 posts)
406. This was a paid fundraiser at someone's home.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:26 PM
Jun 2013

The guests would have been screened before Michelle even showed up.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
435. What if frogs had wings?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:04 PM
Jun 2013

They wouldn't bump their ass when they hop.

Hypothetical scenarios are not what happened. What actually happened is what happened. I doubt very seriously she would have made it into the event if she had a gun. So, why even bring hypothetical scenarios up?

CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
219. What did she expect?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:48 AM
Jun 2013

I love how people think they can throw disrespect at this POTUS and FLOTUS from every corner and have the nerve to be shocked that they don't stand there and take it.

I wonder what she would've done if she'd gotten a Chris Christie-style response?

Number23

(24,544 posts)
7. Michelle Obama is definitely NOT somebody I would choose to f*ck with
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:06 PM
Jun 2013
“She came right down in my face,” Sturtz said. “I was taken aback.”

I have no doubt of that.

nolabear

(41,984 posts)
22. Right. You expected to show your ass and get away with it because she'd NEVER respond.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:30 PM
Jun 2013

Says a lot about your lack of judgment. I appreciate frustration but that will get you nothing, and if you don't know that then you need a clue.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
99. Bravo, Michelle!
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:32 PM
Jun 2013


This is why she would never want to be President. She would have to be in too many faces all the time. She is not patient like her husband. And I love both of them for the opposite characteristics of each.

onpatrol98

(1,989 posts)
399. I was thinking the same thing.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:07 PM
Jun 2013

In that post where Laura Bush was heckled, she was flustered. But, the current first lady was quite blunt, wasn't she?

Essentially, it's me or you, sister...was my take away from that exchange.

I'd say the first lady won the moment. When you can leave a heckler wondering...what the heck just happened? I'd say that was pretty impressive.

Now, I'm not sure if this means hecklers will try again to rattle her. Or, if they'll get the message that this is no ordinary first lady.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
8. Meanwhile, it's a private fundraiser, they'll probably be a Q & A afterward where she could address
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:09 PM
Jun 2013

the issue.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
10. Boo fucking hoo. The most influential woman in the world threatened to walk out...
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:14 PM
Jun 2013

because a commoner challenged her.

A woman who can have any platform at any time to express her views.

There was quite a bit of praise for President Obama when he directly addressed Medea Benjamin when she called him out. People called him a gentleman.

Was Ms Obama being a lady?

The woman should have taken the mic and let Ms Obama walk.

Do you understand?

brooklynite

(94,587 posts)
15. Let's review what was accomplished...
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:25 PM
Jun 2013

.......
......
......
okay, what WAS accomplished?

Was Ms. Obama convinced of the protester's opinion, and will lobby the President?

Were the other's in the audience convinced, and will pressure the groups they give money to?

Will there be an upswell of public support based on reading stories about the protest?

Or did somebody waste $500?

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
36. During Bush One's reign of terror, 4 of my fellow activists purchased
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:51 PM
Jun 2013

$4800, at the last moment, of access to a fundraising event for his reelection coffers and then canceled the transaction before the organizers looked at the books the next day.

We had a successful protest that was national news. And that was the point, bringing the point to the national news. (Well, actually, we thought it would only make local news but we were damn happy that it aired across the nation.)

1) What was accomplished.
You know about it.

2) Was Ms. Obama convinced of the protester's opinion, and will lobby the President?
Ms Obama didn't give a flying fuck. But she wasn't the target.

3) Were the other's in the audience convinced, and will pressure the groups they give money to?
An audience of wealthy swells was not the target.

4) Will there be an upswell of public support based on reading stories about the protest?
Activists don't expect upswells. It is one person at a time.

brooklynite

(94,587 posts)
47. Actually, no he didn't
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:11 PM
Jun 2013

I know it's orthodoxy around here, but as someone who 1) contributed to his campaign, and 2) worked on his voter protection team in Florida, I submit that Kerry lost it all by himself, by running a mediocre campaign that made little if no distinctions between what Bush did and what he would do.

Add to that the fact that neither Senator Kerry, nor any Party or elected official from Ohio challenged the results on the basis of election fraud.

brooklynite

(94,587 posts)
62. Sorry, didn't catch that...
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:18 PM
Jun 2013

...but I'll opine that your protest -- at a Republican fundraiser -- didn'y change any minds on that score.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
376. You will always opine, even directly after confusing Bushes and pontificating about your
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:05 AM
Jun 2013

skills. To be very clear with you, the power to end this sort of event is in the hands of the moderate centrists who keep giving us the cold shoulder. I don't think they are smart or kind enough to figure it out. What if we'd just had debate in Congress about the immigration bill instead of removing the 'gay parts' to please centrists and Republicans?
The answer can not always be 'not now, shut up, we cant'. Not if you want respect in return, you have to give that which you wish to get.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
286. Exactly
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:27 AM
Jun 2013

IMO there are people who get caught up in things to the point where they prefer nothing happen, so they can continue to enjoy being a victim - somehow they get something out of that.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
46. That's what woodchucks do! I'm mad as pancakes! I'm going to create a Whitehouse.gov petition...
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:10 PM
Jun 2013

because, as we know! They always result in action!

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
19. The audience didn't come to listen to Ms. Sturtz bleat away and interrupt
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:27 PM
Jun 2013

They paid to see the First Lady speak. I'm sure that's distasteful to you. But too fucking bad.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
181. Exactly. A private Dem fundraiser that she had been invited too, no less.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:34 AM
Jun 2013

Like you said, an open forum is one thing. This was not an open forum.

REP

(21,691 posts)
25. Michelle Obama was not elected to anything; has no political power
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:38 PM
Jun 2013

Heckling her is not the same as heckling someone who holds elected office and has political power.

Being rude to her is just being rude. Not 'speaking truth to power' or whatever the phrase du jour is.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
39. Yes, I know. That is why I used the word "influential" and not the word "power."
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:59 PM
Jun 2013

So put your phrase du jour in your hat and smoke it.

 

1983law

(213 posts)
318. There's this.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:55 AM
Jun 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x877044

But I really do not want to belabor this. If folks feel that the flotus is untouchable, then so be it. I believe that equal treatment for everyone--heckle one, then all get it and so on. In this thread, I support those using their voice towards what may be the closest they will ever get to the person they believe can effect change. Kids are of course the exception.
 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
368. So you are implying that we should set today's standards from assisnine past actions?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:52 AM
Jun 2013

sounds like shallow GOP thinking to me.

Where are the du masses that think what was done to past FLOTUS's is accepteble and therefore an excuse to do it today to Michelle? Again, pretty shallow assumptions.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
28. "Was Ms Obama being a lady?" What the HELL do you mean by THAT? As opposed to a WHAT???
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:41 PM
Jun 2013

What the FUCK purpose does heckling MICHELLE serve?


Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
42. Many DUers were praising her husband for being such a gentleman for addressing Medea...
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:04 PM
Jun 2013

when she heckled him and now these same DUers will praise Michelle for NOT being a gentleman... er, lady, in a similar situation.

REP

(21,691 posts)
115. Was she too uppity? Did she not know her place well enough?
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:43 PM
Jun 2013

Or was she the wife of a politician being inappropriately solicitated at an event that was not a news conference or policy discussion?

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
135. No. The protester wasn't uppity enough. The protester should have accepted Michelle's
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:51 PM
Jun 2013

offer and let Michelle walk.

blue neen

(12,321 posts)
29. Yes, Mrs. Obama was being a lady.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:41 PM
Jun 2013

"Sturtz said she paid $500 to attend the fundraiser, part of a protest cooked up by the gay rights group GetEqual, which gained notice in Obama’s first term for hectoring him during speeches and demanding more action on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues."

IMHO, Ms. Sturtz was the one lacking manners.

Common Sense Party

(14,139 posts)
215. We had a thread about this. "Ladylike" and "being a lady" are unacceptable terms here.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:40 AM
Jun 2013

Sorry. But those are the rules.

CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
238. You mean the lazy RW-enabling MSM? They'll be all over it
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:35 AM
Jun 2013

Good for Michelle and the negativity spinners can take their usual walk.

hopemountain

(3,919 posts)
486. so, how exactly does one handle it
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:03 PM
Jun 2013

with elegance or elegantly as you mentioned up thread? what would have been elegant to you?





BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
54. How is she the most influential woman in the world?
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:15 PM
Jun 2013

She has no political power. Her role is ceremonial. She is married to the president. Good lord, there are many, many more influential women. There are women as heads of state in Brazil, Argentina, and many nations around the world.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
72. Married to the president. I am aware of women heads of state.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:22 PM
Jun 2013

They do not control an empire.

Anywhere in the world that Michelle visits is created as a state event with pomp and circumstance accorded to a queen.

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
78. Michelle doesn't control an empire
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:24 PM
Jun 2013

That's absurd. She's married to the President. That doesn't give her any political power. She has absolutely nothing to do with this bill.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
107. She has the ear of the emperer.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:40 PM
Jun 2013

Will you also claim that any appeal to Eleanor Roosevelt (and she received oodles) in regards to economic and social justice had no affect? That, even though she had no "power" she had no influence?

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
164. Because she is the wife and chattel of her husband
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:14 AM
Jun 2013

You have to understand that, since she is a wife, she is a proxy for her husband and has no independent identity as a human being.

That's what women are FOR.

Jennicut

(25,415 posts)
93. Pomp and circumstance is not real power.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:30 PM
Jun 2013

She isn't even the most influential First Lady of all time. Hillary and Eleanor Roosevelt were far more influential.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
343. Angela Merkel controls the economic fate of Europe.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:13 AM
Jun 2013

Ask the people of Spain and Greece and Cyprus if Angele Merkel is less influential than Michelle Obama is because of her choice of intimate partner.

Note also that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton somehow fall below Ms. Obama in this estimation.

Jennicut

(25,415 posts)
85. They never heard of Angela Merkel, I guess.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:28 PM
Jun 2013

Now that is the most influential woman in the world. Actually holds a position of power.

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
471. You know I did a search
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:57 PM
Jun 2013

under both our names and read through the first several pages, and the only thing I found was some mild disagreement about Kaitlyn, and my views on that case aren't even firm. So I'm missing what we disagree so much about. Is it possible that you think about the disagreements more than writing them in response to me?

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
498. Could be
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 03:59 AM
Jun 2013

I can't remember for sure. Maybe I confused you with someone else. I was just poking at you anyway.

one_voice

(20,043 posts)
103. Was she being a lady?
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:36 PM
Jun 2013

What the fuck kind of question is that? What exactly is being a lady? What fucking constitutes being a fucking lady?

Please explain what a fucking lady is. Be very specific. Cuz I really wanna know what your fucking definition of a lady is.

Do YOU understand?

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
189. Apparently a lady doesn't stand up for herself.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:43 AM
Jun 2013

Unless she's the heckler, in which case it's all good. But Michelle? I guess she's not allowed. For some reason.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,234 posts)
220. So no "elective" office? You sound as ridiculous as ever. I asked you a....
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:51 AM
Jun 2013

simple question, "what elective office does Michelle Obama hold?" And if you can answer that, then tell us what was the last bill she sheperded through Congress? And then answer, what constitutional amendment gives a first lady the capability to sign an executive order?

This was a stunt, and it may get a couple of days of news coverage like the Benjamin stunt, but what's really happening is you guys are turning potential allies into possible enemies. I know that doesn't bother you, because being a NorquistDogLake luminary, you could care less about building consensus with Democrats, and if I'm honest, I could care less about you guys.

Rudeness to the First Lady won't get what the protestor wants, but she was smart. She chose her venue wisely, because if she did that shit in my neighborhood, where Michelle Obama is revered, the young lady would've had to have security, not to restrain her, but to protect her. Bank on it!

Tarheel_Dem

(31,234 posts)
389. Excuse me, but was anyone arrested at the Michelle Obama event? You'll note that I did not....
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:37 AM
Jun 2013

participate in that thread, so I'm not sure what your point is?

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
421. My point is that Laura wasn't an elected official either
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:57 PM
Jun 2013

Since you did not participate in that thread, can you share how you felt about Laura Bush being heckled? Is it different from Michelle Obama?

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
350. if you don't know the history of the inequality between men and women
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:29 AM
Jun 2013

and the huge difference between gentleman and lady.

well, that would explain lots.

CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
221. "Was Ms Obama being a lady?"
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:51 AM
Jun 2013

SHE wasn't the one interrupting a speaker who clearly had the floor.

Exactly WHAT was unladylike about anything she said or did?

I would've loved to see the heckler ACCEPT the offer. FLOTUS would have graciously left, and the crowd would have been PISSED. I don't think your hero would've gotten the hero's welcome you imagine.

Summer Hathaway

(2,770 posts)
249. "because a commoner challenged her"
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:05 AM
Jun 2013

I have never seen any hint of Michelle Obama adopting an attitude of being superior, or treating other women as 'commoners'.

This was not a matter of being 'challenged' so much as a matter of being interrupted while trying to speak, as she had been invited to do - and expected to do. While you might say the heckler has a right to free speech, so does Michelle Obama. And the people who paid to be there had a right to hear the person they'd come to hear.

If the assembled guests had paid to hear Ms. Sturtz speak, it would have been equally as inappropriate for Michelle Obama to have interrupted her when she had the floor.

"There was quite a bit of praise for President Obama when he directly addressed Medea Benjamin when she called him out. People called him a gentleman."

Are you suggesting that Michelle is somehow obligated to act exactly as her husband would act in similar circumstances? Or is she not free to conduct herself as she chooses?

As has been pointed out by others in this thread, if Ms. Sturtz really wanted to speak her mind on any topic that involves official policy or legislation, she should have directed her efforts towards those in a position to act, rather than the First Lady.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
300. Ms Obama doesn't need to be a 'lady' and put up
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:27 AM
Jun 2013

with harassment and disparagement the way her husband does on a daily basis. She is a woman, one who is free to not take shit if she chooses not to.

apples and oranges

(1,451 posts)
374. Clearly, the couple handles hecklers differently. President Obama is calm (to a fault IMO)
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:01 AM
Jun 2013

Mrs. Obama, holding no political power, chose NOT to accept the disrespect and kudos to her for that. Everyone has to set their own boundaries and stand firm to them. It's better for her to know her boundaries and walk rather than end up on the same level as the rude heckler.

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
21. Reminds me of Ted Turner harrassing Madeline Albright when she was SoS.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:29 PM
Jun 2013

That drunken idiot yelled across a room "WWWWWAAAAA TELLL YOUR BOSS TO STOP BOMBING BABIES!!!"

Her reply: "Why don't you tell him yourself??"

Brigid

(17,621 posts)
23. Apparently, Michelle Obama is not as patient as her husband.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:33 PM
Jun 2013

There is nothing wrong with that. The disrespect coming to the Obamas from all sides the whole time they have been in DC has been absolutely breathtaking. I wonder how many young people have been noticing this and deciding they never want to run for office.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
24. Good for her!!! That's exactly how you should deal with a heckler!
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:37 PM
Jun 2013

Tell 'em to stick the mike where the sun don't shine.
I love it.

auntsue

(277 posts)
26. Shouting and interrupting are not the way
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:40 PM
Jun 2013

to get your message heard and respected. I think I would have waited for Q & A then asked my question about the executive order. When you act like a screaming fool you end up ejected. I sympathize with the issue and I'll bet both Obama's do too.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
32. "Yet another hero confronts the tyrants!!!!"
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:46 PM
Jun 2013

Copy: Fox News or our Leftist Friends?

Ya nevah, nevah know...

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
38. sounds like Michelle has a huge chip on her shoulder
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:55 PM
Jun 2013

never liked her in the first place. She sounds like she thinks the common people don't dare to interrupt her or something. Did she say, "Don't you know who I am?"

shawn703

(2,702 posts)
44. No, she's a mother
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:09 PM
Jun 2013

And she has had plenty of experience dealing with immature children throwing temper tantrums.

shawn703

(2,702 posts)
412. Nope
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:51 PM
Jun 2013

I'm saying that people who behave like children should be treated as such. Not everyone who wants equality feels what happened here was appropriate.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
60. yep, not a worshipper of the First Lady. I know, I don't know my place (like that protester)
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:18 PM
Jun 2013

How dare me. Just giving the perspective of how a non-devotee will take this incident.

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
67. Taking shots at the First Lady is just plain low
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:20 PM
Jun 2013

I didn't take them at Laura Bush and I don't take them at Michelle Obama. A First Lady has no political power. Her position is entirely ceremonial and unpaid. She has nothing to do with that bill. You don't need to worship her to have common courtesy.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
75. you have a strange definition of taking shots then
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:23 PM
Jun 2013

so all protesters must have unfairly took shots at President Bush when they were shouting and protesting at him. Of course, Bush never heard it anyway, because all the troublemakers would be moved far far away in "free speech zones". Brilliant.

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
98. A president is very different from a First Lady
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:32 PM
Jun 2013

I have no objection to the woman heckling Obama. The First Lady is another story. She wields no political power.

Jennicut

(25,415 posts)
57. Hecklers are interesting.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:17 PM
Jun 2013

And annoying. They don't usually accomplish much. I personally would have tried to ignore the lady but what can you do. If people came to listen to you and someone keeps interrupting you, do you just stop talking altogether and leave? Michelle Obama has never really came off as a snob. She seems pretty down to earth to me. I mean next to Cindy McCain or Ann Romney, she seems like a decent person.

FreeState

(10,572 posts)
66. Not having your civil rights isnt something worthy of heckling about
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:19 PM
Jun 2013

I cant believe what I am reading here on DU.

Jennicut

(25,415 posts)
129. Civil rights are not really going to change through a First Lady.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:48 PM
Jun 2013

Especially one that has not gotten as involved on policy decisions in the WH. It would be like protesting the Iraq War to Laura Bush. Not sure I get the tactic.

FreeState

(10,572 posts)
133. They are trying to get Obama
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:50 PM
Jun 2013

to follow through with his campaign promise of implementing an executive order to stop firing LGBT federal employees. So yes, pressuring the person closest to the only one that can do that IS going to help change that.

BuddhaGirl

(3,607 posts)
143. Very rudely heckling FLOTUS at a private function is assholish
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:59 PM
Jun 2013

I can't believe I'm reading posts actually supporting this asshole here on DU.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
77. Funny. Right wingers say the same bullshit about her having a "chip on her shoulder"
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:24 PM
Jun 2013

which of course is racially motivated criticism.

I've always suspected you of being a right winger attempting to disguise yourself as a liberal. This is yet more proof.

Thanks.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
87. well, I've always known you were a BOG-er type, where whiffs of any criticism of the Obamas are
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:28 PM
Jun 2013

considered heresy, so you don't need to give any more evidence of that to me.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
247. oh bullshit, but go ahead and keep making shit up
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:00 AM
Jun 2013

about me, by the time you all are done, I'll be a combo of Hitler and fucking Ted Bundy, no doubt.

one_voice

(20,043 posts)
106. You write for Fox don't you?
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:39 PM
Jun 2013

edited to add: chip on shoulder...typical winger speak.

One doesn't have to be a 'devotee' to agree that what the protester did was rude.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
114. nope, just favor the protester over those in power
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:43 PM
Jun 2013

But I'll do the same silly thing you did with your question and ask you one along similar lines. The protester was a lesbian and asking for support for her issues. So, do you hate gay people or what?

one_voice

(20,043 posts)
138. Where did I say that the protester had a chip on their shoulder?
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:54 PM
Jun 2013

I think the protester was rude to what she did. Michelle Obama is not an elected official. Her husband is. If it were President Obama giving the speech, fair game.

I didn't ask you if you hated anything either---Did I ask if you hated Michelle Obama? Nope, but here you are asking me if I hate gay people.

I love gay people....some of my favorite people in this world are gay.

But when I come into contact with people like you, I'm reminded of why I like my dogs so much more than most people.



 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
242. what the fuck ever
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:49 AM
Jun 2013

You keep on telling everyone who you disagree with they are on ignore though. It will be a nice and quiet restful place for you.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
290. So why wouldn't it be OK if the protestor was a right winger
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:34 AM
Jun 2013

who wanted the opposite on gay issues?

This is about rudely interrupting.

And there are plenty of other issues, so it would be OK for anyone, right?

treestar

(82,383 posts)
462. That's this person's only chance?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 05:20 PM
Jun 2013

This must be her only way/chance to say anything about her issue. Odd, in America.

I believe in being polite enough not to interrupt a speaker everyone else is there to hear, and talking at another time and place. Or writing and publishing. We live in a free country with plenty of chance to express ourselves and campaign for our issues without being rude to other people.

LonePirate

(13,424 posts)
463. How many of those opportunities involve speaking directly to the First Lady?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 05:29 PM
Jun 2013

This was a wonderful act of civil disobedience. This was not a milk and cookies event for kindergartners.

Sturtz seized the opportunity in front of her to publicize her cause. Like her or hate her, progressive protestors should never be criticized for being rude as rudeness is at th center of civil disobedience. If you dismiss the rudeness, you dismiss pretty much all acts of civil disobedience.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
112. who the fuck cares that you 'never liked her in the first place.'
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:42 PM
Jun 2013

you never liked anything about any Obama ever.

Is this supposed to be a confession or reveal or something when it's been plastered all over the walls of DU for ages?

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
125. wow, so does it shock you that not everyone is in love with Michelle?
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:46 PM
Jun 2013

I must be an evil person then huh? Maybe worse than Charlie Manson even, for this crime?

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
131. I know, I should have to go to Gitmo for not being properly adoring of Michelle
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:48 PM
Jun 2013

This is a serious crime.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
134. Whatever, superhero
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:51 PM
Jun 2013

You're the great defender of those oppressed by uppity black folks you hate. We get it.

Nobody's gonna send you to Gitmo, because your bullshit is amusing, at best. You're harmless.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
216. I AM surprised it came from so many other people, though.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:43 AM
Jun 2013

I'm horrified and completely disgusted.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
229. Yeah. It has. Obama might as well
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:21 AM
Jun 2013

have done absolutely nothing in regards to LGBT civil rights. Michelle gets heckled at a private home and called dog whistle words here on DU. I am angry and sickened.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
301. Just call her an uppity and surly Negress while
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:29 AM
Jun 2013

you're peddling rightwing racist tropes.

You never liked her? That reflects well on her.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
388. Is that why the straight community discriminates against gay people so brutally?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:36 AM
Jun 2013

You think you are our keepers? Is that how you treat your children? Well, actually it is, straight parents often reject their gay kids for being gay. We have entire organizations dedicated to rescuing the kids straights throw away for being who they are.

shawn703

(2,702 posts)
392. What are you going on about now?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:48 AM
Jun 2013

Sorry, you completely lost me. A child was throwing a tantrum, and the adult wasn't going to stand for it.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
260. Put me on full ignore too please...
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 05:30 AM
Jun 2013

I hate your "you're on full ignore posts"... WHO THE FUCK CARES????

CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
240. Gotta love this
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:44 AM
Jun 2013

When we have the likes of Chris Christie being practically abusive to people who disagree, FLOTUS dares to respond very civilly to a rude interrupter, and she gets the finger-wag for being not as "classy" as her husband...whom many around here hate, but in this case, let's use him to compare FLOTUS unfavorably.

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
51. The First Lady is a ceremonial position
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:12 PM
Jun 2013

She has no political power. She doesn't sign bills. Leave her alone.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
68. She also takes her share of racist crap from the media.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:20 PM
Jun 2013

Throwing creme pies at Michelle is really a new low. And frankly this is worse than a cream pie because anything she says or does can and will get spun as "unladylike," see above.

TheKentuckian

(25,026 posts)
366. If she doesn't want the heat from politics then she needs to stop making political speeches
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:51 AM
Jun 2013

in political environments.

You don't get the upside without the blow back. She is acting as a political proxy, that means you get more than just the adulation and the fund raising, you get some heat as that proxy too. Don't like stay out of the politics entirely.

FreeState

(10,572 posts)
69. Even stranger that peope dont support gay rights on a democratic board
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:20 PM
Jun 2013

LGBT workers have ZERO federal protection.

BenzoDia

(1,010 posts)
71. Heckling the first lady is a poor way of supporting gay rights.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:22 PM
Jun 2013

I prefer real action myself and not tantrums.

But hey that's just me.

FreeState

(10,572 posts)
74. So you disagree with how the civil rights in the past were pushed
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:23 PM
Jun 2013

or only the gay ones? Cause these actions have a strong history in US Politics from our own damn party.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
272. i can't think of any similar instance, actually. where the first lady was heckled at a private
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:38 AM
Jun 2013

fundraiser in a private home.

it's piss-poor tactics for achieving anything.

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
73. You might as well heckle Martha Stewart or Emeril Lagasse over that
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:23 PM
Jun 2013

as the First Lady because none of them have anything to do with that bill.

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
81. Okay, Michelle doesn't issue executive orders
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:26 PM
Jun 2013

I thought everyone learned how govt worked in grade school. Apparently not.

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
84. If the point is to persuade her to talk to her husband
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:28 PM
Jun 2013

about an issue, this is the best way to assure he doesn't advocate for the cause. In addition to being rude, it's just plain stupid. A polite conversation after the speech would have been far more effective.

FreeState

(10,572 posts)
92. So when this was done in the 60s it was great
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:30 PM
Jun 2013

so whats changed now? Uppity queers demanding there rights is somehow over the line. Straight people can do this but not gays, got it.

The tactic used tonight is one steeped in democratic party traditions. Look up the 60s.

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
101. I don't recall any civil rights activist heckling First Ladies
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:33 PM
Jun 2013

When did that happen? Selma, Montgomery, and the luncheon of the Daughters of the American Revolution?


Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
207. Obama's not going to sign anything right now cause the SCOTUS is currently deciding the DOMA case nt
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:20 AM
Jun 2013
 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
110. why not? we supported anyone who heckled bush.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:41 PM
Jun 2013

it seems that we really all turn into weird law abiding authoritarians only when a democrat is in office. other times civil rights protests of any kind are a thing to revere.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
119. did you make this rule up today? because i am pretty sure deriding laura and the twins
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:44 PM
Jun 2013

were par for course here

MattBaggins

(7,904 posts)
154. Yes and no
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:06 AM
Jun 2013

Laura is fair game for heckling as a de facto Public figure. Deriding her.. not so much

The kids are always off limits in my book until such time as they are of age and are themselves involved in politics.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
122. yes it does. its not the heckling you are against. its the heckling of a democrat
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:45 PM
Jun 2013

which is exactly what i was saying.

CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
224. Bush was POTUS, signer/vetoer of legislation.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:08 AM
Jun 2013

Laura was not.

I would've thought anyone who heckled her would have looked rude doing so as well. There's no strategic gain to heckling the FLOTUS no matter who it is.

Let's try focusing on the people who are IMPEDING legislation. Since many are so far beyond reason, they need to be voted out. Put more Dems in Congress and we wouldn't need short-term band-aids to try to accomplish anything significant.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
108. i wonder how many find heckling outrageous when republicans are in office
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:40 PM
Jun 2013

i bet most here dont.

people heckle when they feel their leaders are ignoring them. it's one of the ways to get them to listen

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
118. please, people here were ecstatic when someone threw the shoe at bush
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:43 PM
Jun 2013

it is definitely a "our guy" vs "other guy" issue

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
257. I would not in a million years have heckled President Nixon or Eisenhower.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 05:06 AM
Jun 2013

But of course,In a million years, I would not have voted for Eisenhower either. I am a big Adlai Stevenson fan.

but then in a million years, Bush would never have been President if everyone didn't vote for Ralph Nader in 2000,
sigh.

Protesters in 1968 directly and singlehandedly handed Richard Nixon the election, after which the Bush's took power.

Had LBJ won reelection, of course, there never would have been a Bush presidency, and the whole 2001-8 would not have happened.

And Repub. Rep. Wilson never would have shouted Liar at the State of the Union, something I did protest loudly of.

oh how great life would have been had Nixon not sabatoged LBJ, had the war ended in 1968.
and never would Reagan/Bush41/Bush43 and Jeb Bush be anywhere near the presidency.

Michelle for President 2024, 2028 after Hillary retires after her two turns.

BTW, speaking of equal rights, why don't people heckle Rand Paul, who most certainly is NOT for equal rights for anyone
that Thomas Jefferson didn't SPECIFICALLY write about when he stated "all men are created equal".
Or Republican Peter King, Long Island. Or any of the other HOUSE members?

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)
485. +1
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:31 PM
Jun 2013

"BTW, speaking of equal rights, why don't people heckle Rand Paul, who most certainly is NOT for equal rights for anyone
that Thomas Jefferson didn't SPECIFICALLY write about when he stated "all men are created equal".
Or Republican Peter King, Long Island. Or any of the other HOUSE members?"

The Paul clan is among the main people who claim to champion civil liberties, yet they've been at odds with gay rights in addition to other issues of civil rights. So why aren't these protesters going after them? Why aren't some of these same people in this thread going after Congressional Republicans for impeding progress and hate-mongering?
The First Lady isn't even an elected position!

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
270. Woman arrested after interrupting Laura Bush speech
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:26 AM
Jun 2013

HAMILTON, N.J. -- A Hopewell woman whose son was killed while serving in Iraq was arrested Thursday after she interrupted a campaign speech by first lady Laura Bush.

Sue Niederer had refused to leave the rally and demanded to know why her son was killed in Iraq. She was eventually escorted from the rally site, a local firehouse, by police.

Here's the DU reaction:

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x831469

BenzoDia

(1,010 posts)
495. Beating up on a former President's wife doesn't make it okay to do it to a current President's wife.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:22 PM
Jun 2013

edit:
I don't see the point in settling old scores.

 

Pragdem

(233 posts)
65. I wish politicians had the freedom to handle these classless assholes like comedians do.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:19 PM
Jun 2013

Then maybe we'd hear some outrage that would actually be a little bit understandable.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
70. aww her speech was interrupted. such a travesty. that woman can get fired in 37 states for being gay
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:21 PM
Jun 2013

clearly that is far less of a concern for du'ers.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
175. And Obama can do exactly nothing to stop that.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:24 AM
Jun 2013

You need Congress to enact a law to change that. The best Obama could do is an Executive Order, which will be overridden the moment a Republican takes the White House.

But please, keep attacking a woman who has no actual power. That'll really change the law.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
271. But an executive order would protect people for the next 3 and a half years at minimum
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:38 AM
Jun 2013

and is therefore worth having. Be realistic - the Republican majority in the House will not enact a law. So, even if Democrats manage to overcome the gerrymandered House, in a mid-term election (which is very, unlikely), it's one and a half years before any law could even start its way through Congress.

Your "it's all or nothing" purity approach is impractical, and has bad real-world consequences for the people who don't get protection now. You also seem to think that the activists would stop the moment the EO is issued, and never try to get a law passed too. Which is incredibly naive of you.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
364. No, it wouldn't.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:50 AM
Jun 2013

Remember, the EO would apply only to the executive branch of the federal government. I'm not aware of a vast number of homosexuals being fired by the Obama administration.

So the EO would do exactly nothing.

You also seem to think that the activists would stop the moment the EO is issued, and never try to get a law passed too. Which is incredibly naive of you

It's incredibly naive to think that attacking your allies for not doing something that's useless is a great way to get your desired policies enacted.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
384. No, it is about federal contractors
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:27 AM
Jun 2013

They are a significant sector (22% of employment, according to the GetEqual estimate), and it is quite possible some of them are currently discriminating. It's also about transgender employees, as well as homosexual.

So, this is not 'useless'.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
397. Gosh, 0 of those would be protected by an Executive Order.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:57 AM
Jun 2013

Thanks for demonstrating your EO would not do anything.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
402. Kathleen works at a university
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:16 PM
Jun 2013

Universities get federal grants for research. She would be covered. And we see discrimination in a wide variety of situations - a long-term care facility (also covered by this, because of Medicare?), a police force, and a law firm. These are not organisations run by some individual bigot, but by educated people - and they discriminate. It's absurd to think that no federal contractor ever discriminates.

Why are you so keen to deny the reality of discrimination?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
419. No, the EO would cover people working for the executive branch.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:33 PM
Jun 2013
Universities get federal grants for research.

From Congress.

a long-term care facility (also covered by this, because of Medicare?)

From Congress.

These are not organisations run by some individual bigot, but by educated people - and they discriminate.

And these organizations are not part of the executive branch of the federal government.

Why are you so keen to deny the reality of discrimination?

Lovely straw man. Makes it much easier to argue when you lie about someone else's argument, huh?

An executive order can only apply to people working for the executive branch of the federal government. You've provided examples of people who are not working for the executive branch of the federal government. Therefore, an executive order would do all of jack shit to fight the discrimination you are complaining about.

If you want to list incidents that would actually be covered by an executive order, that would help your argument. However, you didn't. So we're back to pissing off someone with no political power to fight for something that will not solve the problem you rail against.

You might as well be protesting McDonald's menu by lining up outside Wendy's.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
427. No, federal contractors. From the WP article:
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:41 PM
Jun 2013
The proposed executive order that prompted Sturtz’s outburst would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.


So, now we've established you don't know what this is about, we can start dismissing your claims.

Universities get federal grants for research.

From Congress.


No, not from Congress. From the NIH - http://grants.nih.gov/grants/glossary.htm - DoD, Dept. of Energy, etc.

a long-term care facility (also covered by this, because of Medicare?)

From Congress.


That would still be federal, wouldn't it? And therefore covered by this.

And these organizations are not part of the executive branch of the federal government.


As we've established, it's organisations that get money from the federal government this is about. That's why it's over 20% of all employment.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) – the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization – applauded 37 United States senators, led by Sen. Jeff Merkley, who today sent a letter to President Obama urging him to issue an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Because of a lack of federal protections, it remains legal to fire or refuse to hire someone based on his or her sexual orientation in more than half the country – 29 states – and to base those same employment decisions on someone’s gender identity in 34 states.

“An executive order from President Obama would ensure that hundreds of thousands of LGBT federal contract employees could go to work every day without fear of being fired for who they are or who they love,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “I am grateful to these leaders in the Senate for speaking out on behalf of LGBT Americans who want nothing more than a fair shot at a job.”

Federal contractors employ more than 20 percent of the American workforce and earn around $500 billion from federal taxpayers every year. According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, prohibiting anti-LGBT employment discrimination by federal contractors would extend equal workplace rights to more than 16 million workers, and would help ensure that they are not forced into the ranks of the unemployed based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“It’s outrageous that in the year 2013, it is still legal to fire someone based on who they love,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley. “The President can protect millions of workers from unfair discrimination with the stroke of a pen. I’m pleased that 36 of my colleagues have joined together to push for more equality in the workplace.”

http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/37-u.s.-senators-call-for-non-discrimination-executive-order-from-president


This is not some fringe idea that there might possibly be a handful of people being discriminating against. It has majority support in the country - see the poll referenced in the article I linked to.

Yes, you are denying the reality of discrimination. That is literally what your posts are doing. I'm not lying. "Your EO would not do anything".

An executive order can only apply to people working for the executive branch of the federal government.


Wrong. As we can see, this is about the 20% of the workforce working for federal contractors. But you've been denying that.

Fuck me, the kneejerk "Obama can do no wrong" replies to this thread are sickening. 37 Senators wanting some protection for a significant part of the workforce, and DUers are busy denying it could ever be a problem, with some saying LGBT people should shut up and sit down, in case their please for protection rocks the boat? Shameful.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
444. Not what I'm arguing. But thanks for continuing the battles against straw men.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:47 PM
Jun 2013
No, not from Congress. From the NIH - http://grants.nih.gov/grants/glossary.htm - DoD, Dept. of Energy, etc.

You'd have to look into the details of each grant to determine if it came from the executive branch or from Congress. The fact that an executive branch agency administers the grant does not mean the grant itself was from the executive branch.

That would still be federal, wouldn't it? And therefore covered by this.

No. The money was given to the medicare facility by Congress. Just because it's federal doesn't mean it's from the executive branch.

As we've established, it's organisations that get money from the federal government this is about.

No, you keep trying to pretend all federal spending goes through the executive branch. That is utterly false.

This is not some fringe idea that there might possibly be a handful of people being discriminating against.

What makes it a "fringe idea" (not the term I'd select) is that people are asserting the need for protection without showing any discrimination that would be prevented by this.

I'm not arguing discrimination doesn't happen. What I'm requesting is some evidence of discrimination by the executive branch during the Obama administration. For your proposal to do any good, it would have to be stopping actual discrimination. Otherwise, it's just a "feel-good" effort that won't do a damn thing in the real world. In my opinion, such things weaken broader efforts by causing people to say "I thought we fixed that". Finally, it will be reversed the instant a Republican is sworn in, so the people who benefit from such a ruling would still be destroyed when a Republican is elected.

I'm arguing we should be fighting like hell for laws protecting against discrimination. Not fighting for half-ass solutions that fix problems that no one can point me to a specific incident, so that allies say "I thought we fixed that" when we press for a complete fix.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
445. You are requesting a strawman
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:57 PM
Jun 2013

"What I'm requesting is some evidence of discrimination by the executive branch during the Obama administration"

And, for the umpteenth time, read the fucking article. Find out about the executive order that is being proposed. It's not about discrimination by the administration. It's about discrimination by federal contractors. Who employ 20% of the national workforce.

Federal Contractor

A business that contracts with the Federal government to provide supplies, services, experimental work, or research.

http://www.workrightsny.org/glossary/labor-relations-terms-a-h/


"with the Federal government". Are you saying Congress isn't federal?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
446. For it to do any good, you'd have to show that some discrimination has happened.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:06 PM
Jun 2013
"with the Federal government". Are you saying Congress isn't federal?

I'm saying if the contract is with Congress, it is not with the Executive branch. Which means it would not be covered by the EO.

But the entirety of my point is we should attack discrimination where we can show it's actually happening. That way it will actually do some good.

What you propose is to fight discrimination where it is not actually happening. Or at least you have not pointed to an incident that would be covered by your proposal.

I'm saying instead of settling for an at best 20% solution, and then having to rev everyone up again to continue the fight, we should be fighting for the 100% solution.

We have different opinions on tactics to reach the same goal.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
454. I have given an example - the university
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:43 PM
Jun 2013

Look, here's a list of the largest 100 federal contractors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_100_Contractors_of_the_U.S._federal_government

In it, you find the University of California and MIT - ie universities. If you look at the 2012 report here, you'll find the top 100 contractors for each department. There are hundreds of employers there, many of whom will not be in the states that have anti-discrimination laws.

Do you really think the Human Rights Campaign is trying to push an executive order that will have no effect whatsoever? That 37 Senators (which will be most Democratic senators - let's face it, not many Republicans will sign on to a pro-LGBT proposal) are backing a completely worthless idea, just to piss off Obama?

And people don't make their contracts with Congress anyway. They make them with the executive branch. That's the whole point of it, by definition. It executes government policy. The contracts are with the government departments, like the DoD.

Sheldon Cooper

(3,724 posts)
316. Your post is pretty ridiculous.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:48 AM
Jun 2013

"Good luck advocating from there!!!!"?? Does the sun rise and set on you?

CBHagman

(16,984 posts)
89. Not much of a strategy there.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:29 PM
Jun 2013

If your chosen action won't produce the desired result and may even hurt the cause, it's time to find a better means of getting the message across.

FreeState

(10,572 posts)
127. Because this straggly of heckling anyone close to the president
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:48 PM
Jun 2013

has been such a failure in the past /sarcasm (look up DADT... shouldn't be surprised to get no support her for actually pressuring the president into doing what is right either, but I have yet to learn.)

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
178. I would think more because the supreme court is working on a DOMA ruling
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:29 AM
Jun 2013

...which likely strike down the discriminatory laws, and set the stage perfectly for an anti-discrimination measure at the federal level. That's the way its supposed to work within our system.

Now, if Obama were to issue an executive order pre-empting the supreme court ruling, imagine how stupid that would be, what kind backlash it would generate? And what an awful precedent it would set.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
274. "how stupid that would be"? Why would it be 'stupid' at all?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:42 AM
Jun 2013

The 'precedent' it would set would be the head of the executive branch telling the federal government to not discriminate. Seems a pretty awesome precedent, to me.

Or were you being sarcastic?

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
349. No, the precedent would be the president putting himself above the supreme court
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:27 AM
Jun 2013

Civics 101 - that's not how its supposed to work, and I can't think of an example of it ever being done.

The court is expected to rule on and invalidate DOMA around the end of the month, and it is possible that the decision could be broad enough to invalidate a whole array of discriminatory state legislation. If the supreme court decides it, that is how its supposed to work, how its always worked, and something that people are largely ready to accept.

How about if Barack Obama steps in a decides it himself, via executive order instead, how do you think that will go? Think about it.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
382. DOMA is about marriage; this is about employment discrimination
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:23 AM
Jun 2013

They are not the same thing, and so Obama would not be "putting himself above the supreme court". "It is possible that the decision could be broad enough to invalidate a whole array of discriminatory state legislation"; perhaps it is, but this isn't about state legislation anyway. It's about the employment practices of federal contractors. It's hard to see that a DOMA ruling will automatically make contractor employment discrimination automatically illegal; if you think it would, then please spell out how, because I can't see it.

I think that if Obama issued this executive order, the Supreme Court would not change their decision on DOMA at all, because it's a separate area.

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
390. The supreme court decision could be broad, or it could be narrow
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:39 AM
Jun 2013

It could invalidate a whole array of discriminatory laws, or it might just narrowly address the issue at hand. As far as their history on things like that, I think its about 50/50 which way they go...but the upside of a broad ruling is worth not screwing with them.

The supreme court can strike down state laws. Congress can strike down state laws. But if the president does it all on his lonesome with an executive order, how do you think that will work out?

If challenges to an executive order wind their way through the courts, how do you think the courts will decide? Executive orders don't create law, typically they are used to establish procedure within the executive branch, or to establish policy. Trying to establish law, or invalidate state laws, by executive order is simply a stupid idea. And it would severely muddy the waters in advance of what is expected to be a historic and favorable supreme court ruling. Why would anybody do that?

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
394. Are you claiming there are laws that state "discrimination by sexuality must be allowed"?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:50 AM
Jun 2013

Again, this is not about the president striking down laws. It's about him saying the federal government will not do business with firms that discriminate.

"If challenges to an executive order wind their way through the courts, how do you think the courts will decide? "

Let's do it and find out. I'd guess some courts would support the executive order, and some would oppose it, since judges seem to find a wide variety of reasons for such decisions. Yes, this is indeed about establishing procedure within the executive branch. And it's not about "trying to establish law, or invalidate state laws". Why do you think it is?

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
90. Hmm, private fundraiser versus a protest to sign an antidiscrimination order.
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:29 PM
Jun 2013
Obama was addressing a Democratic Party fundraiser in a private Kalorama home in Northwest Washington when Ellen Sturtz, 56, a lesbian activist interrupted her remarks to demand that President Obama sign an anti-discrimination executive order.


What's more important, the President signing an executive order or a wealthy donor signing a check.



Hmmmm . . . .

:idea:

Pretty clear choice. Take the mic and say why the order should be signed. Anyone who didn't want to listen could retire to the music room and sign their checks in peace.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
204. I tell you what, anybody who harasses MY spouse to get ME to do something
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:14 AM
Jun 2013

will be sorely disappointed.

CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
243. What gets me about this is why people think POTUS needs influencing
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:52 AM
Jun 2013

What would Michelle say to him that he doesn't already know about the implications of the Executive Order?

As if he's just being a stubborn, clueless holdout and if she 'enlightens' him, he'll go ahead and sign it?

That discredits them both.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
396. How nice that you are allowed a spouse! That must be great.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:54 AM
Jun 2013

Some of us are still having to 'harass' those who refuse to take action just to get a law that says we can't be fired for existing.
What's it like to live on the good side of the tracks?

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
448. Neither does Michelle.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:20 PM
Jun 2013

Luckily I'm not the president. I get really pissed off when somebody fucks with my husband and children. Also luckily, President Obama will not withdraw his support for full LGBT civil rights because of this incident.

Since I'm a woman I get angry when people throw around words like 'unladylike' when a woman stands up for herself. Or classless and graceless. Or when they say the African American First Lady has a chip on her shoulder and pretend she said 'do you know who I am?' Or that she stomped her little foot. And that she should stay home from political events from now on if she's above it all, as if an intimate function in a private home is like a huge campaign stop where one might well expect such a thing to occur.

I'm glad Michelle stood up for herself. That's what strong women do. Anyone who expected her to meekly put up with it was thinking about some other First Lady.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
450. I see that bigoted language is okay
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:30 PM
Jun 2013

with some people as long as it's used against an African American woman. How ironic. Bombast away on your own particular issue, though. I'll feel free from now on to minimize it as such.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
456. Do you? Pray tell, show it to me.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:59 PM
Jun 2013

While you're at it, what would you call this anonymous posturing on the internet?

I tell you what, anybody who harasses MY spouse to get ME to do something will be sorely disappointed.


I repeat. This is not about you and what you claim you would do if it happened to YOUR spouse. (Excuse the caps but I want to be accurate.)

It's about a public figure at a political fund raiser and a protest over a civil rights issue which, imo, is a hell of a lot more important than socializiing with political donors for money.

Now, if you're trying to call me a bigot I suggest you be more explicit. Snide ugly insinuations are repellent.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
460. I raised valid points about how Michelle is being talked about HERE. You minimized it
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 05:14 PM
Jun 2013

as bombast in your above post. I can and do see the issues raised by the LGBT community. I object to the way Michelle has been attacked here for standing up for herself, with the examples I gave above. Your reaction was a big shrug and minimization.

I do happen to think that a protest in such close quarters is far too in-your-face. IMO it is too confrontational and insulting. You may believe the First Lady is not worthy of protection or respect. I disagree. Setting makes all the difference, as in the SOTU and "you lie." But this time the person was within feet of Michelle.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
461. She is making perfect sense to those that value equality
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 05:16 PM
Jun 2013

If you are a bigot, and value political points above eauality for all Americans, I could see how this would confuse you.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
152. I wish her Husband would have done the same thing to that "You Lie" guy.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:05 AM
Jun 2013

I know he believes very strongly in adhering to the established protocols so he can't be accused of being the "angry black man". But imagine if he would have stopped his SoU speech at the "You lie" instant and said:

"I am here because the Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to present to the Congress the state of the union at regular intervals. I will not be interrupted in the performance of this Constitutional duty. Mr. Speaker, you have two options. Either remove the heckler from this chamber at once or else I will suspend this presentation until such date that you can ensure the proper decorum will be respected. Which will it be, Mr. Speaker?"

SunSeeker

(51,564 posts)
161. I wish she'd direct that anger at Republicans.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:12 AM
Jun 2013

Why not shout down teabaggers, or show up at the local Repuke's district office and scream at him or her? Screaming at Michelle Obama at a fundraiser is just rude and serves no purpose other than blocking the fundraising efforts, which helps Republicans.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
171. People get assassinated at events like this
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:18 AM
Jun 2013

What do you think is the first thing that goes through their minds when they are at an event and there is some kind of sudden commotion and shouting?

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
276. Or protest Republican candidates at the Reagan Library?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:53 AM
Jun 2013

Oh, she did do that:

GetEQUAL protesters outside the Values Voter Summit on Friday holding signs with photographs of LGBT youth who have committed suicide over bullying or been murdered for being queer.

Thank you Ellen Sturtz for coming up with this idea way back last year at the GetEQUAL Greater Los Angeles protest of the Republican Presidential Debate at the Reagan Library and for paying out of your own pocket to have the photographic posters made. Hopefully the day will soon come when we can retire them.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=289572831077420&story_fbid=369971159746535&_fb_noscript=1


7:55: Prior to tonight’s debate, GetEQUAL protested outside on behalf of young people who committed suicide because they were bullied for their real or perceived sexual orientation. Every time a Republican candidate attacks the LGBT community, they are contributing to this bullying mentality.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/09/07/313929/gop-reagan-library-debate-live-blog/


It's a mistake to assume that just because this is the first time we've heard of a protester, they've never staged different protests before.
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
172. Why wasn't the heckler supporting Bradley Manning?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:19 AM
Jun 2013

Someone should have started shouting at the heckler for not supporting Bradley Manning.
 

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)
176. She's not a politician -- she didn't run for office -- she VOLUNTEERS her time and efforts
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:26 AM
Jun 2013

(unlike her spouse) -- so she can't be fired. So if she gets fed up enough to essentially tell someone to either behave or kiss her ass goodbye, I don't really have a problem with it. The one I have problems with is the one who can actually wield the signature pen, and that's not Mrs. Obama.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
277. That's a truly shitty post from you
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:57 AM
Jun 2013

You are sinking into the gutter by saying that someone pointing out that she was speaking at a political fundraiser, in reply to a claim that she is not a politician, is making an "uppity" reference. It has fuck all to do with race, and you know that damn well. You should be ashamed.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
416. Oh no. No way. Michelle stuck up for herself. Period. In this thread she has been called
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:15 PM
Jun 2013

Not classy, not a lady, above it all, "she has a chip on her shoulder," and every other buzzword for either uppity or animalistic or unworthy you can think of.

It is too fucking bad you ONLY see one side. I also see a side in which people are treating a woman like fucking dirt because she dared to stand up for herself. If the protester has the right to free speech then so does Michelle. And she used it. Deal with it. She's a strong woman who doesn't take shit from anybody. Neither do I.

And if the fucking protester can't take the heat then maybe SHE should avoid political events from now on. She's a whiny ass idiot.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
424. Then you're calling the wrong DUer a racist, aren't you?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:24 PM
Jun 2013

Fuck me, your post is fucking stupid. Just read what you're fucking replying to, can't you?

It's too bad you have a kneejerk reaction of insulting any DUer who says that when Michelle Obama makes a speech at a political fundraiser, she isn't above politics. That's not treating her 'like fucking dirt'. It's a perfectly reasonable, non-insulting, non-confrontational comment. The DUer didn't say that she couldn't reply to the heckler; they were pointing out that the idea that she's not in politics is wrong, as shown by her speaking at a DNC fundraiser.

So take back your offensive accusation that boilberbabe is calling her 'uppity'. You are making it impossible to actually call out real racists, if you idiotically misuse the accusation like that.

Your post makes DU suck.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
428. No I am not making
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:44 PM
Jun 2013

making DU suck. I know buzzwords when I see them and they're peppered all through this thread. It's fucking gross.

boilerbabe (1,999 posts)
31. that was eye opening. nt

Little remarks that imply a whole lot are what make DU suck. I decided to reply to the second one. Saying the First Lady of The United States of America should stay away from political events (dripping with nasty sarcasm) was the stupidest post I've ever read here.

And, the fact that she talked about the plight of hungry children is apparently lost on SOME people here. And the fact that the heckler was right next to Michelle, yelling at her. Yet if Michelle stands up for herself, the above poster says "that was eye opening" and she should stay home from political events. And you say I'm the one making DU suck? Fuck that shit all to hell.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
430. Again, you need to read the posts before you make stupid, offensive remarks about them
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:49 PM
Jun 2013

"that was eye opening"? How the fuck is that a problem?

boilerbabe did not say she should stay away from all political events, which you'd know if you took the time to read before spouting off. It was "... if she is above it all". The problem here is the ludicrous assertion in #176 and many other posts that the First Lady is above politics - even when she's speaking at a political fundraiser.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
437. In a VERY close setting in a private home. No cameras. No
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:14 PM
Jun 2013

recording to speak of until AFTER the heckler started her bullshit and somebody turned on their phone. That is PERSONAL and deliberately insulting. That's not a public Code Pink-type protest that has meaning, or a Dan Choi kind of protest. HE did it perfectly. He was always positioned in places where the cameras and microphones could get his story and actions. Not inside a private setting yelling at President Obama's wife while she pleaded for hungry children.

As for my reply to that poster, I stand by what I said 100%. If you choose to close your eyes to what's been said and implied about Michelle in this thread that's your business.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
440. It was a fundraising speech for the DNC; not about 'hungry children'
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:31 PM
Jun 2013
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/04/remarks-first-lady-dnc-event

The speech is about getting Democrats elected to Congress. She mentions various areas of policy; at that moment, she happened to have got to gun violence, and how it affects children.

Yeah, maybe the heckle would have been better timed if it had waited until "for example, legislation on equal pay for women failed by two votes in the Senate -- two votes in the Senate" - that being about equality and non-discrimination. But that was later in the speech, after the heckler had left. She interrupted a political speech with a complaint about what the leader of the party asking for money is doing on a political matter.

You are still calling DUers racist, however, when they're just saying the First Lady can be criticised when she is being political. That's the real problem.

Pirate Smile

(27,617 posts)
194. This was a stupid fucking move by the protester & the wrong target.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:49 AM
Jun 2013

This wasn't an anti-war protester interrupting Laura Bush. This was an ally going after FLOTUS - not a teabagger which would be the equivalent of the Laura Bush example.

Allies shouldn't aim at POTUS's family - which is supposed to be somewhat off-limits.

A lot of people here also seem oblivious to how the disparity in treatment toward POTUS, FLOTUS & the First Family is viewed by much of a critical portion of the Democratic coalition - Black Americans.

Stupid move.

HipChick

(25,485 posts)
196. I am not a violent person..
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:51 AM
Jun 2013

yet I wish Michelle had bitch slapped her after karate chopping her in the throat..

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
278. DOMA is about marriage, not employment discrimination by federal contractors
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:03 AM
Jun 2013

The two are different. If DOMA is overturned, employers can still discriminate about gay and transgender people.

 

TheMadMonk

(6,187 posts)
209. Elvis, Justin, etc. What I see here, is more of the same.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:25 AM
Jun 2013

The idea that somehow public figures are the personal property of anyone, who want something from them. And that any demand made of them in any forum is acceptable.

IMO, this form of protest is on a par with construction workers yelling out to passing women to expose themselves.

 

forestpath

(3,102 posts)
227. I don't have a problem with the protest. When it comes to
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:19 AM
Jun 2013

civil rights, there is no such thing as too much standing up for them, any time, anywhere. They are too damn important to sit down and shut up about.

Michelle Obama isn't a politician but she was fundraising for a party that is supposed to be for civil rights, but has frequently chickened out in the most egregious ways when it comes to upholding them. So as far as I'm concerned it was a political event and as such subject to protestors.

Summer Hathaway

(2,770 posts)
251. "but has frequently chickened out in the most egregious ways when it comes to upholding them."
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:16 AM
Jun 2013

Examples, please?

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #292)

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
241. hadn't realized this was in a private home. a little different situation than a public one. pretty
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:47 AM
Jun 2013

poor taste. the person could have voiced their concerns during q&a or schmooze time. she was a guest in a private home, not a protester in a public space.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
429. what if she is a space alien? and other hypotheticals. you pay for a private session because
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:44 PM
Jun 2013

you get access.

LonePirate

(13,424 posts)
432. There is never a guarantee of access
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:56 PM
Jun 2013

Many of these fundraisers offer a speaker and nothing else. It's like attending a rock concert - you pay to see the attraction in their element without interacting with them.

Sturtz is a progressive hero much like we saw in the South 50 years ago.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
436. yeah, i'm sure sturtz was in danger of being murdered by the first lady. there's no comparison
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:04 PM
Jun 2013

to the civil rights movement here.

the venue was a private home, not a stadium. there's no comparison to a rock concert here.

just a stupid and counter-productive stunt. she's no hero, and will be forgotten by the next news cycle.

Cha

(297,275 posts)
250. Michelle Obama was a guest and the protester had her say..
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:13 AM
Jun 2013

It was time to let the First Lady speak. If Ellen Sturz' goal was to get people talking about this.. then she succeeded.

The people at the Fundraising obviously wanted to hear from the First Lady.. they know she has their back.



The heckling happened a bit after 6 p.m. under a white tent in the backyard of the residence of Karen Dixon and Nan Schaffer in Northwest DC. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, also was in attendance at the event, which benefits the DNC.

The incident came hours after White House press secretary Jay Carney reiterated the president’s focus being on legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, that would ban most private employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and not the proposed executive order

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/michelle-obama-heckled-for-presidents-inaction-on-proposed-l

Looks like the President is wanting this to work through the Legislative Process because I believe it would be stronger. We'll see how it works out.

Wonder what Prez Obama said to Michelle tonight?

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
280. How long do you realistically think it will take for ENDA to pass?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:09 AM
Jun 2013

It won't get past a Republican majority in the House. So it can't pass until 2015 at the earliest; and few people think the Democrats can take back the House in a mid-term election for a Democratic president (which are normally good for the party opposing the president), especially given the districting of House seats gives Republicans an advantage. So 2017 is a more realistic date - and even then, the districting is a problem, and you have to wonder if the Republican fuckheads in the Senate would filibuster it anyway (or do we need to wait for filibuster reform too?)

All in all, ENDA is a long-term process. An Executive Order could do good now.

Jeff In Milwaukee

(13,992 posts)
328. But it would suck later....
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:23 AM
Jun 2013

Three seats. That's our majority in the Senate, and West Virginia is going Red just as sure as God made little green apples.

Two seats, really.

And it's 2014 -- the Democratic Base has a time-honored tradition of not showing up for mid-term elections, and a "Stop The Homos" campaign by the Tea Party would bring their side out in droves.

So unless you're itching to hear the phrase "Senate Majority Leader McConnell" we should all just try to be patient and get this done through legislative channels.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
380. I can't tell someone to "sit down and shut up" when it's their rights concerned
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:17 AM
Jun 2013

I actually think it wouldn't be an electoral problem at all - the Republican homophobia may well be a net electoral loss for them by now. Gay marriage is more support than opposed, overall, and it's hard for them to campaign with a message of "we want to be able to discriminate".

Jeff In Milwaukee

(13,992 posts)
438. They can in an off-year election - particularly given their base
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:16 PM
Jun 2013

The tide is turning, but it's not out yet. If I had Obama's ear, I would counsel him to wait until December 2016 to drop a bomb like that.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
442. 37 Senators and 73% of the public support it; it is not a 'bomb'
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:36 PM
Jun 2013
http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/37-u.s.-senators-call-for-non-discrimination-executive-order-from-president

16 states already have anti-discrimination laws in place - and another 5 for discrimination for sexuality, but not gender identity:



http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-important-step-toward-workplace-equality-an-executive-order-on-federal-c

All this is proposing is that federal contractors have to catch up with the better states in the country.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
466. IF it's not legislation and only an EO then the next GOP President could over turn it w/ another EO.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 05:47 PM
Jun 2013

In my opinion fight for the legislation is the best option.



muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)
469. Passing an EO does not preclude passing a law
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 05:58 PM
Jun 2013

In fact, that's just how laws against racial discrimination got their start:

President Obama can issue an executive order prohibiting discrimination by federal contractors

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would bring uniform protections to all American workers under federal law. Short of such a law, however, President Obama has the authority to extend significant protections to the LGBT workforce. Specifically, the president can either amend a current executive order or issue a separate executive order to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Dating back to World War II, presidents from both political parties have used their power as the chief executive to prohibit companies doing business with the federal government from discriminating against employees based on certain nonwork-related characteristics. In its current form, Executive Order 11246 prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Existing policy does not, however, explicitly prohibit these businesses from discriminating against employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Extending Executive Order 11246 to include nondiscrimination policies based on sexual orientation and gender identity would give substantive workplace protections to a significant number of LGBT Americans. Currently, federal contractors legally bound to comply with Executive Order 11246 employ 28 million individuals—or approximately 22 percent of all U.S. civilian workers.

President Obama has the authority to issue such an executive order even though the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has not yet been passed by Congress. Historically, Executive Order 11246 is part of a series of executive orders in which past presidents made workplace nondiscrimination compliance a condition of federal contracts before Congress ended up passing federal statutes applying similar requirements more generally. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, which legally prohibited nearly all employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, was built upon executive orders signed by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower that prohibited contractors from discriminating on the basis of race. An executive order for LGBT workers could be similarly issued before congressional passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2013/02/19/53931/an-executive-order-to-prevent-discrimination-against-lgbt-workers/


The earlier executive orders: http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/about/History_EO11246.htm

HughBeaumont

(24,461 posts)
312. I wonder what this "liberalism religion" is?
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:43 AM
Jun 2013

Sounds funny coming from people who have no problem with religion in every aspect of their lives.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
281. Both that group and Code Pink have been rude to to the Obamas
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:17 AM
Jun 2013

IMHO neither deserves a seat at the table if they can't act like adults. Code Pink has repeatedly supported Rand Paul with 100 tweets in a week. The woman who protested at the fundraiser should have been a) thrown out by her ear; and 2) her money returned to her with a note telling her she is not welcome at future fundraisers.

I find it funny how the group that protested tonight put such blatant lies on their website about what happened.

Before someone with ODS asks me, yes I support human rights. Rudeness and shouting is not the way to further the cause. Anyone who agrees with what these two did hurts the cause instead of helping it.


http://getequal.org/blog/2013/06/05/release-lgbt-activists-press-for-employment-protections-at-dnc-event/

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
398. So you think rights are earned by quiet subservience? Constitution says otherwise.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:06 PM
Jun 2013

Do you seriously claim that the current discrimination in this country is somehow 'adult' and worthy of respectful discourse?
Those of you who claim to know the way to properly get things done really ought to think about stepping up and doing it.
If you can do better, please do so, at long bloody last, finally. Show us how it is done. Please. Back up the big talk with some action.
Years of calloused inaction on the part of the majority hurts the standing of that majority when they mount the podium and begin to preach of ponies and poutrage.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
499. The constitution says nothing about screaming at people like children
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:30 AM
Jun 2013

How the hell do you know (or presume to know) what the fuck I do? I am a US Citizen living overseas and have constantly written legislators both in Oregon and in Washington on a variety of causes. Every single person in my Congressional delegation with the exception of Greg Walden (who is an asshole) supports the cause of LGBT. I am involved both during election cycles and between election cycles.

As for ponies and poutrage maybe you should look in the mirror tough guy.

 

Pragdem

(233 posts)
296. I was kicked out of another thread about this and want to clear something up...
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:56 AM
Jun 2013

I called the protestor a "deviant," and someone thought I was referring to her sexuality. I never, ever use derogatory terms about the sexuality of others. Not even the juvenile "that's gay." And I have had many fights here in the rural area of my red state defending LGBTs against Christian bigotry.

Deviant is defined as: "Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society," and I can see how someone would misinterpret that as a shot in the dark at her sexuality... but I would apply that term to anyone causing a ruckus at an event and showing such disrespect toward someone speaking.

I apologize if anyone was offended in thinking the term was being used to describe her sexuality, but I do not apologize to those offended because they like to shout over top public speakers in an immature manner.

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)
306. A word to the wise, Pragdem...
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:38 AM
Jun 2013

context is everything. The right choice of words in the context of the discussion is critical to getting your point across. Using the word "deviant" in this context is unfortunate and completely avoidable. Perhaps saying that the protestor's interruption was "not acceptable behavior in this social setting" would better describe what your opinion was without the unfortunate choice of the word you used.

Then you could have avoided having to spend 3 paragraphs "splainin'" what you meant...

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)
329. Yep, ya never know around here...
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:26 AM
Jun 2013

A lot of times I just don't contribute my opinion at all, because the context is so volatile on so many deeply felt issues that all the "cool reason" in the world won't work...

William769

(55,147 posts)
302. Well I see the bus has gotten much bigger.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:35 AM
Jun 2013

Don't come fucking crying to me when your time comes to be thrown under it.

LonePirate

(13,424 posts)
309. I applaud the courage of anyone using civil disobedience in support of civil rights.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 08:42 AM
Jun 2013

Sturtz is a hero as far as I am concerned.

Response to LonePirate (Reply #309)

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
391. Let's just keep discriminating against millions of people and pretending that we don't is
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:46 AM
Jun 2013

a trait no toddler would approve of, but Republicans do.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
411. Well, I am getting tired of being a second class citizen
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:49 PM
Jun 2013

Which has been added and abetted by said first family in the past.

And by equality haters like yourself

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)
487. I am tired of seeing people attacking potential allies,
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:03 PM
Jun 2013

while paying very little attention to what people are doing across the aisle that are at odds with their interests. Despite being the 1st sitting president to endorse gay marriage, despite repealing DADT, and signing a Hate Crimes bill along with other policies, he still gets no credit from his critics. Even Stephanie Miller (who happens to be gay herself) has said that this administration has accomplished more for gay rights than all of his predecessors combined. Meanwhile there are people from the GOP who have been hard at work thwarting the right of gay people to marry, to join the military, boy scouts, and they've been peddling that "pray away the gay" nonsense, yet I see no outrage from you about that. Why are there no hecklers on Capitol Hill? Why aren't these hecklers showing up at Republican events instead?

KingFlorez

(12,689 posts)
372. I don't get heckling
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:57 AM
Jun 2013

People are not really willing to listen to you when you interrupt them while they are speaking. Michelle Obama isn't even the President, so it's not like this served much of a purpose.

Blue_Roses

(12,894 posts)
375. Bottom line: This was fucking rude.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:04 AM
Jun 2013

You don't invite someone to your home and then bully them--and that's just what this amounted to. Interrupting and berating someone who is ON YOUR SIDE, doesn't do much to win affection. You catch more flies with honey, not with vinegar.

I'm so sick of the blatant disrespect for this president and first lady, especially cloaked under the excuse of civil rights. MLKjr did not advance the cause of civil liberties with disrespect and bullying. He knew that a conversation could not be had if he handled it with disrespect and he was right.



 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
386. I don't really have a problem with the protester or Obamas actions.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:31 AM
Jun 2013

Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2013, 09:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Call it a private function if you want, but it was an event for the DNC. Say she has no power if you want, that is bullshit. Protesting her event is fair game. Her reaction was fine.

I do think, at this point of the discussion, Michelle's own words need to be added. These are not from her on the night being discussed.

"MICHELLE OBAMA: This is an important issue for millions of Americans, and for Barack and me, it really comes down to the values of fairness and equality we want to pass down to our girls. These are basic values that kids learn at a very young age and that we encourage them to apply in all areas of their lives. And in a country where we teach our children that everyone is equal under the law, discriminating against same-sex couples just isn’t right. It’s as simple as that."



whathehell

(29,067 posts)
417. Uh, "in your face" is not how it's done by all, and that style frequently generates nasty responses.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:16 PM
Jun 2013

Do YOU understand now?.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
426. Sounds like you want to get in on something.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:41 PM
Jun 2013


This is yet ANOTHER reason I like Michelle Obama: She doesn't take crap. I follow her example (I've followed it for years, but she has finally re-popularized the practice for liberals). One thing is certain: Bullies WILL continue to practice their bidness if they get whines about "being bullied." When they get backed up by a strong person, there is a good chance the bully will discontinue the practice, and better yet, others will see the example and follow that strong person's lead. I'll go with the odds on this, and I hope others will as well.
They key here is others will see the example and follow that strong person's lead.

I sincerely hope my humble explanation is of sufficient clarity.

whathehell

(29,067 posts)
452. I like Michelle Obama too and follow her example too.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:35 PM
Jun 2013

I'm sure I need no explanation, humble or otherwise.

Bodhi BloodWave

(2,346 posts)
409. A question to those who supports Sturtz's heckling of Mrs. Obama
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:43 PM
Jun 2013

What importance/how high do you place the 'plight of inner city children' in your ranking of worthy causes?

apples and oranges

(1,451 posts)
423. Just listened to the audio
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:11 PM
Jun 2013

Mrs. Obama sounded like she was either close to or already in tears while giving an extremely passionate speech about helping children, and then comes the heckler. The heckler either has very little common sense or low emotional intellgence if she thought THAT moment, of all moments, was an appropriate time to heckle.

Helping disadvantaged children means a lot to Mrs. Obama (who is also a big supporter of GLBT rights), especially when you consider that she was born/raised in Chicago which right now is being overcome by violence and failing schools.

How hard would have been for the heckler to pull Obama aside afterward, and plead her case?

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
431. She should have taken the mic if she had something to say.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:52 PM
Jun 2013

She got her ass embarrassed and doesn't know how to handle it. Ha ha!
When people interrupt a movie that I have paid to see I will ask them to shut the f up or get the f out. If they don't I ask for my money back. And that's only 20 dollars.
If I paid 500 to see Michelle Obama speak and there was some crazy lady heckling off topic I would run her out of there.
She just wanted some attention obviously, since she was heckling the wrong person.

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
434. That was a bit petulant on the First Lady's part
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:03 PM
Jun 2013

But, whatever. The problem with enormous privilege is that you begin to feel entitled to deference. I wouldn't have chosen that venue or that target for heckling.

But then, we are now discussing federal LGBT discrimination, so I suppose it worked in its own way.

Meh, still like FLOTUS just fine. Wish she handled it better, but it doesn't really shatter my general admiration of her.

Meanwhile, DU is as awesome as usual on LGBT issues. "You have plenty of rights!" Loved that one. Bigotty goodness.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
492. you know i am not at all upset with her. she did what most people do when they get unnerved
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:18 PM
Jun 2013

it's the reactions of du'ers that amazes me

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
501. Yeah, her reaction doesn't phase me.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 10:49 AM
Jun 2013

(Although the activist's reaction to her reaction is sort of cluelessly amusing).

I'm with you, though. An epic meltdown born of veneration. That can't be good.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
502. yeah esp because we seem to lack values when it comes to venerating our leaders
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 02:58 PM
Jun 2013

they can and do often wrong others. they are not gods and goddesses and we should retain the rights and ability to criticize them

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Michelle Obama confronts ...