Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dan Savage: Was Obama a One-Night Stand?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:27 PM
Original message
Dan Savage: Was Obama a One-Night Stand?
http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid102124.asp

It wasn’t love at first sight, but author Dan Savage warmed up to Barack Obama. Now he’s wondering if all the promises the candidate whispered in his ear were just to get him into the electoral sack.

By Dan Savage
From The Advocate September 2009

COMMENTARY: We could start with the betrayals and the slights -- the Reverend Rick Warren, 265 (and counting) gay men and lesbians kicked out of the military since Barack Obama was sworn in, the now-infamous DOMA brief that compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia -- but maybe we should start by remembering the good times.

Hey, remember when Barack Obama couldn’t get his tongue any further up our butts?

Remember when he practically spooned Melissa Etheridge during the Logo–Human Rights Campaign debate? Remember when he positioned himself to the left of Hillary Clinton on the Defense of Marriage Act? While Clinton came out in favor of a partial repeal, Obama said he favored -- and would fight for -- a complete repeal, and described DOMA as “abhorrent.”

That was pretty sweet.

Then there was Barack Obama’s open letter to the gay community. “Equality is a moral imperative,” candidate Obama wrote, before reiterating his promise to repeal DOMA. He also promised to end “don’t ask, don’t tell,” to pressure Congress to pass the Matthew Shepard hate-crimes act, and to lift the HIV travel ban. And then this line in particular jumped out at me, as it must have for other gay parents: “As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.”

But the highlight of the campaign for me came during the vice-presidential debate. An Obama-Biden administration would support civil unions for same-sex couples, Joe Biden said, adding that there should be “no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint” between same-sex and opposite-sex couples (except for the “marriage/civil unions” distinction). When Sarah Palin said that she didn’t support same-sex marriage either and that she agreed with Biden that the federal government shouldn’t “do anything to prohibit” visitation or other rights, Biden moved in for the kill: “I take her at her word, obviously, that she thinks there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple.”

Ah, those were good times.

But then Obama was sworn in under Rick Warren’s porcine gaze and the “fierce urgency of now” quickly morphed, in Andrew Sullivan’s damning turn of phrase, into the “fierce urgency of whenever.” Never mind that gay people are being turned away from their partners’ bedsides during medical emergencies now. Never mind that people are being kicked out of the military now. Never mind that Arkansas banned adoptions by same-sex couples on the very same day that Obama was elected. (Gosh, where’s that bully pulpit when you need it?) The man who wasn’t afraid to appeal directly to us for our votes as a candidate -- and certainly wasn’t shy about asking us for our dollars -- couldn’t be bothered to acknowledge the promises he had made to us and seemed to greatly resent being asked to actually honor them.

The difference between candidate Obama and President Obama crystallized for me when NBC’s Brian Williams asked the president if “gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry ... have a friend in the White House?” The comfort candidate Obama demonstrated with gay people and issues was gone. I don’t remember exactly what the president said, but I will never forget the look on his face. Judging from his pained and slightly annoyed expression, you would have thought that Williams put the question to him in a suppository form.

Have you ever been introduced to someone with whom you’d had a torrid one-night stand and he acted like he didn’t know you? “Don’t know me?” you’re tempted to say in a loud voice. “Honey, you ate my ass.”

Could Barack Obama be that one-night stand?


Is the Advocate actually starting to see the light? I cant believe I've posted two articles from it this week. Its not on my must read list as its usually fluff and when they do tackle topics like this they usually are awful. Maybe we now will have a magazine with a real voice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. R
I think a few people are starting to "wake up" and are hating we are now possibly going to have to take the walk of shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Obama better brace himself. Dan Savage can move mountains with his words.
He is a beloved, trusted commentator. If he loses his patience with the President, many are sure to follow.

This DLC, aim for the center bullshit is going to cost us. It completely destroys the narrative of Obama's presidency, and makes a mockery of our hope. That's something that doesn't show up in the poll numbers that the political bean counters use to try and play everything safe enough to win 51-49.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeGoodDoGood Donating Member (143 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. Rule of Law, Rule of Law, Rule of Law

If President Obama had followed up what candidate Obama said, the chimp would not still be smirking and R.B. Cheney would be sampling the federal prison medical system.

Walt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duncan Grant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. It's a shame all those LGBT DUers were tombstoned -- or have voluntarily left DU.
They said this ages ago...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Really.
Well, with any luck, perhaps this OP won't get disappeared.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
38. Still in and out (so to speak)...
...and have never once wavered from when I said all this, ages ago. But you knew that already. ;)

Sometimes I hate being right. This time, I have never more hated being so right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foxfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
6. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Libertas1776 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. He just might
come back for another in 2012. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roughsatori Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
9. Wasn't Dan Savage one of the nitwits who was pushing the "blacks gave us Prop 8" nonsense?
Edited on Fri Aug-07-09 02:37 PM by struggle4progress
And here he is in 2002, cheering the Iraq war:

Say "YES" to War on Iraq
by Dan Savage
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/say-yes-to-war-on-iraq/Content?oid=12237

He's an airhead
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Yes please attack the messenger not the message n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. When a race-baiting warmonger says "Barack Obama couldn’t get his tongue any further up our butts,'
I don't need to spend much time searching for insights: there are none. Savage is simply loud and crude, without offering any useful analysis

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenQueer Donating Member (762 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Your response seems overly harsh.
Savage is a sex columnist. He trades in lube, dildos and butt plugs. Within this framework, I think the piece works.

Race-baiting? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Absolutely race-baiting: he tried to blame African-Americans for Prop 8
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenQueer Donating Member (762 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Race-baiting?
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/210299/november-11-2008/proposition-8-protests---dan-savage

I know Dan Savage was everywhere in the wake of Prop 8, maybe I missed something specific? The above link seems to be indicative of his appearances during that time... from what I can pull off the top of my head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. 12 November 2008 Dan Savage Pulls Racist Column Before Appearance on "Colbert"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenQueer Donating Member (762 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Are you kidding me with that homophobic drivel?
"Another vapid appearance as the go-to-gay"... lovely. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duncan Grant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. There are plenty of insights, if you're an advocate for LGBT equality:
The sad fact is this: We can’t do this stuff for ourselves. It’s not like we haven’t been working on these issues; we’ve been suing, agitating, marching, raising money, crafting and winning arguments. (Colin Powell, one of the architects of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” has come out for its repeal.) But we still need a president and a Congress -- this president, some future president; this Congress, some future Congress -- to enact and sign the legislation that ensures our full civil equality.

And I’m sorry, self-reliance douche bags, but if it’s unfair of us to expect the president to do this stuff for us, then why did Barack run around the country for two years promising to do just that? He didn’t point to his positions on highway beautification when he asked for our support and our money.

There are some positive signs, some indications that the screaming and yelling -- on the blogosphere, outside of DNC fund-raisers, in my kitchen -- is having an effect. And the White House press corps -- God bless you, Jake Tapper -- has been grilling Robert Gibbs on gay issues, taking our equality and civil rights struggle with the seriousness it deserves and has long been denied. (pp. 3 - 4)


Nail meet hammer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
insleeforprez Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Dan Savage is an expert on LGBT issues
He is not an expert on foreign policy, nor does he (usually) claim to be. I'll cut him some slack for getting Iraq wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
27. What will you do?!
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 07:42 AM by Prism
You idly skim through the cogent, eviscerating article taking President Obama to task for his horrible, dismissive record on LGBT rights. Furrowing your brow, you find yourself before an empty reply screen. Do you throw racial flash powder in the air or pause a moment and wonder if the writer has a point?

Throw racial flash powder in the air (turn to page 43)
Ponder the points the author makes (turn to page 57)

You decide to throw racial flash powder in the air, destroying your credibility and earning the hostility of LGBTers currently suffering inequality. Your adventures in civil rights end here.

It's ok. You can read this book several times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenQueer Donating Member (762 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Hilarious!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #27
36. "destroying your credibility"
Too late for him to get concerned about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
40. Win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
11. It wasn't a one-night stand. He's a politician and thus a whore.
...and like a whore, politician's say whatever they need to say in order to get your money. They'll cozy right on up to you, put their arm around you, tell you how much you mean to them, how much you rock their world. They'll shove their tongue so far up your ass they can taste what you had for breakfast.

Then they're on to the next john, leaving you tied up, naked and alone in the motel room wondering what the hell just happened. I'll tell you what just happened: Your time with the hooker is up.

The entire article could have been summed up with just the ending. He's a politician, plain and simple. His chief of staff, who is more-or-less running the political side of things is a risk adverse blow hard from the Clinton administration.

Anyone who thinks things would be different under Hillary is simply living in a fantasy land: We'd be exactly where we are right now. She's a politician too.

I guess the difference between myself and everyone else is I went into this relationship knowing exactly what I was going to get. I didn't have high hopes. I supported Obama in the primaries, and I supported him for President because I believed out of the entire field of candidates that he would make the best President. I still believe that. However, no where during any of those events did I delude myself into believing he was anything other than what he was, and that the world would be set right once he was in office.

In fact, oddly enough, things have actually gone slightly better than I anticipated. He still mentions us from time to time, which is more than I thought he'd do once he was in office. (Yeah, I set the bar pretty low.)

Sorry. These guys are Democrats. Don't expect miracles. If you want anything from them, you're going to have to twist their arms or out right break them. You might have to burn a few of them in effigy in the street outside their office or something. Or you could just hit them where it hurts the most: in the wallet, while voicing public disgust.

Dan is right on a lot of points, in fact all of his points. The most important point that I think needs to be driven home is that if our issues aren't dealt with before January of 2010... we're screwed. And not the good type of screwed, either. Once those spineless parasites begin to run for re-election (which is just now starting), they aren't going to touch any thing with the word "gay" in it. Obama will throw us a few bones in 2011 and 2012 (he'll need our money again - like a professional whore, he'll build a client base), and those bones will come attached with excuses as to why X hasn't happened yet. Of course, after 2010 the Democrats are no longer going to control the Senate. It's to narrow of a margin - they're going to lose their 60 vote monopoly. So that gives them a nice excuse to use.

The reality is that the Democratic Party knows they've got us by the balls. They're the only game in town. Where are we going to go? The Republican Party? Ha. Go ahead. Enjoy getting screwed WITHOUT the lube. The Christian right is in the same boat. Where are they going to go? At least they can threaten to sit at home. They have the numbers to make that threat seem like it has teeth, but us? We're too divided, and even if we were united our numbers are so small that it wouldn't make a difference unless you're talking about a SERIOUSLY narrow margin.

So that leaves us with two real choices: Bitching really, really loudly and refusing to send money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Funny, I remember it differently n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. I think you remember...
...my anti-Clinton postings. ;)

I never said Obama would be a savior to LGBT people, I simply kept bringing up DOMA, DAT, which were signed under Clinton, and pointed to the fact that we shouldn't expect anything different under a President Hillary Clinton. I also pointed out a key difference that really rubbed me the wrong way, one that Dan mentioned in the article: Obama supported the total repeal of DOMA and Hillary only supported a partial repeal.

Even though they are both politicians, I still feel that we're getting a better deal under Obama than we would have gotten under Hillary. I felt - and still feel - that the Clinton's are much like Rahm Emanuel: they are risk adverse individuals who will do a 180 when the political winds change directions. It is more about winning than principles.

One thing that Obama has really surprised me on is his bending over backward to work with Republican's. It didn't shock me that he reached out - that's the type of guy he is - but I did not expect him to reach around. I think a lot of that can be laid at the doorstep of Rahm Emanuel, though.

But ultimately, my steadfast support for Obama in the primaries, and anti-Clinton rhetoric came from the fact that Hillary voted for the Iraq War and did not even want to apologize for it, while Obama was against it from the beginning and clearly outlined what would happen if we went into war. He was correct. I felt, and still feel, that Hillary knew what would happen by going into war with Iraq (the alternative is to believe she was stupid - I believe she is highly intelligent), and that she only voted for it because casting a "No" vote at the time was seen as unpatriotic.

Despite all of this, I have grown rather fond of Hillary as Secretary of State. Even with all my general dislike of the Clinton's, I am now more open to supporting her for President should she decide to make another attempt in 2016. Hillary's professionalism and ability to work with Obama (because I know how much being President meant to her) has really warmed me up to her. She is a powerful woman, which I like, but she also has a strong grace and elegance - the type of face that I would like displayed to the world. Her strength isn't something she needs to flex - like Bush (a type of false strength manifested in bravado) - but it is something deeper a type of inner strength. So depending on how things turn out with her time in the Obama Administration, I am more than willing to give her very serious consideration should she make another attempt at winning the Democratic Primary.

Although, I see a lot of worthy women that I could envision being President within the Obama White House.

Anyway, that's off topic. My point is, you shouldn't mistake my anti-Clinton rhetoric from the primaries as a belief that Obama would be a godsend for us. I'm not that idealistic or naive. I wish I was, but I'm too cynical and jaded. :silly:

Of course, I also won't discount all the times I walked right up to the line, and even a few times, where I more than willingly kicked dirt over to the other side. We all were passionate during the primaries, and things really did get rather ugly here on DU. It's one reason I stepped away and took a long extended break. I hated it when we all ended up turning on each other, and struggled to have even the most minor of civil conversations. (Which I am well aware, that I contributed nothing to making better. :()
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. With all due respect I can't fathom why you would be surprised by Obama reaching out to the GOP
He repeatedly stated that he would work with the GOP and in point of fact stated his ability to do so was a huge reason to vote for him. His book had the very same theme. It was a primary reason I was so adamantly opposed to him to the point I was firmly in Clinton's camp despite serious doubts about her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. There is a difference between seeking common ground...
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 02:26 PM by Meldread
...and capitulating to the opponent.

There are certainly places where both Democrats and Republicans can find common ground, even on something like the health care debate.

However, what he is doing is entirely different than that. He is elevating them to a status they do not deserve and allowing them to control the debate. I don't believe they should be shut out entirely - that would be unhealthy for our democracy. However, I do believe that the American people put them in the minority for a reason, and Obama is effectively elevating them to be the Democratic Party's equal: they are not.

Look at how Democrats worked with Bush on many of his controversial issues. I anticipated Republicans would do something similar, not simply act as a road block for anything the Congress tried to accomplish.

Effective Minority Position: "I believe that this legislation is imperfect, and had I written it myself it would be completely different. However, I improved it dramatically with three amendments which contain the spending costs so it does not add to our deficit. I will vote for it as a result."

Ineffective Minority Position: "I do not like this legislation, and no matter what changes you make to it I will never vote for it."

The former position is the road the Republican's have decided to travel. I had hoped (I gave them to much credit) that they would take the latter, which would actually be a benefit to the Congress and our democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. and after 8 years of GOP rule just what made you think they would be reasonable?
There was 0 evidence of any reasonableness on their part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. Because one would think...
...that they'd want some impact on the legislative side of things. Being in the extreme minority sucks, but that does not mean you have no power. Obama is obviously looking for a token Republican or two so he can go, "See we're bi-partisan!"

They have something he wants, their vote. That gives them some power over legislation, even though if the Democrats stay united (Ha. Ha. Yeah right) they can pass anything they want, with or without Republicans.

Look at the influence the Republican's had over the stimulus package. Did they get to write the legislation? No. But they got to post amendments to it, and (in their eyes at least) "make it better."

The problem with Republican's now is that their party has become so small that they've shrunken down to their ideological base. That is all they have left. When you've shrunken down to that size, you really can't legislate because the party demands purity. There is no purity when it comes to legislation. It is all about compromise, and doing what it takes to get the required votes.

All that remains of the Republican Party are a few old schoolers, the Christian right and birthers. They are way out of the mainstream of society. The rest have moved to become independent or even jumped ship to the Democratic Party.

My issue was that I under estimated just how much the Republican Party had collapsed under Bush. He didn't just nearly destroy the Country, he more-or-less destroyed his party as well. The Republican's are effectively a third party, and the more radical they become, the more mainstream America moves away from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
37. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-11-09 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. How does that counter anything I wrote here? It reinforces my point.
My post here:

"I never said Obama would be a savior to LGBT people, I simply kept bringing up DOMA, DAT, which were signed under Clinton, and pointed to the fact that we shouldn't expect anything different under a President Hillary Clinton."

My older post in the other thread:
"First and foremost, the Clinton's threw us under the bus in the 90's. I still have tire tracks on my back. They promised they wouldn't and they broke that promise." (Reference to DOMA and DAT.)

"Whether or not Obama will stand behind us when the time comes... I cannot say. .... I do not believe he will do to us what the Clinton's did in the 90's but even if he did - I am looking at the bigger picture." (Clearly, I pointed out here that Obama was not going to be a savior.)

"That is more or less how I feel when it comes to them both on gay issues. I don't think Obama could possibly be any worse than the Clintons, thus it more or less nullifies any substantive issues I have regarding that issue." (Again, further down the thread, I once again pointed out that I didn't see Obama as our savior.)

...so, what exactly was the point in posting the link? I am making the assumption that it was to somehow prove that I've taken a different stance. It is certainly different in tone - of course it was. I was trying to win over support for Obama on this forum, which was staunchly pro-Clinton, to the point that at times it was completely hostile to pro-Obama supporters.

There is no contradiction that I can find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-11-09 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. OK, whatever you say. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-11-09 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. Nice. Thanks for being passive-aggressive.
You might not like my point of view, but I am serious when I say I see no contextual difference between what you linked above (from about one year ago) and what I've posted here today. I encourage you to do what I have done: take a quote from what I've said here on this thread, and what I've said in the other thread (in context, of course), and show where there is a radical shift in point of view.

As I said already, obviously, it is different in tone, but the tone does not change the point.

Simply displaying a passive-aggressive attitude is not going to make me incorrect. If you want me to eat crow, then give me a reason. I assume that is what you want, since you obviously went through the trouble of searching for a post from a year ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-11-09 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Reactionary, presumptuous, and insulting.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just one of those over-40s who ruined your world, so nothing I say counts.

Oh, and it took all of about three seconds to find that link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-11-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. I find your reaction very sad.
You seem to be a very bitter person. I'm sorry for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-11-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. What are you, starting Psych 101 this semester?
Kindly grow up -- which begins by putting that pseudo-psychoanalysis bullshit (hint: that's the insulting part) where the monkey puts the nuts.

If you can ever manage to calm down and stop insisting you're always the smartest guy in the room, who has all the answers, while the rest of us are just a bunch of old idiots with nothing better to do than make life difficult for you, then I'll be happy to hold a two-way conversation with you. As it stands, you're absolutely unapproachable. You don't want a dialogue -- you never do. You only want to be right.

Passion is a wonderful thing, but passion without thought is pointless and destructive. You're channeling your anger in the wrong direction, buddy. Try being pissed off at the people who served you that shit sandwich you're eating right now -- not at those of us who told you that sandwich was going to taste mighty shitty in the first place.

What you're seeing is not bitterness; you're seeing a woman absolutely fed up with people struggling desperately to stave off reality, instead of manning up and admitting they were wrong -- about a lot of things.

Saying, "You know, I may have been in error about a few things" won't cause your penis to fall off. Rather, it would gain you the respect you want, and provide a starting point for two-way discussion. But as long as you must be right -- and as long as you feel compelled to undermine the motives of those around you, that will never happen.

Did it ever occur to you that an attempt to get you to see where you might have gone off-track is also an attempt to get you back on-track -- and not a personal attack on you? No, I don't think you understand that yet.

I should have known better than to point out a past post of yours. Your defensiveness is impenetrable -- and positively electric.

Our conversation, for lack of a better word, is done. You can rant at me all you want, but I won't be reading it. I have better things to do.

In the meantime, Dan Savage is right about everything. My only argument with him is that it took him so damned long to wake up.

But Savage, I can forgive. Savage is a man who knows how to say, "You know, I may have been in error about a few things..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-11-09 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. I'm not angry at you.
I'm not sure why you'd think I was angry at you. Really, I don't care or know enough about you to be angry.

You want me to admit I was wrong? Wrong about what? You've never explained it. That's the problem.

You're acting like one of those people who are showing up at these Town Hall meetings.

I'm going to make the ASSUMPTION that you want me to apologize for supporting Obama in the primaries? Is that what you want?

If that is the case, then you're going to leave disappointed. If the primaries were held again today, I'd support Obama again. As I said in this thread and the old thread you linked to, there was no real difference between Obama and Hillary when it came to LGBT issues. Anyone who thinks Hillary would have, by this point in time, repealed DOMA, DADT, and other such things... well maybe off in some fantasy land.

I'm quite pleased with my vote. Is Obama everything I want him to be? No. I doubt I'll ever get the chance to vote for a politician who is everything I want him or her to be, but I felt then as I still feel that he was the better choice. If I didn't feel he was the better choice I wouldn't have voted for him, and would have supported someone else.

It's a pity that you want to withdraw from the conversation, but that is your choice. I still feel sad for you, because you are obviously bitter and angry. I don't need to have a degree in psychology to realize that. I'm not trying to insult or condescend to you, either. You may perceive it that way, but you're wrong: I really do feel sad for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
32. Barak Obama Won By a 7% Margin.
We could have made a difference in that election, as in ANY election. Anyone who ignores that does so at their peril.

NO MORE MONEY, TIME, OR VOTES FOR CANDIDATES WHO DO NOT EMBRACE FULL EQUALITY. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 04:28 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. Are you saying...
...that we should just vote third party or stay home? I guess you could also do a write-in candidate, I've done that before several times when there was only a Republican in the race.

Because, really, those are our only options.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Yes, That's More Or Less What I'm Saying, But I Don't Think Anyone Should Stay Home.
I think the only way we'll ever break free of this corporate trap is to stop buying the candidates that are spoon fed to us every election. The only way we will get change is if we demand it, and the only way to demand it is to refuse to vote for the status quo.

I don't know how many people - especially gay people - REALLY thought Obama was going to bring change, but I hope they've woken up, if so. If every gay person took the same pledge - no more money, time, or votes for any candidate that doesn't embrace full equality - we really could make a difference. But first we have to wake up to reality; stop being victims and exercise our strength.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetiredTrotskyite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
15. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
16. K&R
A bit more colorful than I would use, but I get it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
25. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duncan Grant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
26. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
41. Obama is more like the seemingly cool straight guy who's always borrowing your biology notes,
but then one night you run into him when he's hanging out with the guys from his fraternity and he pretends not to see you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libguy9560 Donating Member (52 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
49. No
He's a whore for the corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. "Whore" is such an ugly word.
I prefer to think of him as a sex worker for the corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC