RealJock - Gay Fitness, Health, and Life

FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules

TRACK THIS

Sort by:

Hillary speaks out on our behalf...
genqb Posts: 172	Apr 03, 2008 11:26 PM GMT Quote Seriously, could you haters throw her some freakin support already? Read this article: Clinton says she will defend gay rights. By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would defend gay rights as president and eliminate disparities for same-sex couples in federal law, including immigration and tax policy. Clinton said states such as New Jersey and Massachusetts are extending rights to gay couples "and the federal government should recognize that and should extend the same access to federal benefits across the board. I will very much work to achieve that." Clinton's comments came in an interview with the Philadelphia Gay News that was posted on its Web site Thursday. Clinton said she and her husband have many gay friends that they socialize with when they get the chance. "I've got friends, literally, around the country that I'm close to. It's part of my life," she said. She said that when they ask her why they can't get married, she tells them marriage is a state law. She said that fact helped defeat a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex weddings that she said would "enshrine discrimination in the Constitution." "States are really beginning seriously to deal with the whole range of options, including marriage, both under their own state constitutions and under the legislative approach," she said. "I anticipate that there will be a very concerted amount of effort in the next couple of years that will move this important issue forward and different states will take different approaches as they did with marriage over many years and you will see an evolution over time." Clinton said she opposes a measure that would ban gay marriage in Pennsylvania. "I would be very distressed if Pennsylvania were to adopt that kind of mean-spirited referendum and I hope it won't happen," she said. Clinton's Democratic rival Barack Obama and Republican John McCain declined the newspaper's invitation for an interview. The paper criticized Obama and highlighted his refusal to talk by leaving a blank space on the front page where his interview would have appeared. Clinton also said she would: • Eliminate her husband's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that prevents gays from serving openly in the military. Asked if she could do so by a signing order connected to a military appropriations bill, Clinton said she didn't think that is possible but she would look into it and do it if it were legal. • Be "very strongly outspoken" against foreign governments that execute gays and use financial assistance and other leverage to prevent the killings. • Support federal domestic partner legislation to extend rights to all same-sex couples. • Support services for gay youth, including guidance for schools about the discrimination they face. • Continue to support gay pride celebrations, to the extent that security would allow. "I don't think the Secret Service let Bill walk in a parade when he became president," she said. in case you want it, here's the url: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_gay_rights

roadbikeRob Posts: 298	Apr 03, 2008 11:41 PM GMT Quote It is nothing more than just more talk followed by empty promises being made to gay and lesbian Americans by another politician. When religious conservatives start complaining and opposing her on these viewpoints, Hillary will back down and put a knife in our backs just like every other liberal, democratic politician has done in the past. If you think that this little blast of hot air from Hillary is going to change my mind on who to support for the democratic nomination, all you Hillary sycophants are very horribly mistakened.
relokou Posts: 155	Apr 03, 2008 11:47 PM GMT Quote I do applaud Hillary for her support, but.. I can't help but consider where she is right now in the democratic primary and any possible ulterior motives behind her words. The optimist in me wants to believe what she has said and be more sympathetic towards her, but the realist in me reminds me that this is a very, very drawn out primary war and this could just be something to energize some voters to her.
Timberoo Posts: 2530	Apr 04, 2008 1:55 AM GMT Quote It's very easy to support something when you know you have no power to do anything about implementing it. She's a politician - just because she's saying something you want to hear doesn't make it true.
shoelessj Posts: 128	Apr 04, 2008 2:19 AM GMT Quote so where was she when the Defense of Marriage Act was pushed thru by her hubby? and why didn't do anything to stop Don't Ask Don't Tell in the first place? Or was she too busy dodging bullets in Bosnia?
Hidden/Deleted Member	Apr 04, 2008 3:09 AM GMT Quote well i'm a new yorker who voted hillary for senate, and i'm pleased by her comments, but i also wonder about the timing -- i can tell you she's never spoken out this way before even about gay rights in our state. i've always said hillary is the kind of politician who'll say anything to win and i guess this is proof. still, i'd love to hear this kind of statement from john mcain.
Bryan1960 Posts: 64	Apr 04, 2008 6:05 AM GMT Quote This woman has taken a lot of crap-ola for being a strong person ... She has taken a risk doing the article. It will be used against her! Hence Obama's refusal to partake. The RIGHT would love to tag Hillary as a LESBIAN (as if that is bad thing ... GOTTA LOVE LESBIANS!) and push the FAR LEFT SOCIAL LIBERAL CARD (again, as if that's a bad thing ... she's pretty fiscally moderate ... GO LIBERALS!!) ... Hillary is, in my humble opinion, COOL (although, the pant suits, much of the time, are less than feminine...) ... But, then if she wore something else, she wouldn't be HILLARY!!! I am impressed with her willingness to go after what she wants and to stay in there fighting with her own unique passion and style ... Sounds like a VERY GAY approach!!!!
GuiltyGear Posts: 2491	Apr 04, 2008 6:14 AM GMT Quote Hillary can do it!!
CuriousJockAZ Posts: 2032	Apr 04, 2008 6:24 AM GMT Quote Yeah, yeah, yeah..she'll pander to anyone who will listen at this point.
Hidden/Deleted Member	Apr 04, 2008 7:27 AM GMT Quote I read this earlier on Yahoo News... I'm glad she finally said something about us. Do I believe her? Nope. The timing of this seems suspect and I question whether she's sincere or she's trying to win more votes. It's a typical ploy... when you need more votes, you pay special attention to the GLBT voters. Politics as usual...
Lapinblanc Posts: 238	Apr 04, 2008 10:52 AM GMT Quote I see alot of guys commenting on how Hillary will say anything to get a vote... And Obama won't?? Isn't he a politician as well??
VineyardHmo Posts: 232	Apr 04, 2008 10:56 AM GMT Quote So true Lapinblac...but politics are like religion, everyone picks and chooses what they want to believe.
Hidden/Deleted Member	Apr 04, 2008 11:12 AM GMT Quote CuriousJockAZ saidYeah, yeah, yeah..she'll pander to anyone who will listen at this point. As opposed to McCain, who once called the fundamentalists "agents of intolerance" but now can't say enough nice things about them. McCain, who has spent the last seven years sucking up to Bush, the man who trashed him in South Carolina in 2000 by accusing him of having a black baby out of wedlock. Is there no end to Republican hypocrisy?
MunchingZombi... Posts: 1798	Apr 04, 2008 11:30 AM GMT Quote Clinton has had a very good relationship with the GLBT community for years. Blaming her for DOMA is ridiculous. That is like blaming Abe Lincoln for not signing a robot's rights bill. I look forward to her continued support in the senate.
Salubrious Posts: 375	Apr 04, 2008 12:00 PM GMT Quote MunchingZombie saidClinton has had a very good relationship with the GLBT community for years. Blaming her for DOMA is ridiculous. That is like blaming Abe Lincoln for not signing a robot's rights bill. I look forward to her continued support in the senate. I'm glad someone else pointed this out. IIRC, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a compromise between the Republican congress and Pres. Clinton.
RunintheCity Posts: 1286	Apr 04, 2008 12:47 PM GMT Quote While I'll agree that they're all politicians saying what they need to say to the right people to get votes and cash...I'll also add that there's a...difference in the nuances of approach between Hillary and Barack on this issue. They parrot the same talking points, but with Barack, thus far I believe him. He's supported LGBT issues in the past - crazy preachers aside, because don't get me started on McCain and Hauge or the Clintons and that vulture in sheep's wool Rev. Graham - and can be frustratingly realistic about what expectations for success would be. (Despite his lame argument about civil unions first, marriage later. Ugh.) Clinton meanwhile...DoMA, DoMA, DoMA. She very likely personally is quite supportive of 'us', but she's a politician FIRST and ALWAYS. She supported DoMA in the mid 90s and stated on LOGO that she still supports large parts of it. I feel a LOT of young and underinformed LGBT voters just DO NOT get the awful impact wrought by that legislation and the insidious way the Clintons used it - crying for the NYT, but running radio ads in the South touting it as Clinton protecting traditional marriage. (And let's not forget Kerry stating on record that Bill told him to support all the anti-gay marriage amendments in 2004!) DoMA was really when the Rethuglicans figured out they could make more money smearing LGBT folks than they could talking about aborted fetuses. DoMA didn't protect anyone from anything - it created a bogeyman in the minds of those who rose up and changed CONSTITUTIONS to DENY us legal rights presumed and assumed by much of society.
HndsmKansan Posts: 2964	Apr 04, 2008 1:02 PM GMT Quote Excellent. This doesn't surprise me in the least. She has been (and is) a great supporter, one of the many reasons I think the would be a good President.
HndsmKansan Posts: 2964	Apr 04, 2008 1:04 PM GMT Quote MunchingZombie said I look forward to her continued support in the senate. Well said Zombie.. we are in agreement... until she takes the oath of office as President, that is.....
Pattison Posts: 1811	Apr 04, 2008 1:06 PM GMT Quote Lets not forget. If ol Iron Knickers, was to make these things come to pass. She would not only be the next President of the USA to be Assassinated. She would also be the First MRS President to be assassinated as well. Christian, and family groups do not want this... Will this also be enough to make all those homosexual republicans, turn? Me thinks not!
MunchingZombi... Posts: 1798	Apr 04, 2008 1:12 PM GMT Quote HndsmKansan said[quote]Well said Zombie.. we are in agreement... until she takes the oath of office as President, that is..... Oh, I didn't hear she was planning on running in 2016 ^_~
HndsmKansan Posts: 2964	Apr 04, 2008 1:37 PM GMT Quote MunchingZombie said[quote] Oh, I didn't hear she was planning on running in 2016 ^_~ Now.. .you know a President can't run for more than 2 terms.. maybe 2016 would be the time others with less experience can garner enough by that time to make it credible. Your so cute when your making an argument Zombie....
XRuggerATX Posts: 2524	Apr 04, 2008 1:41 PM GMT Quote Obama's done this too. Difference is, he'll be better at pulling it off. Do a search on threads with "Obama" in them and I'll probably have posted why I think so.
John43620 Posts: 1838	Apr 04, 2008 1:50 PM GMT Quote This is an excellent example of why the Democratic party is so chaotic. The Republican party's interest is that which is best for the country. The Democratic party is just an umbrella for all the fringe groups, like Greens, Fetus/Baby Killers, Tort Lawyers, Various Communist Revolutionaries, Gun Grabbers, Welfare parasites, organized crime, Union thugs and now we the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender fringe group should throw in with this crowd? I think it's disgusting to be associated with the Democrats. I suggest you people join the Log Cabin Republicans and get with a team that has it's act together and has a better class of people.
MunchingZombi... Posts: 1798	Apr 04, 2008 2:00 PM GMT Quote HndsmKansan said Now.. .you know a President can't run for more than 2 terms.. maybe 2016 would be the time others with less experience can garner enough by that time to make it credible. It too is my hope that John McCain has enough experience with economic and foreign policy to make a credible run.
XRuggerATX Posts: 2524	Apr 04, 2008 2:13 PM GMT Quote There's one thing that unites Democrats, and it's enough. Shift power away from those who neither need it nor deserve it. It's a big idea that will take care of all the little ideas implied in the childish labels you bring. But to play it your way, I've got one more thoughtless immature label to toss out there, and it's precisely for you John43620: Train Wreck I mean really that sums up who you are based on all your posts, again as long as we're resorting to petty name calling (a Republican's best tactic). The only thing that unites the GOP is fear and greed. Nice way to put together a group of "leaders", eh? Must be a nice world you live in, with all that fear and greed. You can practically smell it in every one of your posts, actually. See...facts, reason, and sustainability don't fly with the GOP, especially as long as overgrown mentally damaged teenagers like you are speaking for the party. But really, John43620, where does it hurt? Tell us...we can be a nurturing little e-community when called upon.
MunchingZombi... Posts: 1798	Apr 04, 2008 2:29 PM GMT Quote John43620 saidI suggest you people join the Log Cabin Republicans and get with a team that has it's act together and has a better class of people.
SurrealLife Posts: 3752	Apr 04, 2008 2:42 PM GMT Quote "A better class of people". People actually talk this way still? I thought it started dying out when the Titanic sank in 1912, and was killed off in the 1960's. From a Canadian point of view both the Democrats and Republicans are right wing. The Democrats are supported by rich and powerful people who feel guilty about their success, compared to the Republicans who are supported by rich and powerful people who don't. I am only being partly facetious. I was hoping that Hillary Clinton was going to win the Democratic nomination, but now I think for the sake of winning in November she should throw her support behind Obama. He brought in $40 million last month compared to Hillary's $20 million. He is outspending her in Pennsylvania and Indiana, he is getting the backing of important Democrats. The Democrats do not need a repeat of Chicago in 1968.
obscenewish Posts: 3264	Apr 04, 2008 2:45 PM GMT Quote JohnI suggest you people join the Log Cabin Republicans and get with a team that has it's act together and has a better class of people . Not sure who they are supporting this go-round, but the LCR did not support Bush in the last election.
CuriousJockAZ Posts: 2032	Apr 04, 2008 2:48 PM GMT Quote jprichva said[quote] McCain, who has spent the last seven years sucking up to Bush, the man who trashed him in South Carolina in 2000 by accusing him of having a black baby out of wedlock. Is there no end to Republican hypocrisy? Not sure what planet you have been living on, but McCain has gone up against Bush on any number of issues from opposing the tax cuts because of the pork barrel spending, criticizing the way the war was being fought, pushing for "The Surge" when virtually no one would listen, rallying against water-boarding, Guantanamo. Why do you think he earned "The Maverick" label, or that so many die-hard conservatives have opposed McCain being the Republican nominee? He may be many things, but a kiss-up do Bush is definitely not one of them.
obscenewish Posts: 3264	Apr 04, 2008 2:48 PM GMT Quote By the way, Nedra Pickler, the author of the story on Hillary's interview, is a notoriously pro-Republican AP writer. I doubt she had our best interest at heart when she decided to write a piece about another writer's interview.
obscenewish Posts: 3264	Apr 04, 2008 2:51 PM GMT Quote curiousjockNot sure what planet you have been living on, but McCain has gone up against Bush on any number of issues from opposing the tax cuts because of the pork barrel spending, criticizing the way the war was being fought, pushing for "The Surge" when virtually no one would listen, rallying against water-boarding, Guantanamo. Why do you think he earned "The Maverick" label, or that so many die-hard conservatives have opposed McCain being the Republican nominee? He may be many things, but a kiss-up do Bush is definitely not one of them . You may want to do some research. McCain now favors making the tax cuts for the rich permanent. He's also changed his opinion on waterboarding -- depending on his audience, apparently.
CuriousJockAZ Posts: 2032	Apr 04, 2008 3:00 PM GMT Quote McCain wants to make the tax cuts permanent because they are working, but he doesn't want them permanent with the pork barrel spending included. As for water-boarding or torture of any kind, McCain has been consistently against any form of torture from the get-go and has cited his own experience as a POW as a reason. As for the tax cuts being for "The Rich", I think this notion has been more than just a little blown out of proportion by the dems. I prefer to look at it as tax cuts for "The people who actually PAY taxes".
MunchingZombi... Posts: 1798	Apr 04, 2008 3:02 PM GMT Quote CuriousJockAZ saidNot sure what planet you have been living on, but McCain has gone up against Bush on any number of issues from opposing the tax cuts because of the pork barrel spending, criticizing the way the war was being fought, pushing for "The Surge" when virtually no one would listen, rallying against water-boarding, Guantanamo. Why do you think he earned "The Maverick" label, or that so many die-hard conservatives have opposed McCain being the Republican nominee? He may be many things, but a kiss-up do Bush is definitely not one of them. Despite McCain's rather conservative voting record, he has not been a maverick in some time. Things like giving a commencement speech at Liberty University, changing his position on torture, habeas corpus, and the Geneva Convention to match political orthodoxy, and his glowing reports on Iraq as it crumbles really tarnishes his credibility. The man is such a maverick he doesn't even answer to his own principles.
McGay Posts: 2756	Apr 04, 2008 3:05 PM GMT Quote The man's got one foot in the grave and the other in the looney bin.
RunintheCity Posts: 1286	Apr 04, 2008 3:10 PM GMT Quote McCain...when I see him on tv, I always think of the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Remember...when the 3 bad guys started melting after they opened the ark? I see McCain and think, He's about to go goo and explode. And then stepford Cindy will malfunction and start doing lines off the podium. to any McCain lovers out there. I'll be the first to admit he used to have some cojones, but he's undone his own myth of late.
HndsmKansan Posts: 2964	Apr 04, 2008 4:58 PM GMT Quote MunchingZombie said It too is my hope that John McCain has enough experience with economic and foreign policy to make a credible run. I don't think John McCain or Hillary have any issues with crediblity when it comes to foreign policy. McCain does have a gap when it comes to economic background.......
GuiltyGear Posts: 2491	Apr 04, 2008 5:30 PM GMT Quote Why did this image excite me?
HndsmKansan Posts: 2964	Apr 04, 2008 5:32 PM GMT Quote GuiltyGear said Why did this image excite me? I hope it has nothing to do with a subconscious view of Republicans (hence the elephant).. and of course Sen Craig is a Republican and well..... LOL.. jk Guilty.....
MunchingZombi... Posts: 1798	Apr 04, 2008 5:42 PM GMT Quote HndsmKansan saidI don't think John McCain or Hillary have any issues with crediblity when it comes to foreign policy. McCain does have a gap when it comes to economic background....... I am teasing you at this point. They both have experience on their side and would make a fine president for their party... and that is about as conciliatory as I am going to get. Any more will require the sort of bribery that would make Bettie Page blush.
HndsmKansan Posts: 2964	Apr 04, 2008 5:44 PM GMT Quote MunchingZombie said[quote] I am teasing you at this point. They both have experience on their side and would make a fine president for their party... and that is about as conciliatory as I am going to get. Any more will require the sort of bribery that would make Bettie Page blush. My god, I almost fell out of my office chair!! I'm stunned..... AND I'll file the extra information (re: bribery) for future reference.....
yogachris23 Posts: 10	Apr 04, 2008 6:04 PM GMT Quote hillary is my girl!! haha go hillary!!
Pattison Posts: 1811	Apr 04, 2008 9:08 PM GMT Quote Sorry to be the devils advocate again.....But One must ask. Of all you guys, whom are going to vote for 'ol Iron Knickers Hillary. By doing this. Are you putting your wants first, or what will be best for the USA in the long run? I myself would not vote for her! But then If One had an American vote, One would vote Republican anyway...... Lets not forget, MRS Bill Clinton may well improve homosexual right in the USA, even though this is nothing more than a promise, to get votes she does not have, and would never come to pass, IF she got the top job. But as A boy from OZ, living in Australia. This would never transfer into foreign police, With Australia being the 51st State of the US of A. This would not affect One. So does One feel America, and the rest of its Allys, will be better off with MRS Clinton in the top Job NO! Yet American politics, affects our lives.
jsttennis77 Posts: 770	Apr 04, 2008 10:19 PM GMT Quote I'm not impressed. She basically lost me at hello a long time ago. Although I just think thats fucking super neat her and Bill have gay friends they hang out with. If I need another fag hag I'll give her a call LMAO
redheaded_dud... Posts: 368	Apr 04, 2008 11:26 PM GMT Quote LOL, jsttennis77 She lost me at Hello! Hillary___________________________________ Celine
hippie4lyfe Posts: 886	Apr 04, 2008 11:59 PM GMT Quote the clintons are responsible for dont ask dont tell and the "defense of marriage act" hell if i would ever vote for her. Obama PRIDE! http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
obscenewish Posts: 3264	Apr 05, 2008 12:19 AM GMT Quote Curious JockAs for water-boarding or torture of any kind, McCain has been consistently against any form of torture from the get-go and has cited his own experience as a POW as a reason. As for the tax cuts being for "The Rich", I think this notion has been more than just a little blown out of proportion by the dems. I prefer to look at it as tax cuts for "The people who actually PAY taxes". Yes, he opposes waterboarding, but not so much that he would vote for a bill specifically outlawing it. I remind you that George Bush opposes waterboarding too. As for your comment about taxes; it's a complete distortion (from a NYT article on a CBO study): "Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003. "Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000. "In its report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the overall effective federal tax rate edged up to 20 percent in 2004, from 19.8 percent the year before. "But even with that increase, Americans faced lower tax rates than any time since 1979. If President Bush has his way, those rates could decline even more as the estate tax on inherited wealth is gradually phased out by the start of 2010. "Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress want to permanently extend that tax cut and almost all of the others that Congress passed in his first term. The cost of doing that would be more than $1 trillion over the next decade, a cost that would hit the Treasury at the same time that the spending on old-age benefits for retiring baby boomers begins to soar." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
genqb Posts: 172	Apr 06, 2008 4:57 PM GMT Quote RunintheCity saidWhile I'll agree that they're all politicians saying what they need to say to the right people to get votes and cash...I'll also add that there's a...difference in the nuances of approach between Hillary and Barack on this issue. They parrot the same talking points, but with Barack, thus far I believe him. He's supported LGBT issues in the past - crazy preachers aside, because don't get me started on McCain and Hauge or the Clintons and that vulture in sheep's wool Rev. Graham - and can be frustratingly realistic about what expectations for success would be. (Despite his lame argument about civil unions first, marriage later. Ugh.) Clinton meanwhile...DoMA, DoMA, DoMA. She very likely personally is quite supportive of 'us', but she's a politician FIRST and ALWAYS. She supported DoMA in the mid 90s and stated on LOGO that she still supports large parts of it. I feel a LOT of young and underinformed LGBT voters just DO NOT get the awful impact wrought by that legislation and the insidious way the Clintons used it - crying for the NYT, but running radio ads in the South touting it as Clinton protecting traditional marriage. (And let's not forget Kerry stating on record that Bill told him to support all the anti-gay marriage amendments in 2004!) DoMA was really when the Rethuglicans figured out they could make more money smearing LGBT folks than they could talking about aborted fetuses. DoMA didn't protect anyone from anything - it created a bogeyman in the minds of those who rose up and changed CONSTITUTIONS to DENY us legal rights presumed and assumed by much of society. First of all, you can lose the patronizing tone. My age has nothing to do with my ability to stay informed. RunintheCity from what you said it appears you claim to be quite the expert on marriage rights & the marriage equality movement. While I make no claim on being an expert I can tell you I know a great deal on marriage equality. I used to run the Freedom to Marry website with a fantastic woman who was one of the founders of ACT UP. So please, spare us your supposed wisdom on the subject. As for the rest of you, let us remember that DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell were policies that occurred during Bill's presidency. The First Lady has no legislative power on issues like that. Furthermore, how many times has a politician's wife or husband vehemently spoken out against their spouse's policies or legislation? It just isn't done; if the spouse doesn't at least show some support, the public begins doubting ('well if so & so's wife/husband doesn't even support it...'). Whatever your feelings are on Hillary, doesn't it feel good to finally have someone so mainstream say something nice about us for once? All that aside, whoever wins the nomination I'm going to vote for. I just wish people would treat this more like selecting an applicant for a job. How many times have you worked for or with someone that you didn't really like but couldn't deny were good at their job? Stop favoring candidates you 'like' or 'would have a beer with' and start supporting one that would really excel at their job.
Japultra Posts: 142	Apr 06, 2008 5:39 PM GMT Quote Wasn't Don't Ask Don't Tell a GOOD thing when it was passed? It allowed homosexuals to serve in the military as opposed to not at all?
redheaded_dud... Posts: 368	Apr 06, 2008 8:26 PM GMT Quote Japultra saidWasn't Don't Ask Don't Tell a GOOD thing when it was passed? It allowed homosexuals to serve in the military as opposed to not at all? At the time, it was seen as another example of Clinton's throwing us under the bus. The campaign promise had been to "repeal the ban".
jeepgazer Posts: 13	Apr 06, 2008 8:46 PM GMT Quote redheaded_dude said[quote] At the time, it was seen as another example of Clinton's throwing us under the bus. The campaign promise had been to "repeal the ban". redheaded_dude is right - Bill Clinton promised to repeal the ban altogether, but caved in to opposition, leading to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a compromise. Essentially, under the policy gays can serve, they just are not allowed to engage in any homosexual conduct, tell anyone they are gay, have a partner of the same gender, and so on... in short, they cannot BE gay. The policy may have ended the "witch hunts" of old, but it stopped short of the promised repeal.
John43620 Posts: 1838	Apr 06, 2008 10:59 PM GMT Quote The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy didn't end the witch hunts, if anything, it helped the witch hunters. The Army had always been Don't Tell, ever.
MikemikeMike Posts: 909	Apr 07, 2008 12:01 AM GMT Quote Grow up!! Just like Hilary will help her fellow middle class. How many millions did she and Bill make this year?? All empty promises.
hippie4lyfe Posts: 886	Apr 07, 2008 7:40 AM GMT Quote John43620 saidThe "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy didn't end the witch hunts, if anything, it helped the witch hunters. The Army had always been Don't Tell, ever. It is ironic that you a diehard republican argues against Don't Ask Don't Tell, considering Republicans were against even that. While I hate DADT, we would never even have that much if we all voted for your right-wing think tankers. http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
HndsmKansan Posts: 2964	Apr 07, 2008 10:11 PM GMT Quote hippie4lyfe said[quote] It is ironic that you a diehard republican argues against Don't Ask Don't Tell, considering Republicans were against even that. While I hate DADT, we would never even have that much if we all voted for your right-wing think tankers. http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com Geez, Hippie and I totally agree....
docbailey2005 Posts: 41	Apr 07, 2008 11:05 PM GMT Quote I had her back until her and Bill started playing the race card in South Carolina. She wants to be president but she wonders why she has to get all of the questions first in a debate. She cried fake tears in NH, her campaign hs been full of nothing but drama since day one. If she had taken Obama seriously maybe she might have done better. Then the kitchen sink strategy slang for dirtly politics. Thats what makes Obama so appealing to me he wants to change the landscape of dirty politics but it seems to be all Hillary knows. She spent two weeks talking about how Obama can't be commander in Chief then she says he'd make a good vice pres. The sniper fire in Bosnia. People the woman is fake she's dong whatever it takes to win thats not good politics or it's politics of old. Maybe it's just me but i don't see how any conscious individual can't see through her wickedness. Those of you in PA who might read this , do the right thing vote Obama and end this fiasco. Needless to say i'll be at the convention in August. OBAMA 08!!!! All the way!
MikemikeMike Posts: 909	Apr 19, 2008 1:43 PM GMT Quote I don't want Hilary to speak for me on any issue!! She can't even suck a dick right. Wanda Sikes said it best!!
YngHungSFSD Posts: 346	Apr 19, 2008 2:54 PM GMT Quote Just once it would be nice to see a political discussion based on reason and intelligent discussion. However, this topic indicates that the same insulting immaturity is here as it is everywhere else. I think a gay/bi/transgendered person voting for a republican makes about as much sense chickens voting for Colonel Sanders. I guess you can't expect everyone to think for themselves , they're just to busy name calling and trying to legislate everyone else's business. I would like to see some of these people in here run their mouth in person, instead they have the luxury of hiding behind their keyboard...
John43620 Posts: 1838	Apr 19, 2008 2:54 PM GMT Quote Well, I thought it was nice of her to say and I don't compliment a Clinton easily. "While I hate DADT, we would never even have that much if we all voted for your right-wing think tankers." I enlisted in the Army and they asked then and I just lied. It wasn't and isn't a big deal to me. I didn't tell anyone and no one asked beyond the enlistment stage. I wasn't in the Army for romance anyway. I was too busy enjoying the Fun Travel and Adventure.
XRuggerATX Posts: 2524	Apr 19, 2008 3:13 PM GMT Quote MikemikeMike saidI don't want Hilary to speak for me on any issue!! She can't even suck a dick right. Wanda Sikes said it best!! That is an immature, sexist, low-blow kind of comment which shows a lack of compassion for Hillary. So thanks. Love it. Hilarious. Did Wanda have any more like this?
Bryan1960 Posts: 64	Apr 23, 2008 5:58 AM GMT Quote HILLARY WINS PA!!!! BY TWO DIGITS!!! OUT SPENT THREE TO ONE AND STILL SHE WINS!!!! LOOKS LIKE SHE IS STILL IN IT!!! GOOD ON HER!!!!
Bryan1960 Posts: 64	May 01, 2008 9:01 PM GMT Quote Bryan1960 said HILLARY WINS PA!!!! BY TWO DIGITS!!! OUT SPENT THREE TO ONE AND STILL SHE WINS!!!! LOOKS LIKE SHE IS STILL IN IT!!! GOOD ON HER!!!! did anyone see her on Bill O'Righty???? She did well... I was impressed.... Good for her!!!!!
SurrealLife Posts: 3752	May 01, 2008 9:10 PM GMT Quote I wish Hillary and Barack would kiss and make up with one of them training their sights on the Republicans. This constant tug-of-war is not doing the Democratic party any good.
jarhead5536 Posts: 725	May 01, 2008 9:11 PM GMT Quote Gotta love my girl! Si ella puede!
MunchingZombi... Posts: 1798	May 01, 2008 9:16 PM GMT Quote Wysiwyg60 saidThis constant tug-of-war is not doing the Democratic party any good. I don't know about that. There are 300,000 newly registered Democrats in Pennsylvania thanks to a competitive primary. That is a number greater than the margin Kerry won PA with 2004. Since it is a swing state that is great news. But this primary is giving me such a head ache. New voters be damned! End it already.
Lazz Posts: 215	May 01, 2008 9:17 PM GMT Quote That's all very encouraging but not even this would be enough for me to support this woman. I kills me to know she is still in the race and that she still has supporters.
Hidden/Deleted Member	May 01, 2008 9:19 PM GMT Quote Wysiwyg60 saidI wish Hillary and Barack would kiss and make up with one of them training their sights on the Republicans. This constant tug-of-war is not doing the Democratic party any good. Yeah because Americans getting a little insight into how each of them would behave against McCain in the general election is a bad thing for democratic voters. We haven't seen anything yet.
redheaded_dud... Posts: 368	May 01, 2008 9:22 PM GMT Quote Bryan1960 said HILLARY WINS PA!!!! BY TWO DIGITS!!! OUT SPENT THREE TO ONE AND STILL SHE WINS!!!! LOOKS LIKE SHE IS STILL IN IT!!! GOOD ON HER!!!! Two digits???!! Isn't that Bill's territory? (Or was that 2 digits and a cigar?)
SurrealLife Posts: 3752	May 01, 2008 9:26 PM GMT Quote MunchingZombie said[quote][cite]Wysiwyg60 said[/cite]This constant tug-of-war is not doing the Democratic party any good. I don't know about that. There are 300,000 newly registered Democrats in Pennsylvania thanks to a competitive primary. That is a number greater than the margin Kerry won PA with 2004. Since it is a swing state that is great news. But this primary is giving me such a head ache. New voters be damned! End it already.[/quote] Maybe they will tie in August (or is that possible)! 1968 here we come! Now if we could only bring back the great pop and rock music ("Born To Be Wild").
MunchingZombi... Posts: 1798	May 01, 2008 9:28 PM GMT Quote Wysiwyg60 saidMaybe they will tie in August (or is that possible)! 1968 here we come! Now if we could only bring back the great pop and rock music ("Born To Be Wild"). No, that wont happen. Even if HRC does significantly better than polls have indicated she can't catch up. Obama is having a rough week, but anything short of his death wont give HRC the nod.
SurrealLife Posts: 3752	May 01, 2008 9:33 PM GMT Quote MunchingZombie said[quote][cite]Wysiwyg60 said[/cite]Maybe they will tie in August (or is that possible)! 1968 here we come! Now if we could only bring back the great pop and rock music ("Born To Be Wild"). No, that wont happen. Even if HRC does significantly better than polls have indicated she can't catch up. Obama is having a rough week, but anything short of his death wont give HRC the nod.[/quote] Then why is Hillary still fighting? Can't somebody convince her to drop it and throw her support behind Obama? Or is she so desperate for power she can't give up?
ursamajor Posts: 1261	May 01, 2008 9:35 PM GMT Quote Well that is what I think too, Bush was so effective at pushing this guys buttons that I cannot wait to see what is going to happen in the general election. I am guessing we will get a Ross Perot moment where there is talk of CIA wedding invasions and flying saucers. I am curious about Wysiwyg said about the "Canadian point of view", what is that? Do you guys eat chives on bagels or something insane like that? McGay saidThe man's got one foot in the grave and the other in the looney bin.
Hagan_F Posts: 165	May 01, 2008 9:36 PM GMT Quote She may have spoken out, and might even be honestly serious about her statements, but make no mistake that she spoke out on her own behalf and no others. She said those things, whether true or not, whether sincere or not, to promote her campaign, not to win anyone else over to support of gay causes or speak for the gay community.
Hidden/Deleted Member	May 02, 2008 12:12 AM GMT Quote Bryan1960 said HILLARY WINS PA!!!! BY TWO DIGITS!!! OUT SPENT THREE TO ONE AND STILL SHE WINS!!!! LOOKS LIKE SHE IS STILL IN IT!!! GOOD ON HER!!!! I didn't know that we were now counting the number after the decimal point to get to two digits. She won by 9.2. As far as I know that is under two digits. Per the original topic of this thread, did anyone watch her endorsement by the governor of NC? I guess her speaking out for the LGBT community ends when it comes to super delegates that used derogatory terms for gays while endorsing her.
Hidden/Deleted Member	May 02, 2008 12:17 AM GMT Quote does any one know where Obama stands. As far as I am concerned there isn't much difference between Obama and Clinton.
EricLA Posts: 871	May 02, 2008 12:21 AM GMT Quote I am no Hillary hater. But, I do have some serious issues with her and her candidacy. In my opinion she has lost and she should step aside. BUT, if she should win the nomination I'll vote for her. (I won't like it, but I'll do it.) But, for those who think she's some big friend of the gays, you should read this post up at the Daily Kos. If you don't know it, it's well-respected liberal blog: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/30/61119/3963/264/506212
EricLA Posts: 871	May 02, 2008 12:26 AM GMT Quote webinfront said[quote][cite]Bryan1960 said[/cite] HILLARY WINS PA!!!! BY TWO DIGITS!!! OUT SPENT THREE TO ONE AND STILL SHE WINS!!!! LOOKS LIKE SHE IS STILL IN IT!!! GOOD ON HER!!!! I didn't know that we were now counting the number after the decimal point to get to two digits. She won by 9.2. As far as I know that is under two digits. [/quote] Web, yeah unfortunately that was lost on a lot of people. The initial results were 10%, but when the final tally came in it was 9.2%. But, the media aren't great at correcting their errors.
MunchingZombi... Posts: 1798	May 02, 2008 12:33 AM GMT Quote Wysiwyg60 saidThen why is Hillary still fighting? Can't somebody convince her to drop it and throw her support behind Obama? Or is she so desperate for power she can't give up? I have no clue. Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi are all but begging her to drop out. A more paranoid version of myself would think she is trying to undermine Obama in the general so she can run again in 2012. But even thinking such things makes me shiver. ksguy saiddoes any one know where Obama stands. As far as I am concerned there isn't much difference between Obama and Clinton. You can read where he stands on his website. He also spoke about it at length in his book The Audacity of Hope. Like most issues of policy, he and HRC are almost on the same page.
Hidden/Deleted Member	May 02, 2008 12:42 AM GMT Quote EricLA said Web, yeah unfortunately that was lost on a lot of people. The initial results were 10%, but when the final tally came in it was 9.2%. But, the media aren't great at correcting their errors. Math seems to have really stumped the media this late in the primary. Questions like how can she realisticly win just aren't being asked and the media keeps feeding the story that she actually has a chance. Mathmatically she lost awhile ago, and her odds of winning are pretty much those of Obama being hit by an meteor. At this point we have had two hurddles the media said she had to pass to stay in the race. She had to win both Texas and Ohio and she didn't (she lost the delegate count in Texas). Ignoring that the new bar was set at getting double digits in PA. Again, she didn't and now the newest goal is winning Indiana. Indiana doesn't have more delegates than North Carolina but somehow it is more important. The media seem pretty much hell bent on telling the story that this race is close and the realtiy is that it isn't.
Hidden/Deleted Member	May 02, 2008 12:56 AM GMT Quote I find it INCREDIBLY entertaining how many of you basically call Clinton a liar and a panderer but yet you'll swallow EVERYTHING some virtually unknown candidate says and call it the gospel. You viemently defend a man you don't know, who has very limited national political experience, and not enough of a political past for anyone to form a hypothesis about his fitness as a possible President. Instead, you tout is SPEECHES and his WORDS as his strengths. You can look back on Clinton's and McCain's political careers and get an idea of where their views fall within the political spectrum. My guess? Well, if the latest polling is any indicator, Sen. Obama's popularity is waning. Too many red flags, not enough tough questions. Clinton, for all her faults, isn't afraid to show what she's made of. Don't look to the superdelegates to choose Obama...Or the DNC for that matter. If Obama keeps losing the big states, the powers that be won't take the risk.
Hidden/Deleted Member	May 02, 2008 12:59 AM GMT Quote Timberoo saidIt's very easy to support something when you know you have no power to do anything about implementing it. She's a politician - just because she's saying something you want to hear doesn't make it true. I agree with you 100%, but because all politicians are the same I'm still going to vote for her, even if she doesn't make it on to the official ballets ;-)
Hidden/Deleted Member	May 02, 2008 1:11 AM GMT Quote pdxpally said Don't look to the superdelegates to choose Obama...Or the DNC for that matter. If Obama keeps losing the big states, the powers that be won't take the risk. Rather than just random musings about superdelegates could you please explain the math that would allow Clinton to actually win?
MunchingZombi... Posts: 1798	May 02, 2008 1:16 AM GMT Quote A few months ago Obama was behind by a hundred superdelegates. He is now behind by under 20 with this weekend's pledges.
Bryan1960 Posts: 64	May 02, 2008 1:38 AM GMT Quote webinfront said[quote][cite]Bryan1960 said[/cite] HILLARY WINS PA!!!! BY TWO DIGITS!!! OUT SPENT THREE TO ONE AND STILL SHE WINS!!!! LOOKS LIKE SHE IS STILL IN IT!!! GOOD ON HER!!!! I didn't know that we were now counting the number after the decimal point to get to two digits. She won by 9.2. As far as I know that is under two digits. Per the original topic of this thread, did anyone watch her endorsement by the governor of NC? I guess her speaking out for the LGBT community ends when it comes to super delegates that used derogatory terms for gays while endorsing her. [/quote] Hey guys, sorry about the "double digits" ... comment. I heard it on the news and ran with it... Should have double checked as it was 9.2... just like you said. Peace and Hugs, Bryan
Hidden/Deleted Member	May 02, 2008 2:53 AM GMT Quote Just so you all know, it doesn't matter in any way, shape or form how many votes one candidate gets. The DNC can override the outcome and choose the candidate. It's all rather silly. The Republicans don't waste all this time like the Democrats do. We all seem to be the leaders in indecisiveness.
Hidden/Deleted Member	May 02, 2008 3:03 AM GMT Quote pdxpally saidJust so you all know, it doesn't matter in any way, shape or form how many votes one candidate gets. The DNC can override the outcome and choose the candidate. It's all rather silly. The Republicans don't waste all this time like the Democrats do. We all seem to be the leaders in indecisiveness. So I guess the answer is that you can't explaine the delegate math that results in Clinton getting the nomination. The Democrats have not wasted time in chosing a nominee they have pretty much done that. Time is being wasted by induldging Clinton.
Bryan1960 Posts: 64	May 02, 2008 4:47 AM GMT Quote Bryan1960 said[quote][cite]Wysiwyg60 said[/cite][quote][cite]MunchingZombie said[/cite][quote][cite]Wysiwyg60 said[/cite]Maybe they will tie in August (or is that possible)! 1968 here we come! Now if we could only bring back the great pop and rock music ("Born To Be Wild"). No, that wont happen. Even if HRC does significantly better than polls have indicated she can't catch up. Obama is having a rough week, but anything short of his death wont give HRC the nod.[/quote] Then why is Hillary still fighting? Can't somebody convince her to drop it and throw her support behind Obama? Or is she so desperate for power she can't give up?[/quote] WHY IS SHE STILL IN??? 'CAUSE HILLARY COULD STILL WIN: I have been trying to understand why people want this woman to step aside??? That would make no sense to me. I am not a politician nor a mathematician, however, three things would need to happen, in my humble opinion, for HRC (aka - Hillary Clinton) to win: 1. win 60% of the rest of the delegates; 2. win 60% of the rest of the superdelegates; 3. And, win the counting of the Florida and Michigan delegates. If these things happen (or some equivalent equation), then she goes to the convention with a total count of over 2025 and Obama comes in under the required 2025. Democrats will have to do something with Florida and Michigan. It seems like a moral question? Votes should count. I just don't know how, in this situation??? Anyway, we will lose them in the general if we don't do something. If we count them as the elections fel, I did some number crunching, she could, I think, come into the convention with 2030 delegates to Obama's 2018, give or take... if numbers hold. Finally, Obama has had a few struggles lately. I think the press is treating him unfairly and hammering this reverend thing to death. It is the same thing they did to Hillary at the start of this process. He has answered the questions, now let's move on and see who is going to win. Then, we get to see how they are going to bring it all together????? Which we must do! PERIOD!!!! That will be very interesting, indeed.[/quote]
Hidden/Deleted Member	May 02, 2008 11:32 AM GMT Quote Bryan1960 said[quote] 1. win 60% of the rest of the delegates; 2. win 60% of the rest of the superdelegates; 3. And, win the counting of the Florida and Michigan delegates. So, number 1 isn't going to happen. So far she has won exactly one state by that kind of margin. Indiana is currently break even in polling and she is behind in North Carolina. To think that she will turn either of these into 20 point wins is ridiculous. Number 2 could happend but is also doubtful, and number 3 is a bit of a wildcard but is really dependent on 1 and 2. If you put more realistic numbers for number the rest of the states and by realistic i mean assume she wins them all and she does it by 10 points (she has done in only 5 states, 6 if you count Michigan where he was not on the ballet) then she could still get 60% of the superdelegate count and he would win. At this point the 60, 60 + Florida and Michigan compltely unrealistic and the math for her to win will just become more so with each passing contest.
HereNBoston Posts: 188	May 02, 2008 1:04 PM GMT Quote Supporters of hillary tend to complain that she gets so much bad press, but I was amused to read a cnn article about obama being called an elitist for making remarks that were essentially true about disenfranchised small town america. And it pointed to the fact that hillary is more popular among uneducated poor whites, and obama is more popular among the educated upper middle and upper class. Why is this a bad thing, and how does that make him an elitist? was it poorly phrased? yeah probably... is it a conversation that needs to take place in this country? absolutely. When did voting on issues become a big no no? If his base tends to be the more educated, wouldn't that mean that maybe his ideas make a little more sense? Call me crazy, but americans really need to get beyond this whole personality contest thing... voting for someone they'd rather have a beer with as opposed to someone qualified for the job (ahem look what happened in 2000 and 2004). I dunno i've been up for 36 hours so far and worked an overnight... i will say this though... john4336021-whatever did have a point... true republicans are for less tax burden, smaller government and noninterventionalist foreign policy... too bad the current republican party has been hijacked by private interests and bullshit neocons.... as far as joining the log cabin republicans however... has any republican candidate recently actually accepted a donation from the log cabin republicans? you're pretty much on the same level as jews for jesus lol a sub group completely completely cast aside and rejected.
swall1963 Posts: 13	May 02, 2008 1:46 PM GMT Quote That just sounds like a lot of the same things we heard from Bill. If she were elected, she wouldn't overturn "Don't ask, don't tell" because it would be a black mark against "his legacy". The Clintons are not friends to the gay community. They used the community to help them when Bill was running and then turned their backs on us.
redheaded_dud... Posts: 368	May 09, 2008 8:13 PM GMT Quote From politico.com: Hillary as Barack's VP? It's fun to think about, but there are so many obstacles, and Ted Kennedy isn't buying, he said on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital With Al Hunt," which airs this weekend. "I don't think it's possible," he told Hunt of the joint ticket, continuing that: Obama should choose a running mate who "is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people," Kennedy said. "If we had real leadership — as we do with Barack Obama — in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful." Ouch.

Maverick75 Posts: 211	May 16, 2008 8:59 AM GMT Quote John43620 saidThe "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy didn't end the witch hunts, if anything, it helped the witch hunters. The Army had always been Don't Tell, ever. In the years after DODT was passed the number of gays kicked out of the military for being gay actually increased. Another thing that people forget was that when DODT first became the policy it was Don't Ask, Don't Tell, DON'T PURSUE. Disciplinary action was not even supposed to be pursued if a military member was discovered to be gay. I had just joined the Air Force before it was passed and I REMEMBER all the MALES in my unit were taken to the head NCO's office one by one where we were asked quitely openly if we were gay! It was b*llshit from the very beginning!

TRACK THIS