Comments on: ATTN LGBT VOTERS: Barack Obama Is a Triangulating Homophobe

By: anon

anon — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:15:58 +0000

Nope, the question honestly wasn’t coming from a right-wing political perspective. I’m actually a left-of-center Obama supporter in most respects, liberal on social and personal rights issues but common sense conservative-leaning on budgetary matters. I do see your point. It’s a perfectly valid one.

By: John House

John House — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:52:18 +0000

Gays are too busy playing party politics right now to even care if Obama’s a homophobe. I believe he is (I’m part of the GLBT community myself).

A few points from the above comments: I thought that the Christmas present thing had been cleared up? Anyone have a link to this “Obama doesn’t give his kids Christmas presents” comment?

Also, I think you can pretty much take a good, educated guess as to what Obama really does follow. Personally I think he’s a member of the Nation of Islam–he’s just missing the bowtie.

The sad fact is that too many Americans DON’T understand the difference between a traditional Muslim and a Black Muslim/NOI Muslim. They are not the same thing, even though they follow some of the same customs.

Obama likes to hang around with “no pork on my fork” rappers (I believe Luda is one). Know what that is? It’s a tip to the Nation of Islam, who follow the same dietary rules as traditional Muslims and Jews (no pork because it’s unclean). Know what someone should do? Offer Obama a fat, juicy pork hotdog and see if he eats it.

Another thing about hardcore traditional Muslims is that dog ownership as pets is forbidden. remember that one of Obama’s girls asked if they could have a dog if they got into the White House? Obama skirted the issue. Dogs are considered unclean and not allowed in the house. You watch and see if Obama gets in; we just might have a non-dog president (plus I’ve only seen ONE photo of Obama near a dog and he was holding it for a promo and he looked like he wanted to shit himself).

The sad part about all of this is that all of these things are as American as apple pie (Christmas gift-giving, hot dogs, dog companionship) and Obama seems to reject all of it. What a GREAT symbol for America…only not.

By: Bill Ayers

Bill Ayers — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 06:51:45 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FUq223TGEc

a. hillary
b. mccain

america first!

By: lansing quaker

lansing quaker — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 03:12:58 +0000

Gay PUMA here — proudly voted McCain-Palin in Michigan (absentee)!

I love all the freak-out rhetoric I get from O-bot friends about LGBT issues and how McCain-Palin are so “SCARY!!!1″ on that front.

I left the Democratic LGBT plantation the moment Hillary Clinton was not selected as the VP.

By: VinceP1974

VinceP1974 — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:52:13 +0000

For whatever reason, my wonderfully written response to is filtered. So i have to just summarize:

The Fairness Doctrine is the Left’s way of shutting dissent.

Democrat Politicians are invited but not accept to go on most shows.

Most hosts give priority placement to the callers from the other side.

By: Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:47:07 +0000

Thanks, Truthteller, for this excellent piece (and for the shout-outs – wow!)!

Athena, Palin said something the other night in an interview with Greta, http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3174383&referralPlaylistId=playlist, that people don’t have to agree on everything, but they should be willing to talk things out, or something to that effect. She said that these days, people are so willing to vilify people with whom they disagree that they never LISTEN to the other person. And that’s the thing. She may not support same sex marriage, but she is fair – she signed into law GLBT people getting the SAME rights as everyone else because that was what the law required of her. Period. I mean, really – isn’t that refreshing?? She may not agree with us – YET – but maybe she will at least sit down and talk to us abt it!

By: VinceP1974

VinceP1974 — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:44:42 +0000

testing 1 2 3

By: JozefAL

JozefAL — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:15:27 +0000

You’re wrong tek. Dennis Kucinich was the only Democratic candidate who FULLY supports same-sex marriage.

By: JozefAL

JozefAL — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:13:49 +0000

No one ever stops to consider the economic implications when fucking straight couples marry either, do they?
Fuck the “budgetary implications”. An American soldier can marry a foreigner and bring that spouse to the US, but does anyone think of the “budgetary implications”?
As for “survivor’s benefits”, so the fuck what? What happens to a SINGLE person’s benefits when he/she dies? Huh? Where do they go? Shouldn’t the person who dies decide where they eventually go? I’m single, but when I die after I receive Social Security, I don’t see why someone I don’t know should “benefit” from my death. Maybe I would want my Social Security benefits to go to my favorite charity. Maybe I want the benefits to go to my third cousin’s grandchildren. Maybe I want the benefits to go to the hot young stud who spent the last year caring for me. If none of those cause a problem, then why should it matter if the benefits go to my same-sex partner whom I’ve married?
Anon, I frankly don’t believe your claim to be “neither for nor against same-sex marriage” because “budgetary implications” are a well-known right-wing code for a NON-RELIGIOUS basis for opposing same-sex marriage.

By: adagioforstrings

adagioforstrings — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:10:15 +0000

In fairness to Obama, a number of politicians triangulate on this issue, e.g. Palin who vetoed a bill in Alaska that outlawed gay marriage, but now supports a federal amendment to ban gay marriage (which would actually make the anti-gay marriage people’s job harder, since a constitutional amendment is more difficult to pass than a federal law…):

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/12/29/6

[...]Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, the Anchorage Daily News reported[...]

By: JozefAL

JozefAL — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:02:22 +0000

Sorry if I offended anyone with the start of the above comment, but I’m so tired of these people who don’t have a clue what the Fairness Doctrine really means and only listen to what they’ve been told by far-right lunatics.

By: JozefAL

JozefAL — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:59:59 +0000

Bitch, get a fucking grip. “So now the government is not only going to control. . ., but now our media. . . .”
Do you actually KNOW what the Fairness Doctrine IS or have you just bought into the RIGHT-WING’s definition of it? The Fairness Doctrine (which was the law until the Reagan era; you might remember Reagan–he’s the one who wanted the media to spend more time on “good” news instead of the “depressing” news). The Fairness Doctrine MANDATED that a station (or a network) could NOT editorialize on an issue without allowing someone on the other side having the right to speak his/her mind on the issue WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY FOR THE RIGHT.
Why do you think the right-wingers want to keep the Fairness Doctrine out of the picture? They LOVE the way they DON’T have to allow opposing speech (which, by the way, is the TRUE hallmark of ANY totalitarian regime, whether on the right or the left). TV and radio stations are LICENSED by the Government (compared, for example, to newspapers which are fully privately-owned and -operated or the internet which similarly does not operate under Government license) and both should be required (in terms of news coverage) to offer fair, balanced AND equitable coverage of the issues. Contrary to popular opinion, Fox News is NOT “fair and balanced” when viewed SOLELY on its own merits. The network came into existence claiming that IT was needed to provide “balance in coverage”. Note that the conservative Reagan-era FCC ended the Fairness Doctrine so one could blame the FCC for creating that “need” for Fox News. (Talk radio, it should be noted, only took off when station owners were freed from the Fairness Doctrine’s requirement of “fair, balanced and equitable coverage”.)
Of course, it is a bit odd that major opponents of the Fairness Doctrine tend to be major proponents of the government having complete control over entertainment and advertising content (IOW, it’s perfectly fine for some right-wing hack to spout off on any issue he wants without an opposing point of view getting the same attention, but we mustn’t allow children to be exposed to tobacco, hard liquor or condom ads, and heaven forfend that some program should have a 4-letter word or a 10-second glimpse of a woman’s nipple or a man’s penis on the slim chance that some 10-year old is up at 11pm).

By: torchwwod

torchwwod — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:58:19 +0000

Don’t know if I want Obama to win or lose. A BIG part of me wants to him to lose for obvious reasons. but part of me wants him to win so he can screw over the GLBT community and I can say “I told you so” to those fools wearing “Obama Pride” buttons.

By: Athena the Warrior

Athena the Warrior — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:48:14 +0000

Then gay people should no longer have to pay into a system that will not recognize them. No taxation without representation OK?

By: JozefAL

JozefAL — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:29:03 +0000

Rob, hate to break it to you but that actually takes in a very large portion of the “Christian Community”. Opposition to same-sex marriage (or, more accurately, support of “traditional, one-man/one-woman” marriage) is an official policy of the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church of America, pretty much all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the various Lutheran denominations.
Even the Dalai Lama has spoken/written against homosexuality, and not just in terms of same-sex marriage. (The Sundance Channel airs a program called “John Safran vs God”, featuring an Australian reality show “survivor” who discusses religion of all sorts, largely from the skeptic’s point of view. On one program he showed how the Dalai Lama’s renowned tolerance is not quite as inclusive as everyone thinks. He read quotes from a book and asked, through “man-on-the-street” interviews, whether the quote was from the Dalai Lama or Pope John Paul II. Every quote sounded like something we’d expect from the Pope but, without exception, all the passages were from the Dalai Lama.)
Also, it should be pointed out that, of all the divisions of Judaism, the only one that openly supports same-sex marriage (while also allowing each temple/synagogue leeway in its acceptance of the issue) is Reform Judaism. Both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism are stringently opposed to same-sex marriage.