Gay rights protesters repeatedly interrupt Obama speech at Boxer fundraiser

[jefferson_dem]

I'm usually not supportive of these disruptions but ... Let him hear it. It's past time to move on equality!

Protesters repeatedly interrupt Obama speech at Boxer fundraiser
Posted by John Aravosis (DC) at 4/19/2010 09:42:00 PM

POTUS took the stage at 6:13 p.m. local time. Audio again is not the greatest. He calls out names of several California government officials, each of whom draw applause.

At 6:17, several protesters among the crowd interrupted POTUS' speech, expressing anger over the slow progress on repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay service members. The crowd tried to hush them. "What about don't ask, don't tell?" one protester shouted.

POTUS yelled back "we are going to do that."

POTUS kept talking, increasing his volume to speak over the protesters. The crowd then erupted into chants of "Yes, we can."

He later said, "we are going to repeal don't ask, don't tell."

Your pooler has learned the protesters are from GetEQUAL, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender group that also orchestrated protests outside the fundraiser. The group was also behind a protest last month at the White House, where activists Lt. Dan Choi and Capt. James Pietrangelo handcuffed themselves to a gate.

"IT's time for equality for all Americans!" another protester yelled at 9:22. Obama said, "can I just say again Barbara and I are supportive of repealing Don't ask dont tell." But protester keeps yelling. Bringing Obama's remarks to a halt. The crowd responds again by "shouting yes we can!" over the protesters.

"Be quiet!" someone yells.

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/04/rotesters-repeatedly-interrupt-obama.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Sometimes guerrilla tactics are the only things that work.

He needs to hear them.

And he needs to act.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

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

[awoke_in_2003]

5. yes he does

k&r

[liquid diamond]

11. Grow the fuck up people. n/t

[ruggerson]

13. Exactly, Peggy

He needs to hear this everywhere he goes.

[Phx_Dem]

114. And some times you just look like a guerrilla. n/t

[Arkana]

2. Well, I actually don't mind this.

As long as they didn't get up and call him a "worthless corporate tool" or whatever the FDL wing of the left is using to describe Obama these days.

It underscores the importance of his promise to get rid of DADT.

[jtrockville]

4. Keep the pressure on.

[LonePirate]

6. I can only imagine the Faux News coverage: "Obama heckled by military supporters"

They will come up with some inane headline in order to spin it that Obama is hated by liberal Californians while probably omitting the details of the protest (repeal of DADT) and maybe even the ideology of the protestors.

Bravo to the protestors for speaking up. It's a shame they focused solely on DADT but a single topic of focus can only aid their cause.

[vaberella]

7. I thought he was moving on equality.

Not to say that the actions of these people are wrong. But, I thought there was some moves being made.

[whistler162]

56. He is Congress isn't but Rep. Frank's says it is all

President Obama fault!:sarcasm:

[vaberella]

101. Lord. Sometimes I like Bernie Frank, and sometimes...

He's seems almost out of touch when he works in the mess.

[xchrom]

8. There are some fucked up and ignorant critics of

The protestors in this thread.

[DrToast]

9. I support the protestors, but I don't think they should ruin the night

Cause a scene and make your point--I'm perfectly fine with that. Hell, I welcome it. Obama needs some heat now and then. But don't pretend your issue is the only issue that matters.

[Clio the Leo]

10. Doah! I'd been waiting SOOO long for a good heckling episode....

.... and I bet this one wasn't recorded!!!

There have been some close calls, but this one sounds like the most raucous one yet. 10 mins.

The wing-nuts are going to be THOROUGHLY confused by this story. lol "why do the gays hate him when he's making one of them a Supreme Court Justice?!?!?!?"

[ruggerson]

14. It was recorded - it's all over the radio

and did I miss something? When did he announce his SCOTUS pick?

[Clio the Leo]

15. SCOTUS part was a joke....

.... the chatter is that Kagan is gay .... the fact that she has neither been named as a potential pick or has commented on her sexuality one way or the other is apparently besides the point to those who are speculating.

I'm not going to post any links because you and I both know it doesn't matter if she's gay or not ... she just needs to be the best candidate ... but haters will hate and this is their latest thing to pick on. Obama is gonna put "a gay" on the Supreme Court.

And if you can find a link, please share.

[ruggerson]

29. She's not my first choice

but as long as he picks someone who is an intellectual progressive, I'm aboard. I would prefer a non-jurist - someone from academia ideally, but I do realize shouting down about this from the bleachers is very different than strategically planning for a nominee who will actually get confirmed.

If I find an audio link, I"ll post it.

[Clio the Leo]

31. We prob. wont hear anything until tomorrow....

.... there's been nothing on this since 10 on ye olde Twitter and now the east coast bloggers are in bed (or they should be lol.)

[ruggerson]

12. "the croiwd responded by shouting yes we can"

what fucked up assholes.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Why is that?

That is what was on the guy's T-Shirt! So why are other folks assholes???? :shrug:

[FreeState]

17. So you think they were yelling that because they supported the hecklers? Really? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

18. I don't believe that it could have been as acromonious as that......

Him saying Repeal DADT, and they saying "Yes we can!" sounds like it kind of goes together.....
err...like his T-shirt.

But if you are looking for an excuse to be pissed and want to call people assholes,
I've got some protesting Teabaggers for you to tear down.

I think the Person who shouted out did just that, and I think the crowd's reactions
seem to be appropos...since I'd have to imagine that most of them are for DADT repeal....
after all, this was Los Angeles, california. :eyes:

[FreeState]

23. Well from every single report I have read of it they were not shouting because they supported them

but rather to drown them out.

But go ahead and try and making it into something you can support.

BTW - the hecklers were protesting DADT being overturned this year in this years budget, something multiple sources have state, including Barney Frank, that Obama is activity working against.

Edit to add link:

http://www.lgbtpov.com/2010/04/rep-barney-frank-on-enda-dadt-and-how-lgbts-should-lobby-like-the-nra/

“I’m frustrated. I’m disappointed with the administration, in part. There have been some good things. Admiral Mullen saying what he said was spectacular. And enforcing it the way it was originally supposed to – even though I didn’t like it – discharges can be cut by over 90 percent.

snip



“His not being for it will give people an excuse to not vote for it. Thing is – we’ve done hate crimes. We do ENDA. It’s a big agenda all at once. At this point – the President’s refusal to call for repeal this year is a problem.”

[FrenchieCat]

25. I support folks speaking their mind.......

and I support this President.

You can take it all, and do with it what you will.

What I know is that no other President in history has done more
for Gay rights to date. Folks can be mad about that, and push
in how they see fit....but calling everyone else assholes is
taking things in place that going there doesn't do shit for
anyone at all......otherwise, folks might as well have all with their
message all join the tea party and everybody can just scream the entire
time the President is on the stage saying whatever, and feel they've done their part.

Guess next comes Hispanics and African-Americans up there screaming stuff out too...
after all, those folks are waiting on what they want as well, and they worked to
get this President elected as well....from what I understand.

[FreeState]

30. Seems like you taking about other posters as I did not do any of that n/t

[FrenchieCat]

32. I just felt that calling folks assholes should be reserved for the Pubs and the Teabaggers,

but that's just me....

and Yes, I was talking to Ruggerson.....
Sorry, if it appeared that I was talking to you.

[ruggerson]

19. because putative "Democrats" who shout down people fighting for equal rights

are assholes.

[FrenchieCat]

21. seems like the person got quite a chance to speak his mind.......

and of course, it's like anything....when shouting and interrupting,
you're aren't always gonna get the kind of reception that would be ideal
in all circumstances.

But I believe that most folks there support what he was shouting out about,
including Pres. Obama and Sen. Boxer.

I think you be wantin' more drama than was there in this case.....

This wasn't Code Pink attempting to arrest Rove.....
not even close. :eyes:

[ruggerson]

24. Yes, they tell us they want to repeal it - every election cycle

and then do jack when they get in office.

There needs to be a lot more of this until the fucking thing is repealed.

I don't think anyone wants drama. They want this fourteenth century policy thrown out. Now.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Yeah...cause Jack Shit ain't been done about Gay rights at all

in any shape, or form by this President....Well, not really, but hey, I understand.

[ruggerson]

28. I was referring to DADT as you are well aware

and apparently you don't understand much or you would realize the depth of the anger over this.

[FrenchieCat]

34. I didn't say that the individuals didn't have a good cause

or a point to make....

I was talking more about you deciding that everyone who reacted
are simply assholes, because like I said, I would have to believe that many
folks there support the repeal of DADT...so this ain't exactly like
screaming "No Tax Cut for the Rich" at George Bush, and folks around
reacting to that. Cause I believe the repeal of DADT will happen,
and I believe that No tax cuts for the Rich under Bush was an impossibility.

[ruggerson]

36. Shouting down people who are fighting for equality

is profoundly and fully wrong. There can never be any excuses for it in my book. We either unequivocally support those who speak truth to power or we don't. I think Obama can withstand this - he was the one who kept quoting Roosevelt's line about "I agree with you - now make me do it." He gets how this process works. Part of giving him cover to act forcefully on this is for this type of protest to receive consistent coverage, so that the average American begins to understand that this isn't about one interest group or one issue, but rather this is about who we are as a country - what kind of soul we have as a nation.

[FrenchieCat]

37. I'm sure there was a question/answer session.......

which could have been a great venue to get down to brass tacks on the fight for equality.
Disagreeing on the President's tact doesn't mean one has to be disagreeable.
They did it, so be it. But doesn't make those around assholes....and if so,
then so be that as well, as we all have acted like assholes at one time in our lives
or another. But of course that's my opinion.

[donheld]

35. If he wasn't so angry he'd be kinda hot.

[QC]

73. I dunno. I think anger can be kinda sexy. n/t

[DevonRex]

81. Think passionate instead of angry. Makes him even hotter, no? nt

[donheld]

112. I think you are right.

[DevonRex]

85. I think the crowd was AGREEING with them. I certainly do.

I'm glad they protested. I'm glad Obama heard them. I'm glad the crowd agreed with them. I'm glad that this will be reported on the news - that there's a real push for equal rights for GLBTs.

IMO this was a great thing. Kudos to the protesters for their action. They aren't just keyboard warriors. They're really doing something, which is more than most people can say.

[PopSixSquish]

20. I Think the President Can Handle Some Protesters Unlike the Previous Occupant of the WH

He needs to be reminded of this promise and the administration needs to move forward...

[Clio the Leo]

27. Two fascinating things about this incident:

... it happened at a fundraiser, not at a regular rally. Meaning the protesters (either they or someone for them) paid for them to do this. So it was protesting for a good cause so to speak (in more ways than one.)

And there's a different tone that we see among the LGBT protesters vs. the teabaggers. The teabaggers are trying to defame and stop the President .... they attack him personally.

The LGBT protesters .... and to a lesser extent those who are against the Afghanistan war ... are literally begging for help ... from someone they feel they at least have a chance to reason with.

And that ... my friends ... is change you can believe it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. I, too, wish he could wave a magic wand and make everything happen yesterday.

From the signs, you'd think he's broken a promise. He promised to end DADT, he didn't say it would be the next day. He's had a couple of other things to contend with.

[krawhitham]

33. Name a President who has done more for Gay rights?

Don't worry I'll wait


Talk about biting the hand that feeds you

[EFerrari]

38. What in the world are you talking about?

So far, there has been an order for hospitals not to discriminate. That and speeches and a bs study on DADT when the data is already manifestly clear.

I hope these people continue to lobby their government to ante up until there is equality in this country. That's not biting anything. That's an old American practice.

[name not needed]

39. Slightly more than "jack shit" is nothing to brag about.

[Obamacare]

41. So now its ok

to act like spoiled rotten teabaggers to get what you want? What happened to having respect for the POTUS, interupting the President's speech was totally uncalled for, I guess the teabagger attitude is rubbing off on everyone these days.smh

[Tailormyst]

63. Because throughout history groups have won equality by being rewarded for good behavior

Right? If people just wait patiently and don't make a fuss, then eventually they will get equality. That is what you are saying, right Obamacare?

Which of your civil rights are you willing to give up today?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

76. What a pantload...

Name one time in history where a lone heckler accomplished something.

The Civil Rights Act? The result of a century of concerted efforts on the part of generations of Americans -- and I don't recall Martin Luther King, Jr. screaming at Lyndon Johnson.

Heckling someone -- no matter who is doing it -- is just damned stupid and counter-productive.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[ZombieHorde]

40. President Bill Clinton was the first to appoint openly gay people to all levels of government.

He originally wanted gay people to serve openly in the military, but he obviously backed tracked with the DADT policy, an improvement, but still weak, as are many compromises.

President Clinton was definitely a trail blazer for gay civil rights.

[CTLawGuy]

53. you have to be kidding me

he signed DOMA into law as well as DADT. These are the same two laws you guys are furious that Obama hasn't repealed fast enough! Even if DADT was a "compromise" there is no excuse for DOMA.

Furthermore, name these openly gay people at "all" levels of government.

I love the double standard for Clinton vs. Obama.

[Lyric]

55. I love the double-standard for Obama vs. Bush

And the people here who are nanny-nanny-pooh-poohing THESE protesters, but who raised unholy hell when Bush protesters were confined to "free speech zones" and were not permitted to voice their frustrations in the presence of the President.

[CTLawGuy]

57. where were the "free speech zones" here?

why all the whitewashing of Bill Clinton's term as president?

[Lyric]

59. That's the point. There ARE no free speech zones, at least not that I know of.

But why was it such a GOOD thing when people protested Bush about legitimate issues, and such a BAD thing when people do the same to Obama? We should look at these incidents with celebration that we have a President who doesn't isolate himself from legitimate criticism. Instead, there is a contingent who want to complain about the protesters. Typical. We get our free speech back, and now we have to deal with short-sighted intellectual midgets who think we shouldn't USE it. Brilliant! And why? What is the justification? Nobody ever explains THAT. Why should we not protest? It is because some people here think that DADT is actually good policy? Is it because we're afraid of hurting Obama's feelings? His image? His re-election chances? I'm sorry, but my priority is NOT any one politician's career. My priorities involve issues--not celebrities.

And so far as I know, I didn't "whitewash" ANYTHING.

[Fire1]

98. Good question and where were the protests back then? n/t

[ZombieHorde]

70. History lessen for you...

The hatred and hysteria against gays was more prevalent in President Clinton's day than in our current day.

The military was actively hunting gay people for expulsion at the time. President Clinton wanted to allow gay people to serve openly, but he couldn't pull it off, so we got DADT. DADT is not good, but it has done a lot of good, it stopped many of the witch hunts. The attitude of the general population toward gay people has improved over the last 15 years. Time for DADT to go.

DOMA was another compromise. There was a lot of talk to ban all gay marriages in the US. DOMA quelled this talk by "protecting" state rights. Under President Clinton's plan, gay marriage could still exist on a state by state basis. Gay marriage proponents were not happy, just like single payer/public option proponents are not happy with the HCR bill, but DOMA was a start.

President Clinton also included sexual orientation to the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and issued an executive order to end discrimination against gay people at work.

President Bill Clinton appointed hundreds of openly gay people to government positions, I will name some of them: James C. Hormel, Ambassador to Luxembourg; Virginia Apuzzo, the former Assistant to the President for Management and Administration; Fred Hochberg, Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration; Gail Shibley, the Director of External Communications for the Federal Highway Administration; Harold Creel, Jr., Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission; Jesse White, Federal Co-Chairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission; and Todd Summers, Deputy Director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy.

If we are supposed to give President Obama slack for not being perfect on health care, then we need to give President Clinton slack for not being perfect on gay rights, and no President has done as much for gay rights as Bill Clinton.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

78. Excellent post. Everyone needs to read it.!

[ZombieHorde]

80. Thanks! nt

[CTLawGuy]

107. Obama gets no slack

from anyone, not the right or the left. If were to "compromise" like Bill Clinton did, he would be excoriated.

It's strange to me that something that was an acceptable compromise is now so horrible that it had to be repealed yesterday.

If you believe that DADT was an acceptable compromise when signed into law by Clinton, then you can't turn around and scream at Obama because he didn't repeal it yesterday.

I'm not sure how DOMA is a "compromise". If the right could have banned gay marriage by a constitutional amendment, they would have done so, regardless of DOMA. Now, because of DOMA, gay couples married in my state are still denied all federal rights and are not truly equal. How Bill Clinton can be given a pass for this is beyond me. Moreover, Obama is called a homophobe because he didn't repeal DOMA yesterday.

[Prism]

108. Not everyone accepted these "compromises"

DOMA will forever remain a stain on Bill Clinton's record, and I have never forgiven him for it. Unfair or not, DOMA played no minor role in my choosing to support Obama over Clinton in the primaries. I did not trust the triangulating impulse that I felt she shared with her husband.

Furthermore, Clinton didn't meekly, sullenly sign DOMA into law as if forced by powers beyond his control. He celebrated it and campaigned on it in '96, airing ads in the South painting himself as the champion of virtuous families against those evil, corrupting gays.

There was no excuse for it, no matter what the climate back then.

As far as DADT, I do not accept its passage either. I see it as an episode of true political ineptitude by a President who didn't have his sea legs just yet.

[CTLawGuy]

116. I am glad you are willing to admit that

a disturbing number of people make so many excuses for Bill Clinton but then dump on Obama. That is what really annoys me.

These horrible laws will be repealed only through repeated pressure and lobbying, of everyone, from the president himself, down to the most junior member of congress. I think that a committed sympathetic congressperson, such as Barney Frank, should gather signatures for a discharge petition on a repeal bill of either or both laws. This will at the very least, get the leadership's attention and force them to deal with the issue. At best, if he gets 218 signatures, he can force repeal to an up or down vote. The same thing can be done in the senate although it will have to get 60.

[TankLV]

127. Your Clinton hatred is getting worse - seek medical help.

Seriously.

Bill Clinton did more for GBLT that ANYONE - especially obama.

[ZombieHorde]

132. "Obama gets no slack from anyone, not the right or the left."

The right's opposition to President Obama is self explanatory, President Obama plays for the wrong team, the left's opposition is more interesting. I don't have any evidence, but I believe many of the people on the left who oppose President Obama oppose him because he is a Democrat, as opposed to a Green or a Socialist. Democrat is the wrong team for some on the left, just like Republican is the wrong team for many on the right.

If were to "compromise" like Bill Clinton did, he would be excoriated.

President Clinton was excoriated by many on the far left (Green/Socialist) during his administration. We are older now and a little less idealistic.

It's strange to me that something that was an acceptable compromise is now so horrible that it had to be repealed yesterday.

I believe this comes from fear. Many of us had our hearts set on a public option, a compromise to begin with. When the talks about a public option turned to triggers, opt outs, opt ins, and finally dropped altogether, some wonder if this will be a pattern. Many of us are anxious.

The right was building great pressure to constitutionally ban gay marriage in the US; DOMA released that pressure. The right backed themselves into a corner with the states rights meme and President Clinton used it against them. The wedge issue of the ban was temporarily dissolved. DOMA may be compared to President Obama giving the thumbs up to offshore drilling.

[TankLV]

126. Thank you. The clinton haters need to read this. They know NOTHING!

[TankLV]

125. Which proves you know jack shit about Clinton and DADT for one thing.

[Fire1]

88. Then why did the pioneer sign DADT? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

106. Clinton was a trail blazer for sexual harassment, not LGBT rights

and as another poster has pointed out, Bill is the man that signed DOMA into law and gave us DADT.

[ZombieHorde]

133. See post #70. nt

[Smashcut]

44. So this is the new talking point?

Without anything to back it up?

:rofl:

[QC]

74. I wish the new talking points memo would come out soon--

some people are actually still flogging that old magic wand bit!

[terrya]

58. No President has done that much for GLBT rights.

Including this one.

Sorry, but signing the Matthew Shepard Act, after it had to be put into a Defense Authorization bill, without ANY push from the White House, isn't really "fierce advocacy".

Appointments are fine, but nominating a gay man as head of the Export/Import Bank doesn't do jack shit for repealing DADT or passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or repealing the truly heinous Defense of Marriage Act.

Barack Obama said that he is a "fierce advocate" for GLBT Americans. Frankly, I'm not seeing that at all. I'm seeing an administration that has made a political decision that our concerns don't really matter all that much.

[TankLV]

124. Bill Clinton.

He didn't find Gay people "icky" like obama does...

[Smashcut]

42. How ironic, in a fucked up sort of way, that the crowd was shouting "yes we can"

to silence a group of actual progressives with a legitimate demand for change.

What a joke.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Did you see the video?

Seem like things were ok to me.
Pres. Obama agreed with the protestors,
so I really don't know what this drama is about.
They came, they shouted what the wanted,
the crowds reacted.....the folks didn't get dragged out,
and the President agreed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x457038

[Smashcut]

45. Yes. I just watched it. They were clearly shouting the slogan to drown the DADT protester out.

And that is fucked up.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Why?

Why is shouting slogans as interruption sanctioned,
but how folks react to it fucked up?
Nobody was dragged off the floor.
The President didn't tell anyone to shut up.

protestors are protestors and they will do what they do.
Crowds who paid to hear the President speak also will do what they will do.
Those people in that room, I believe, supported those protestors views,
that's what I got out of it, as they clapped when the President said
he agreed with the protestors.

but If you think that alienating folks is how to get things done...
to call people assholes and say what they did was fucked up
is how you move history.....fine.

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. How do you know they were "actual progressives"? Did you check their

credentials? They might well have been a bunch of teabaggers and/or log cabin republicans stirring up shit? How is one to know?:shrug:

[Smashcut]

47. ROFL.

Weak, my friend. That's really how you wanna play this?

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. LCR. (nt)

[Smashcut]

50. Actually, they're not LCR.

The group behind this is called GetEQUAL, and they're the same group behind Lt. Dan Choi's recent protest in front of the White House. They also organized a rally outside Obama's speech.

If the best you can do is point to everyone who proves inconvenient to a president you consider too precious for criticism, and call them a Republican, then you once again prove that the "freedom fries" mentality can be just as bad in Dems as it is in Repubs.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Tailormyst]

64. That is so fucking pathetic

If it were YOUR rights on the line you wouldn't be making such snarky little remarks.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Tarheel_Dem]

105. You have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. You don't know me.

Or anything about me.

[jefferson_dem]

52. "...actual progressives with a legitimate demand for change"

Ugh.

I understand the protesters' grievance but your post amounts to bullshit on many levels.

[GinaMaria]

60. Reminds me of the wing nuts who yelled "USA, USA"

to drown outwar protestors. No one will hand you your rights, you have to demand them and fight for them. I stand with those who stood up for equal rights.

[Lyric]

54. Good. Nice to see a President who doesn't sequester all potential protesters

into a "free speech zone" a mile away. We hated that crap when Bush did it. For those who think this was "wrong"--did you think it was wrong when people tried to protest Bush events?

[DevonRex]

79. I agree. Not only that, but it's good that the public sees that there's a push

for equal rights for GLBTs. Obama heard it. The public will hear it. IMO that's a good thing all around.

[Clio the Leo]

61. The question we have to ask ourselves is....

.... are we willing to give up seats ... or at worst ... control of the House to the GOP in order to get DADT overturned sooner rather than later. Because that's what this comes down to.

http://sdgln.com/news/2010/04/19/getequal-protest-dadt-inaction-obama-raises-money-senator-boxer

And there are as many answers to that question as there are people considering it.

If we repealed it before the elections, then lost control of the House (in part) because of it, could the GOP reinstate it? What effect would that have on pending ENDA and DOMA legislation?

[Tailormyst]

62. Hey Clio- Which of your civil rights will you give up to keep the seats

Or perhaps civil rights just don't mean that much to you. After all, they aren't "real" civil rights, right?

How many times must GBLT members of this party b e told to sit down and shut up so we don't cost the party the election?

Answer: One to many times, the GayTM is shut the fuck off and the politicians can find new people to fill the positions on the ground.

[Clio the Leo]

65. And if the security of this nation is threatened...

... because our Army is devoid of a skill that Lt. Choi is uniquely qualified to provide, we aren't going to be doing much arguing are we? ;)

I wish the answer was as easy for Congress as it is for you and me.

[Tailormyst]

66. The answer is as easy for them: The problem is that they are cowards

[Clio the Leo]

67. yep .... greedy ones at that. NT

[Bluenorthwest]

69. All respect for your support

but we have heard that line of reasoning each and every election cycle of my lifetime. It is what is always said, and just as you do, it is always merely said, stated, declared. No evidence is offered, no stats, no specific seats one feels would be lost over this issue, which is not marriage equality, but merely the right to die for the country.
You say 'that's what this comes down to'. Prove it. Show your work. Which seats would be in peril that are not already in peril?

[kiva]

75. When the Democratic party supported the modern civil rights

movement they lost millions of members, primarily from the southern states. States that had been in the Democratic column went Republican and have largely been so since the 1970s. Maybe we shouldn't have backed people like MLK since it has cost us our control of Congress many times? :shrug:

[mkultra]

84. they are protesting the wrong people

Civil rights passed because a ground swell of like minded support drew national attention. Disrupting speeches was not a productive method then and isn't today. Marching and civil disobedience is.

[Fire1]

89. "Protesting the wrong people," as usual. n/t

[mkultra]

90. yup

[LooseWilly]

115. Disrupting speeches isn't civil disobedience?

What sort of civil disobedience is polite enough to be effective, praytell? And should I assume that marchers who mean to change the system ought to be polite enough to obtain the proper permits, and pay the consequent fees municipalities are liable to request to cover police overtime?

The revolution will be announced in the minutes of your local municipalities' minutes of upcoming civic events, don't you know.

The important thing, historically, is that Rosa Parks didn't disrupt any city council meetings in Selma? Let alone do anything that might've disrupted a speech by the transportation board director?... am I extrapolating correctly about your perception of the "proper place" for protestors? And am I correct in reading you as judging that protestors should all, from now forward, continue to employ precisely the same methodologies as those employed in the early 60's... when seeking to propel change? Should we all presume that dictum is a result of the obviousness of the fact that the powers that be haven't once considering altering the legal landscape in ways that might make the methodologies employed nearly 50 years ago obsolete?
Or maybe you want those who protest "stuff" now to employ means to do so which will fail because they are out of date?

Or maybe you're a fossil yourself who thinks that things haven't changed since you were a youth, brainwashing citizens for a better tomorrow... as implied by your tinfoilhat inspiring username... ?

[mkultra]

119. what im saying is that

MLK and his organizers knew that there was a line that should be honored in order to prevent the alienation of those who are potential supporters.

Those who are will to oppress tyrannically will always find a protest uncivil. BUT, those of a more moderate mind will look to the actual behavior of those protesting as evidence of there reasonableness.

What im saying is not that these disruptions are somehow immoral but rather that they are bad strategy.

[kiva]

120. Irrelevant to my post.

I was responding to the poster's handwringing about the possible loss of seats if the Dems were to actually stand up for civil rights in the same way we did in the 1950s and 60s. Apparently the poster believes that some groups are more worthy of Democratic support than others - not surprising, given that she sees murder as a political opportunity.

[mkultra]

121. Well, then you either misread her post or are trying to smear her

It was clear from reading that she was making reference to political priority. Despite the belief among many that you can more than one thing at a time, the ACTUAL truth is that you can only do one major thing at a time. If you don't believe that, then you need to step away for a while and read until you can come back with a somewhat reasonable point of view.

Comparing this movement to the civil rights movement is stretching it. Just because civil rights are involved in both doesn't make them the same.

[kiva]

122. I can read, and the poster's previous posts make her own point.

Her statement wasn't about whether or not one could do more than one thing at once, it was about whether principles are more important than power. I know from the HCR debate that many people here think it's more important that Democratic politicians stay in power than that they actually do something.

You say that it's "stretching it" to compare the two movements - so the fact that African Americans did not have access to certain jobs or could be fired for no reason other than race would have been OK with you fifty years ago? Not worth losing some votes over, because gee, we really do sympathize but it's way more important that we, your representatives, keep our jobs than that you keep yours.

[mkultra]

123. again, comprehension problems

Her point was about what to address first least it shorten our time in control. The longer we remain in control, the longer we have to make change. This means planning our battles carefully.

What im saying regarding the movements is that blacks suffered far more denial of civil rights. As far as I'm concerned, you denigrate the struggle of black Americans but putting these two movements in an perfectly equated stance.

[kiva]

128. Sorry, I didn't realize you were playing the comparative suffering game,

or that you choose to ignore what doesn't fit into your worldview.

What exactly would GLBT folks have to suffer to be worthy of the passion and commitment shown by people - not all African American - who supported the civil rights movement 50 years ago? Hmmm...killed because of who they are? Check. Not considered full citizens, able to serve their country? Check. Job and housing discrimination? Check.

Guess you'll have to explain why you don't think GLBT people have suffered enough.:shrug:

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[kiva]

130. Now you're narrowing it down...

just how many GLBT people have to die, in your opinion, to make it worth the party's while to support them?

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[kiva]

138. Since you were the one who brought slaughter into the conversation,

not really. You've made your opinion very clear for everyone to see.

[mkultra]

139. its a viable comparison and you know it

You cannot equate the two movements without doing injustice to one or exaggerating the other.

[CTLawGuy]

117. not exactly acurrate

while, over time, the dems did lose members, we were firmly in control of Congress from around 1955 to 1995 except for a two year blip during which which the Rs controlled the senate after 1980.

[NorthCarolina]

68. Hmmmm...I guess a donation to GetEQUAL is in order. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

71. Thanks to the OP for posting support of this action

Peace

[DCBob]

72. This does more harm than good..

imo.

[mitchtv]

92. yeah, Gays should STFU and do what they are told

by the privliged Dems, maybe next year, right now even though we have the votes(for now) we can't risk them by doing the right thing.Gays can wait some more , there are too many issues more important (we don't like them anyway)

[DCBob]

97. No, but a more strategic approach might be more productive.

imo.

[mitchtv]

99. like what? begging

[DCBob]

104. I dont know. maybe you are right.

I hope it helps the cause but I doubt it.

[robinblue]

102. Nope. This public place was exactly the right spot. We need more of this, not less.

[CakeGrrl]

110. Yes, that's what we've been saying all along!!!

:eyes:
:eyes:
:eyes:

And lest I be taken seriously,

:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:

Gawd, that meme is tired, overused, and needless to say, hyperbolic.

[BeyondGeography]

77. It's healthy

Obama needs a fully-motivated base to achieve his goals, most of the country is ready to move forward and there is nothing in his heart that disagrees with anything the "protesters" were saying. Nothing wrong with giving him a push in a friendly setting.

[vaberella]

83. However, there's nothing he's said (heart aside) that disagrees with the protestors.

My thing is, can we depend on said protesters to vote for Boxer. This is ultimately the problem. I don't know if this hurts or helps her case. Boxer if given the chance will repeal DADT. However, she's facing a seriously tough race and that's ultimately the basis of some of the arguments against the protest at the fundraiser. I just hope the protesters will still support her, if they supported her at all.

[DevonRex]

87. I'm thinking this is a win/win.

The protesters were heard. They weren't relegated to some parking lot 10 miles away. That is a good thing. Moreover, it will strike a cord with California voters who agree with the protesters - that they were heard. And the crowd agreed with the protesters. Even better.

For the voters who don't agree with the protesters - well, they'll gripe about them and talk about how rude they were and think they were protesting AGAINST Boxer. So maybe they'll give her another look because of that. Sort of a rope-a-dope thing, you know?

[vaberella]

103. Let's be honest here.

You're making it seem as though Obama doesn't listen to the LGBT community. Which is false. He's been working on expanding rights they were deserved for being citizens from the get-go. No one, well I sure as hell, didn't assume they were protesting against Boxer. However, this will be promoted by such by the media and Boxer is already in a tough race. If she loses her seat to a Republican, then this protest would be for not---because we can be rest assured that the Repubs won't vote for it. I don't know how the rope-a-dope works in this sort of situation.

[political_Dem]

113. +1000

[DevonRex]

82. Good for the protesters AND good for Obama. And good for us, too.

They expressed their views. Obama heard them. The crowd heard them and said "yes we can" repeal DADT. That IS the Dem Party stance, after all.

Not only that, but now the general public has heard that there's a grassroots push for equal rights for GLBTs.

I'm not finding a downside to this at all.

[Sheepshank]

86. Yes, Mr. President, the Republicans were aboslutely right

You are just not mopping fast enough. :sarcasm:

Or perhpas you are not mopping the rooms *we feel* has some manufactured priority, fast enough :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[mitchtv]

94. BTW Quit dragging your feet

Mr President. we are not happy. sure the crumbs are tasty, but we want something that cannot be wiped out by the next admin.

[NJmaverick]

95. What pisses me off is Yahoo and AP are claiming President Obama "snapped" at the protestors

and is running this picture



Having watched the video their characterization could be best described as slander.

[Fire1]

96. Remember Maverick, they have to make money, too! n/t

[onpatrol98]

136. Peeved

The president was definitely peeved. I thought he snapped at the protesters, too. I think he was tired and thinking, "Hey, I'm the good guy here. Why are you heckling me?"

Maybe the hecklers were thinking, if he had already done something about the issue, they wouldn't have had to heckle him.

I think he wants to do this in his own time. Perhaps, he has advisers telling him...not now, wait. I can understand him being blind sided by the economy when he first got into office. Maybe if the health care debate had been a smoother process.

But, I'm not sure what waiting is going to get him. If he loses seats, he won't be in nearly the power position he's in now. I would have thought this would have been an easy, early, base pleaser.

In fact, I assumed he would have started farther left and later moved to the center, closer to his next election cycle. But, maybe he's thinking there's no where for the left to go.

[CakeGrrl]

109. Of course. The whore MSM doing what it does best.

If all else fails, fall back on the "angry, scary black man" trick.

:eyes:

[robinblue]

100. POTUS plays dumb on DADT .............

Why talk to Repugs Mr. President. You hold the power.



It's frustrating, Mr. President. You have told us repeatedly to be impatient, to hold you accountable, to pressure you, and to not wait for our rights. Yet, when you were pressured last night to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, you played dumb.

You responded to the shout from the audience:

When ... you've got an ally like me who standing for the same thing, then you don't know exactly why you've got to holler, because already hear you, alright? I mean, it would have made more sense to holler that at the people who oppose it.
One of the basic principles of direct action protest is to target those who hold the power to create the change you seek. Why would you tell us to yell at Republicans? They haven't voted for anything since you became President and they're not about to start.




YOU HOLD THE POWER. You can insert language in the Defense Authorization bill that would repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. Everyone agrees this is the most likely way to repeal this discriminatory law. You know this, and one of the protesters last night made it clear to you by repeatedly yelling "Insert the language! Insert the language!".

Why play dumb on this? Is it because your Administration has already decided that you won't insert repeal language into Defense Authorization?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/potus-plays-dumb-on-dadt_b_544290.html

[Clio the Leo]

111. Anyone catch any MSM coverage asking why the President wasn't moving on this?

All I saw this morning was done with a tone of "the President masterfully handled a group of rowdy protesters." (MSNBC)

[BlueIris]

118. Everyone's waiting.

Tick tock.

[Writer]

134. Does the GLBT community want a bandaid or actual surgery to fix inequality? n/t

[VMI Dem]

135. Can't they find someone that opposes gay marriage to protest?

Jeez.

[Prism]

137. If I haven't said it before

allow me to say it now.

You are awesome =)