BREAKING: Obama Supports DOMA Repeal

White House press secretary Jay Carney just said that Obama supports the Respect for Marriage Act which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and no longer allow DOMA to tear apart legally-married, bi-national couples and keep any gay couple from being able to financially and medically care for one other. Just so you know, sitting Presidents don’t normally endorse bills that have yet to pass first in either the Senate or the House, which means he’s slowly coming through on the afore-promised “fierce advocacy.”

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #barackobama #doma(defenseofmarriageact) stories and more


  • Derek Washington


    Cue the whiny Laptopists who aint never gonna give him credit for anything….

  • Kev C

    Another political football for the president to play games with. He’s like a bully who grabs a nerd’s homework and refuses to give it back but teases the nerd with it. You want your civil rights back?

  • Jewed Law

    “Fierce advocacy” is immediate and vocal — not exactly what O’Bomma’s been doing for us. It’s not like DOMA is a political hot potato among Democrats, so it’s a tad confounding what’s the reason behind his molasses-slow “evolution.”

  • Roman

    What a dishonest, politically expedient and incompatible message. How can President Obama support the Respect for Marriage Act, not support DOMA, at one time support marriage equality when in the IL legislature, and now be against marriage equality for religious reasons? It’s offensive. Cowardly. Duplicitous. He’s wrong. He’s on the wrong side of Americans and history. Seeking refuge behind “evolving” says it all about his character and credibility.

  • gaytorium

    I’m glad he’s saying this even if nothing much comes of it. It’s a step in the right direction. He’s been so distracted by the debt ceiling nonsense that it’s good to see he is thinking about other things. Will it change much? I’m not sure. We’ll have to wait and see although I’m sure getting tired of having to take that approach.

  • christopher di spirito

    Another meaningless, toothless, spineless action on President Pootie Tang’s part.

  • Zee

    Until action is taken, words mean little here.

  • The crustybastard

    More importantly, Obama is enforcing DOMA, which he now believes to be unconstitutional.

    So I could give a shit about his policy preferences, conveniently timed to gin up support for his reelection, but not timed to coordinate with Congressional majorities who might have acted.

    If only words were enough…

  • GreatGatsby2011

    @Roman: Uh, Roman? I think you’re confused. The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act. That Obama has supports it is a good thing. Not very effective legislatively, but a nice sentiment nonetheless.

  • inoits2

    Cut the president a break! Why are miserable queers so ungrateful. Why always so cynical when he does something right. He is up against a wall of evil people. Timing and tact are everything.

    He is the most supportive president we have ever had. He has to avoid political pitfalls at every turn but ultimately when the time is right he voices his support which advances public opinion. You can’t get what you want instantly. This is America remember, it doesn’t work that way. The president cares about people and he cares about gays and lesbians.

    If we get a bible thumping president next time you will understand quickly why Obama is our friend. Quit being whiney and appreciate what we have and the strives we have made. Remember the saying “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”…we are riding the arc in that direction. So chill out and be glad we have a president that respects us. He isn’t above the law and he can’t wave a magic wand and make it all happen the way we want.


    I have one simple question for all you Obama naysayers. Which of The Republican front runners would endorse The Respect for Marriage Act? By the way, I love the name.

  • Burch

    But the Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t do all that I would like it to do. It does require that the federal government recognize all marriages from all states, but it does not require that states with anti-marriage equality laws or constitutional amendments grant STATE rights to married same sex couples.

  • Libertarian Larry

    Forget that Obama’s moving at the speed of smell when it comes to us Homosexual-Americans and our issues — what bugs me is why he hasn’t done more for legalizing drugs, the same drugs he used to do. Hey Barry: Those coke parties aren’t gonna throw themselves, ya know.

  • Queer Supremacist

    If Obreeder supported it so goddamn much why did he wait until the Democrats lost the house to do so? Because he knows it’s not going to pass the House, therefore he has to do no action, watch the bill die, and blame Republicans, while you Obot Uncle Toms claim “he’s the best friend we’ve ever had in the White House.” Friends don’t gay-bash their way into office on the backs of the Donnie McClurkins of the world. Friends don’t disenfranchise us using the same arguments that were used to make his parents felons and him a slave if he had been alive in the 19th century. Friends don’t have genocidal C-street maniacs like pRick Warren give invocations. Friends don’t commit obstruction of justice at our expense.

    Notice how every crumb off the table is treated like a fucking feast by the paid OFA shills that always come out of the woodwork, and try to scare us into voting for him with emotional blackmail. If the only defense of Obama is “Republicans suck,” that’s not an argument. It’s a dodge.

  • Markie-Mark

    I’m not impressed. It’s easy for Obama to support the Respect For Marriage Act because it will not pass the republican controlled House. I think the time to have introduced it would have been while the democrats had a majority in the House and Senate. Seems to me that it’s too little; too late. Is this supposed to make up for the fact that Obama lost the Federal Court case against DoMA in Massachusetts, appealed and asked for a stay so he could continue to enforce DoMA?

  • L'Herb

    @Derek Washington: Amen. I’m sort of tired of people not understanding that there HAS to be a pragmatic approach to our civil rights if we want them to endure conservative backlash.

  • inoits2

    @Queer Supremacist: Maybe he had better things to do than to introduce the bill. Ya know…like the worst economy ever. He doesn’t just serve gay people and their issues. We think every little thing he does is aimed at us. Wrong! You can always look for faults in anyone but I see have chosen not to list the good things he has done.

  • inoits2

    @Queer Supremacist: Besides your examples are lame.

  • Henry

    @The crustybastard: I’m not sure it would be different with another Democrat. I think pretty much any Democrat would only be vocal about marriage equality in a second term.

  • Kev C

    @Henry: No, I think Hillary or Nancy Pelosi would have more balls than Obama. The reality is that Obama is a one-term president who didn’t fail as bad as Jimmy Carter.

  • Henry

    @Kev C: Well, okay. It’s just that, with the exception of Clinton, there hasn’t been a two-term Democratic presidency since the 60’s.

  • The crustybastard


    Your accommodationist approach has put us behind Mexico, Slovakia, South Africa and Uruguay.

    At what point will you concede it’s a failure?

  • ewe

    I expect my president to say i am an equal citizen everyday if need be.

  • The crustybastard


    If a Democrat doesn’t have the sense or spine to stand up for the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process, they don’t deserve a second term.


  • Henry

    @The crustybastard: I think using the word deserve is wrong. It’s not about him getting what he wants, it’s about what’s best for the nation. The president is there to serve the nation. Obama has done more for gay rights than other Democratic presidents. There was a story on Queerty recently (I think it was recently) about Obama giving press conferences on gay rights, which no other president had done. People notice that we’re on his radar and that he cares about equality.

  • christopher di spirito

    President Pootie Tang is prepared to slash Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to win points with his Republican pals, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and still raging and best of all, he’s given us two new wars, one in Libya and a covert war in Yemen. GITMO is still open for business, unemployment is 9.2% (real unemployment is closer to 22%), his administration has directed his DoJ to defend DADT and DOMA and he wonders why gay ATMs are closed to him in the 2012 election?

  • Libertarian Larry

    @Henry: Well, technically, Johnson didn’t serve a full two terms, so Clinton’s the only two-term Dem since the 40s. The 40s!

  • Queer Supremacist

    @inoits2: You are not only a troll and a paid shill but a historical illiterate. Worst economy ever? Ever hear of the Great Depression? So using a racist states’ “rights” argument? What’s more important than ending the disenfranchisement of 10% or more of the US population, his continued intifada against the private sector? His plan to make us serfs of the health insurance industry? His illegal non-war in Libya? You can mention the hate crimes bill all you want, and I’ll point you to the fact that hate crimes against gays have gone up since then. He’s trying to deny the Log Cabin Republicans their rightful credit for getting DADT declared unconstitutional in a lawsuit they filed during the Bush administration. He wants all of the credit while doing none of the work.

    But we’re just miserable queers for calling a spade a spade, and don’t you dare throw the r-word at me; ever since he pulled that states’ “rights” argument he’s been white as a ghost as far as I’m concerned.

    Get your head out of your ass, and stop trusting that piece of straight white trash.

  • james_from_cambridge

    You’re (mostly) all a bunch of childish, stupid little bitches who can’t see the forest for the trees. By all means stay home next year or vote for the Grand Old Fascist Party and good luck with President Bachmann and her forced ex-gay camps starting in 2013. Cunts.

  • Steve

    Wow the American discourse is so angry and unyielding these days. What happened to one nation under God? And don’t gimme that shit that this is how democracy works. This is just a bunch of finger pointing and name calling. I miss the America of the seventies; proud and working together for common goals.
    Concerned Canadian

  • Craig

    He is losing his gay votes, so he has to pretend he gives a fuck about gay people to try to get them back….

  • Steve

    I hate to sound cynical, but until he actually says it himself and takes some kind of action that proves he supports repealing DOMA, words are just words…

    I like that he has endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, an action unimaginable for any president the past few decades, but I’d still like some action. Our presidents seem to waste too much time making promises and not pulling through on them.

  • inoits2

    @Queer Supremacist: I am not a troll just because we don’t agree. You just have a terrible persecution complex. Paid shill? I wish someone would pay me.
    1. We are going to be disenfranchised no matter how many “rights” we get. Many gay people don’t feel disenfranchised because they don’t have imaginary rights. Make us serfs to the health industry? I would say we already are. Can’t really live without insurance can we…unless we want to lose everything. Agree with you on Libya….if you are so smart you should already know that hate crimes laws aren’t about stopping hate crimes…it’s about sending the feds in to do what the states or counties of the victims won’t do because of bias.You actually support the Log Cabin people! Wow…I don’t recall him denying them credit, however the buck stops at his desk and he ultimately has to sign off which as a nasty thumper he could have refused to so. They are defending DADT because they have to, not because the want to. They can’t not enforce laws because then everything would unravel and they would be able to pick and choose. LOL…white trash? thats a new one. States should have the right to make their own decisions…America is not ready overall for gay marriage…but it will be soon. If you force states to recognize marriage at this point in time they will I assure you push for a constitutional amendment and that would be the end of the conversation.

  • inoits2

    @Steve: Well Steve, you live in the promised land don’t you. No need for bitchiness in Canada.

  • inoits2

    @james_from_cambridge: You get a big hug for being calling the bullshit ))hugs((

  • christopher di spirito

    @Steve: Concerned Canadian opines, “I miss the America of the seventies; proud and working together for common goals.” You mean like Nixon, the Vietnam War and Watergate?

  • Markie-Mark

    I think we all agree that it’s good that he said that he endorses the prospective legislation. However, doesn’t change that fact that it’s meaningless rhetoric. We do seem to be getting a lot of meaningless rhetoric out of this president. And it seems to have turned a lot of people off.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @inoits2: No, you’re a troll and a shill because you come here just to fling shit like the chromosome-deficient howler monkey you are and to shill for Dear Leader Obreeder. Every one of your talking points has been rehashed on just about every gay blog practically verbatim, even with the same sentence syntax and the same punctuation in the same places. It does not wash.

    States have no “rights”. They have powers, and there are some powers that no government at any level should have. Human rights trump states’ “rights” every time. If the breeders even try to amend the constitution there will be armed revolt in the streets, I guarantee it.

    And they don’t have to enforce unconstitutional laws. Every president since Reagan has declined to enforce a law they considered unconstitutional. Even this misadministration has stopped defending one section—out of several—of DOMA. The 9th Circuit Court used that to invalidate DOMA.

    And I know what hate crimes laws are. They’re just treating symptoms, not the disease. Meanwhile, how many anti-gay hate crimes have actually been tried as such by the federal government since the passage of the bill?

    Is Obama going to do sort of work to get enough votes for it to pass the House? I doubt it. Unless he does, save your breath and go back to shouting at statues in the street.

    @Steve: The America of the 70s? Sure, by all means let’s go back to the good old days of the 70% top tax rate, sodomy laws, the initial spread of AIDS (unknown until the next decade, but still…), cities crumbling under the weight of crime and failed social policies, stagflation (remember Whip Inflation Now?), gas shortages forced by OPEC terror states, standard definition TV in mono sound with three networks, Watergate, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Anita Bryant. We were only proud and working together in bicentennial ads for Coca-Cola that you can watch on YouTube. The only good things about this decade came from popular culture, and we can still enjoy those without having to go back to the era that produced it.

  • Interesting

    He’s advocating something that he knows has no chance of passing. He’s the standard politician. It works with those who are either too ignorant or partisan to understand that its just a game. Both parties engage in this sort of game. The GOP will promise and try to pass bills that they know have know chance of passing or supporting things that when they get in power they don’t actually legislate. Again only the gullible or wanting to believe falls for this stuff.

  • tjr101

    Wow, talk about constant bitching on Queerty. I bet some of the angriest and most bitter people in the gay community come on Queerty to rant.

    Truth is Obama will never satisfy everyone, he’s damned if he does or doesn’t. And the sad thing for many of the bitchy queens on here is that they can’t name a single alternative to Obama that is viable to the American electorate who will give the LGBT community the time of day!

  • Interesting

    By the way, I find the partisanship from the base of both parties to be mostly a great source of comedy these days.

    In the real world, both parties are fucking the American public. The debt ceiling theatrics being just one example.

  • Henry

    @Queer Supremacist: Geez loise. Chill out. If I laughed at all from reading your post, it wasn’t because your insults were funny, it’s because you used so many of them. As if that’s what conversation is.

  • inoits2

    @Queer Supremacist: Wow you are one angry person. I don’t see giving my opinion flinging shit. There is a process for all things and that’s the way it goes. If Obama stopped everything including the looming debt disaster and somehow managed to get congress to pass the Respect for Marriage Act you would still be complaining. If he got down on his knees and kissed every gay person’s ass in the country you still would not be happy. You just need a boogyman. I bet you are a journalist because they dwell on the negative no matter what.

  • james_from_cambridge

    @inoits2: Supremacist is another Gopproud shill posing as a gay-rights advocate. I’ve been on Queerty a long time and let me tell you, this place is filled with self-loathing concern trolls like him indirectly or directly shilling for the same Bachmann/”pro-family”/bigoted Gay Ol’ Party which hates their guts. They’re sad little masochists who like to accuse people like you of being a Democratic bitch but they shill for a Party that wants them dead and buried, literally. They’re pathetic and at this point, complete bores. You’re better off talking to the few, the sane, the non-troll who are capable of having a logical argument about the strengths and shortcomings of Obama, the Democrats and the few moderate ‘publicans that are left without falling into delusional rhetoric about how Obama is the anti-christ or Hitler reincarnated (wonder where you’ve heard that before, eh??)

  • tjr101

    @inoits2: Queer Supremacist has in the past claimed to be a “libertarian”(Republican in sheep’s clothing). Expect constant bitterness when it comes to a post about Obama!

  • james_from_cambridge

    @inoits2: Just a sample of Supremacists rants to show what a loon you’re dealing with…there are many more.
    “Queer Supremacist:…But if anyone wants to make racist comments about that honky Obama I’m not going to stop them, because as far as I’m concerned it’s tit-for-tat…”
    “The sad fact remains that there is a difference between the homophobia perpetrated by blacks and that perpetrated by whites. Whites do not, and cannot, hide behind a history of oppression to justify it (although whites have been oppressed for their ethnicity; remember “No Irish Need Apply”?)

    Clearly, his problem with Obama seems to be a result of a broader problem he has with Black people. Which does make him the perfect Republican.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @inoits2: First you call us “miserable queers” for being critical of Dear Leader Breeder in any way, then condescendingly call me an angry person. I just don’t feel like getting upset for one of his stooges saying he supports legislation that has no chance of passing.

    If Obama did this, If Obama did that…guess what, we don’t live in a world where if equals when. Obama won’t stop the looming debt disaster. Obama won’t get the Respect for Marriage Act passed. Obama won’t get down on his knees and kiss any gay person’s ass. That’s because he’s a lying, racist, egotistical, unprincipled piece of privileged str8-white-male shit who’s too busy trying to rob from the rich to give to the richer in order to keep as many Americans dependent on the largesse of the state as possible.

    Meanwhile, Andrew Cuomo put his career on the line to get enough Republican votes to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, and he still couldn’t keep out a cultist clause that would take down the whole legislation if it gets invalidated.

    Obama talks down to us out of both sides of his mouth, and you know it. More and more gay people are waking up and smelling the donkey shit.

    @Henry: What condescending pricks you Obamunists are. I don’t insult people to get cheap laughs. I only insult people I truly despise.

    @tjr101: Does Jon Huntsman count as viable? Or does he have to be in the news 24/7 to meet your nebulous criteria for viability? Once again you’ve proved my point. The best you can do is “everyone else sucks” and try to scare me with fears of concentration camps (after FDR’s Japanese internment camps I don’t think that’s happening in America again) or a Supreme Court packed with homophobes when you can’t even prove that Sotomayor and Kagan will be on our side if it gets that far. And your solution to fighting homophobia in the GOP is to cling to Democrats like a scared child seeking safety. That approach cost us at least 20 years of progress. The goyische cults are the tail wagging that dog: fight them and you fight the homophobia at the source.

    Obama is not our friend. He is no friend to anyone that he doesn’t see when he looks in the mirror.

  • Interesting

    The other aspect of partisans, of course, is the team player aspect of marking territories about who is the “in group” and the “out group.” Trust Democrats. Hate Republicans. Hate Democrats. Trust Republicans. You are supporting to far right wing parties, and are discussing shades of very narrow differences. Obama comes out pushing for 3 trillion, and the Republicans push for 4. Obama says he favors a bill that will not pass in this Congress (and he knows it) to repeal DOMA. In fact, he knows it will not even get out of committee. The public outside of the gay Democratic base will not know anything about it at all. Etc. And its ballyhooed as a great event. Its like when the Republicans do the same with their pet base issues. Completely b.s. But the partisans, as one can find here, are trained to salivate on cue over this sort of shit. For the record, I would have been impressed if he had said this just last year (I know centuries in fake partisan narratives) when he had the majorities to do something about it. As it is now, this is just red meat for the partisans who want to believe. Just as Republican language is.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @james_from_cambridge: You support Palestinian terrorists and a president who gay-bashed his way into office while claiming at the same time to be a “fierce advocate” for our rights, and I’m the troll? Do you know what they used to call trolling? Dissent. Calling someone a troll is just a means of trying to shut out any opposite points of view. I’m guilty of it myself, I admit, but still, it is a trite and overused phrase.

    For the record, I hate Michelle Bachmann and I would shed no tears if someone was to attack her physically, and I have criticized GOPProud many times for their reluctance to challenge the status quo within the party. If you think Libertarians are really Republicans in sheep’s clothing, you’ve obviously never met a Libertarian and understand nothing about any economic theory to the right of Stalin other than the caricatures you’ve been willingly spoon-fed.

    Yeah, I’ve got so many problems with black people that I call Obama a “honky”, while calling for blacks, gays and Jews to stand against the Christian menace:

    A website where Hitler is more respected than Thomas Jefferson, where gay leftist losers come to project their self-hatred on anyone who disagrees with them after bombing at the bars and Craigslist, and where anti-gay terrorists are considered victims as long as they’re not part of Western civilization, and I’m a “racist.” Are assholes a race now?

    Nice to know I’m being stalked. It figures that Obamunist shills will stick together and use the same slimy tactics. Like does attract like.

  • inoits2

    @Interesting: Whether he knows it wont pass or not is of no concern. The conversation has been started. There was no conversation before but now there is, thank you Pres Obama. I am not partisan because I believe we have friends in the republican party that are not bad, certainly not many because most, especially the Tea People, are definitely whacked. I don’t care which side they are on as long as they are fair-minded people. Living in NY we have marriage thanks to Republicans. As far as the religious protections and the invalidation clause, its called compromise. Our politicians clearly have no concept of this these days but without it nothing happens.

  • tjr101

    @Queer Supremacist: Jon Huntsman? Funny, seems like a decent guy but he doesn’t have a chance in hell with the rabid GOP base.

    “The best you can do is “everyone else sucks” and try to scare me with fears of concentration camps (after FDR’s Japanese internment camps I don’t think that’s happening in America again) or a Supreme Court packed with homophobes when you can’t even prove that Sotomayor and Kagan will be on our side if it gets that far.”

    Again very funny, no one is trying to scare you and I couldn’t careless if you’re scared or not. The fact is there is no one in your beloved GOP that will be have as good on gay issues. Republicans (including Huntsman) will pick nominees for the SCOTUS that will be right-wing ideologues that will be unfriendly to gay or any minority rights, corporatist. Sotomayor lived in the village before going to the supreme court (there’s a lot of gays there). Kagan refused entry of recruiters into Harvard in protest of DADT.

    I don’t cling to Democrats as a way to fight homophobia in the GOP, I could careless about the GOP and their destructive economic policies.

    Obama is more of a friend to the LGBT community than the teaparty dominated GOP will ever be.
    Love the Obamunist comment by the way, did you get that on GayPatriot?

  • Interesting

    @inoits2: (a) The conversation was started before this moment. All this is red meat for those of you he wants money from and those he wants to vote for him over something that costs him nothing. I just mentioned this as JoeMyGod. Its like the Public Option. All those Democrats were for it until it actually had a chance of passing, and then suddently, when things got real, they changed their mind. Obama’s politician. That’s all this is.

    (b) Your comment about “no conversation before now” is evidence that you are a partisan.

    (c) Frankly, I find many gay people at this point to be as much wrapped in identity politics as my fellow African-Americans. The truth is these are minor issues. The damn country is burning down, and you are impressed because some Republicans are okay with you being gay? I think you all have your damn priorities in the wrong place. We should and must fight for gay rights, but can we hold off of the praise of some really evil people in both parties. I mean- the same time that Cuomo passed marriage equality- he was also fucking over teachers, the elderly, etc. He only passed marriage equality to cover up the rest of the shit he was doing. That’s what I mean by two right wing paties. They will do shit like marriage equality when it helps their bottom line. Not because they give a fuck about you.

    (d) Look, I am not big on either the politicians or the voters in this country, or frankly the west right now. Rome is burning down, the pols are selling us out, and we are all acting like its not happening. So, while marriage equality is really important to me, I never confuse what and why things are happening. Obama is doing this to shore up his “liberal creds” while he’s about to put granny on catfood along with the GOP. That’s why I don’t see the point of debating GOProud or whoever. They are no less crazy that the alternative. In fact, sometimes I wish we would just let the crazines take over so that we can get the forrest burned down so that things can finally start to grow again. right now, its all just trying to prop up or hold by the more crazy. The More crazy does not mean we aren’t ready dealing with a crazy political system.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @inoits2: While unlike some here, you acknowledge that there would be no marriage equality in New York without Republican support (which is what most people here just don’t fucking get: without bipartisan support we will get nowhere), you’re just making excuses to defend the status quo. What you call failure to compromise the rest of us call integrity and conviction, whether or not we agree with it. Who ever said compromise was a good thing anyway? It’s just a matter of time before that special-rights-for-homophobic-cults compromise bites us in the ass.

    You see no evil and hear no evil, but Obama has spoken plenty of evil towards us. That is unforgivable. Even if he was 100% pro-gay why should I support him when he supports so many other things I don’t believe in? I resent your insistence that we owe him anything. He owes us fulfillment of his campaign promises.

    If I am genuinely prejudiced against any group of people, it’s white heterosexual “liberals”. They think they’re entitled to the automatic respect and loyalty of every minority everywhere because a few brave college students happened to be in the right place at the right time. How insulting.

  • inoits2

    @Interesting: I guess having been raised in a very oppressive state where you weren’t even allowed to discuss gays that I am grateful when people change. I am grateful when people care enough to discuss our issues when they certainly don’t have too. I can’t see how The RMact will win Obama friends since most states despise us. Has anyone ever supported a bill to repeal DOMA…I don’t think so….until now. Yes I am impressed when people change, especially religious people. I was moved by our politicians. It isn’t about fucking over teachers and grandma. Something has to give. If Reps insist on not raising taxes then teachers and grandma are fucked. Not Obama’s fault. He can’t allow us to default. It is going to be the end if we default and ss checks don’t go out. You may get your wish.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @tjr101: Kagan also said, “there is no constitutional right to gay marriage.” Um, Loving v. Virginia, anyone?

    And I love that “your beloved GOP” line. How original! How groundbreaking! How totally fucking inaccurate. I’m not letting the GOP off the hook for allowing bigots to take over and driving decent people away (and I think GayPatriot is a tool). I hate both political parties, but I hate the Democrats more. I should know, I used to be one. You can complain about the “destructive economic policies” of the GOP all you want, because they’re the same ones the Democrats are practicing: a system of corporate cronyism in which legislation is crafted supposedly for “the common good” or “our protection”, but in fact is crafted for the benefit of big businesses to hurt the smaller competition, because they can afford to comply with it, and small businesses cannot. And one reason you fail to win conservatives to your side is because you don’t know how to frame an argument to appeal to them. One party wants to police the bedroom while the other one wants to police everything else. If I wanted a nanny state I’d vote for Mary motherfucking Poppins.

    Keep referring to Obama as our “friend”. It just proves you don’t know what friendship is. Do you sell out your friends for personal gain? Do you believe you deserve special privileges that your friends don’t?

  • inoits2

    @Queer Supremacist: You need to learn to be more humble and grateful and recognize who your enemies are. Het libs help us by being on our side. You don’t have to support him you just have to recognize when he does something good. Without compromise noone wins…we all lose…and that’s that. Pride is no excuse to ruin the lives of many people by trying to prove a point.

  • Interesting

    @inoits2: You need to be able to tell the difference between sincerity and bullshit, or you are just a mark. Hence, the silliness of being impressed by someone supporting something that they know has no chance of passing on their watch. He could have done this last year when it mattered. His doing this now is about the fact he knows it can’t pass. I can’t repeat that enough because that’s what separates your claims of sincerity from bullshit.

  • inoits2

    @Interesting: Well then by your thinking it would be better had he said nothing. I say better late than never. What does it matter what his intentions are? he is the president of the frickin USA and he supports it. Nuff said.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @inoits2: You need to grow a backbone and demand what is right, regardless of whether it is convenient. You must be in the employ of someone connected with the administration or one of the Obama-blowing Gay, Inc. hacktivist groups; you talk like a goddamn mealy-mouthed Afterschool Special. Inoits2: The Boy Who Talked Too Much, starring Scott Baio, Melissa Gilbert, and Dana Plato.

    If he had done this when it had a chance of passing that would be one thing. But he didn’t. He was too busy shoving through a trainwreck of a healthcare bill that even much of the left was angry with to do so. He pissed away a great deal of political capital on that, and the repercussions will have an effect on his re-election campaign.

  • inoits2

    @Queer Supremacist: Gay rights does not trump the importance of health and jobs. Sorry, it just doesn’t and diplomacy works much better than militantness. Most people dislike and do not want to be around angry people. You take your anger and use it in constructive ways. Anger will never convince people they are wrong but mutual understanding will.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @inoits2: Better late than never? Take your sun’ll-come-out-tomorrow blind optimism back to the second rate stock company of Annie where it belongs. It’s too little, too late. Bottom line: our blind loyalty as a group to the Democrats has gotten us little more than platitudes and a lopsided checkerboard of equality that counts for nothing on the federal level. Had we sought a bipartisan approach in the first place we may have become first-class citizens by now. The Religious Wrong became a voting bloc to support Jimmy Carter; they only switched to the GOP because they, like everyone else, realized they picked a lemon. At least Carter deregulated the airlines.

    If we had listened to the likes of you in the 1770s, we’d still be subjects of the British crown.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @inoits2: Gay rights does not trump the importance of health and jobs. Sorry, it just doesn’t and diplomacy works much better than militantness.


    I’d say the disenfranchisement of at least 10% of the population trumps all other considerations. How much of the population was black in the early 1960s? I’d say their oppression at the hands of racist state governments was a more pressing issue than anything else.

    You’re the classic definition of an Uncle Tom. You will gladly put your own dignity aside for convenience and dance to the tune of those who do not have your interests at heart and be grateful for it.

  • Henry

    @inoits2: Please don’t feed the troll you’re feeding right now. I think Interesting was right. You’re not that great at telling who’s honest.

  • Kev C

    @Interesting: “Frankly, I find many gay people at this point to be as much wrapped in identity politics as my fellow African-Americans. The truth is these are minor issues.”

    My safety is more important to me than the economy. Under Obama, crimes against LGBTs has increased. Anti-gay crime has been increasing for a decade, but 2009 and 2010 were higher than normal (NCAVP). Most categories of crime decreased in 2009. Obama has not been successful in persuading americans to be more tolerant and I can’t support him.

  • Packet sniffer

    @Queer Supremacist: are you Mannequin Adam? You group all of your replies in one post just like he does.

  • inoits2

    It is easy to go through life being cynical but you can’t prove that someone’s intentions are dishonest without being in their head. And you can’t know the circumstances surrounding an act without being an insider. You can guess but you can’t know until it has been proven that they meant harm or were selfish. So it is a perspective isn’t it? I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt and you choose to believe he is deceitful.

    BTW…Queerty is so refreshing over Joemygod. The self-righteousness of the blog makes me retch.

  • Red Meat

    I’m sure all the racist gays will find some deeper dark meaning to all of this.

  • Interesting

    @Kev C: Unless you have money (and I mean a lot of it), your comment is nonsensical. There are many societies that are already like what the US is rapidly becoming, and trust me, your safety will not be heightened by living in them.

    And at any rate, you are making a false choice, but hey partisans are good with changing the subject. As the GOProud member was told today- you aren’t running for office, so why the games??

    Its not either you choose gay rights, or you choose a crazy economic right wing agenda that’s burning down your country. I don’t know- may be you are really a far right winger- which if you are-be honest about it. But if you aren’t, that makes you as crazy as the Republicans.

    The fact you frame it that way (before you deny it- that’s the implicit premise of what you wrote) is just more evidence of how nuts you and the rest of this country is. Which baby are you going to choose to kill Sophie?

    I don’t think you are going to care whether someone is beating your head in because you are gay or because they are too poor to afford living in this society. If you think you are going to care, then, trust that i know you have never been in contact with violence.

    Its funny bring up the Hate Crimes bill, which really has nothing to do with repeal of DOMA or more importantly the passage of ENDA, in that there have been next to no cases tried under the legislation, which legally (the most important thing about any law is what it actually says not how it makes some random person feels) is a high hurdle to meet. I just read a stat of its affected 50 cases. If that makes you feel “safe” you are a cheap date.

    Don’t fret. You are in the clear majority in this society. Its why wall street understood they could fuck people like you over. They knew they could give you a little bit about something they don’t care about, and you would be gushing all over them, thanking them for it. And here you are proving them right one person at a time. One story of support at a time.

  • Kev C

    @Interesting: A leader is someone who directs people and convinces them based on his skills, his personality, his rhetoric, his actions. That’s they whole point. The president doesn’t control the economy, or crime, or much of anything outside of the military, but he can persuade people of heading in a certain direction. And Obama’s leadership .. sucks. If you can’t see this, I’m not the partisan hack here. I supported his election the first time.

    Not even his glibness will be able to convince people that they are better off. That working for McDonalds as a second job is an improvement. You need to realize that he has no chance of being re-elected and you should just stop being a partisan who insults groups for political gamesmanship. You have no stake in Obama being president. None. Do you understand what I am saying to you?

  • james_from_cambridge

    @Kev C: Yeah…you’re saying go vote for Michelle Bachmann or whatever Republican gets the nomination instead of Obama (who is far from perfect but doesn’t want us dead, unlike your thug friends in the GOP) so they can bash the shit outta of us and roll back DADT, Hate Crimes legislation and pass a Federal Marriage Amendment, getting rid of gay marriage in the twelve States that have it, including New York and my State of Massachusetts. After all, what’s important isn’t our rights. What’s important is rich bitches (or pathetic wannabe rich bitches who never will be)like you keep your Bushie tax cuts permanently, while the gays, the poors and the working class all collapse all around you. Go preach your Gopproud bullshit on FreeRepublic or some other redneck site you fucking right-wing shill!

  • Rainfish

    DOMA and DADT are conjoined like Siamese Twins. Both may survive the legal scalpel of judicial surgery, but one or both might die in the process as well.

    If DADT appeal goes forth, that could negatively impact and set a very bad precedent in DOMA if the Supreme Court finds that the Gay and Lesbian community is not entitled to “heightened scrutiny” and 14th Amendment equal protection or even Fifth Amendment due process protections in DADT. In view of those consequences, DOMA should have gone first as the Supreme Court has historically sided with the military on administrative proceedings.

    Besides, Justice Kagan already has stated that she will probably recuse herself since DADT was argued in federal court while she was solicitor general and before she joined the Supreme Court. That alone just breaks the “liberal” majority (if Anthony Kennedy joins in) of the court on this one.

    By the way, Elena Kagan (for all you Democratic loyalists who think that Democratic federal court appointees are referable to Republicans appointed judges such as Anthony Kennedy who wrote the majority decisions in Lawrence -v- Texas (striking down the sodomy laws) and in Romer -v- Evans (striking down anti-gay Amendment 2 in Colorado) …just remember what Ellen Kagan stupidly said during her confirmation hearing about DOMA.

    Kagan said: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”


    According to Keen News Service:

    “In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services (DOMA), and in Log Cabin Republicans v. U.S., and Witt v. U.S. (DADT). If Kagan recuses herself from any of these cases, the probability for a tie is the best the LGBT community can hope for in any of these cases. Rather than pinning hopes on Justice Anthony Kennedy to serve as a swing vote to victory, pro-gay attorneys will be desperate to persuade Kennedy in order to maintain a status quo.

    When there’s a tie in the Supreme Court, the lower court ruling stands but applies only to that federal circuit.

    So, if the 9th Circuit agrees with District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that California’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional and the Yes on 8 supporters of Proposition 8 appeal to the Supreme Court, the best gay civil rights supporters could hope for — given the current ideological make-up of the court — is to preserve the 9th Circuit ruling for the nine 9th Circuit states.

    On the other hand, if the 9th Circuit should disagree with Walker’s ruling, perhaps the worst outcome would likely be that banning same-sex marriage would be considered constitutional in only those nine states.”


    Also during her confirmation hearing, Kagan was asked about the Defense of Marriage Act, regarding state recognition of same-sex marriages entered into in other states. Kagan indicated that she would defend the act (DOMA) if “there was any reasonable basis to do so.”

    It really doesn’t look that great with Kagan on the court now. She could have just said, during her confirmation hearings in Congress, that she could not discuss cases which could possibly reach the Supreme Court – that is what others, including Republican nominees have done as a matter of jurisprudence and court ethics in the past. But no, she had to suck up to the right-wingers — now she’s on the record opposing GLBT equal marriage rights before they have even reached the court.

    Nice choice, Obama. But what did you expect from him and his non-confrontational, shortsighted, lack of decision-making skills anyway? He’s such a screw-up and a really big disappointment to his progressive base. His signing on to the doomed “Respect for Marriage Act” is a farce; considering how the Bill would’ve even been a struggle in his first two years, but, today, with the House in Republican control, bringing this “dead-on-arrival” Bill up now is just an insult and an exploitation of the gullibility of the GLBT community. We deserved better, and, what’s more, America deserved better from the Democratic Party, the party of Roosevelt and Truman. What a disaster for us all. This at a time when we truly need real leadership; not a vacillating, unreliable, dupliticous village idiot in the White House.

    As the old saying goes: “The Republicans fear their base, while the Democrats despise their base.”

    Obama is the living embodiment of that axiom. More’s the pity.

  • Kev C

    @james_from_cambridge: I supported Obama over Hillary. And I apologize to all the Hillary supporters. They were right.

    Political partisanship is a sickness (And James from Cambridge is a sicko). Remember when the Dems lost the House? Who did many Dems blame? Gays. That’s right, Dems blamed gays for having hissyfits and getting their panties in a bunch about DADT. That’s probably why anti-gay crimes increased; angry Dems.

  • james_from_cambridge

    @Kev C: If you truly believe that, you’re psychotic. Nothing you say will change the facts: the Republican Party wants you either closeted or dead and will take away EVERY SINGLE RIGHT AND PROTECTION brought to you by the Democratic Party that you hate so much. Facts are inconvenient for psychotic liars like you but gay marriage in twelve States, hate crimes legislation, the repeal of DADT wasn’t done for you by the GOP you fucking self-loathing liar. Democrats are gay bashers? Ha! You’re a pathetic, shameless moron if you think even your fellow brainwashed, pro-Republican, money-over-civil-rights uncle Toms believe that shit…!

  • Rainfish

    @Kev C: You are right on that. Likewise, during Bill Clinton’s first midterm wipeout, Democrats (specifically Blue-dog Conservative Democrats) blamed the fight over the introduction of DADT on “da gheys” for their losses. The truth of the matter was that liberal Democrats who supported fully lifting the ban on gays in the military by and large retained their seats in the midterms, while Southern Dixie-crats got an ass-kicking.

    Why is this, one might ask? Well, it is because arch Dixie-crat Sam Nunn joined with Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee to derail the lifting of the ban on open gay military personnel. It was Dixie-crats, like Nunn, who cost the Democrats control of Congress and heralded in the Gingrich era. The Conservative Democrats lost big time because most of the progressive Democratic voters, who had previously (and tentatively) supported them, stayed home.

    Hmmmmm…sounds a lot like 2010, doesn’t it.

    So no, dear Obots, you are being your own worst enemy by angering progressives and trying to trivialize their legitimate concerns and disgust with Obama’s clear betrayal of their reasons for voting for this sonavabitch in the first place. The DNC could use fewer people like you. You are just doing the work of the GOP by acting so goose-steppingly fanatically in your blind-support of this failed political fraud who is losing the confidence of his base more and more each day — all with your thuggish assistance, of course. The “it’s High Treason to offend the King” mindset is more a GOP tactic, and not uesful among true Democrats. So, be gone with you.

    I personally encountered that kind of rabid partisanism that relished “eating its own” at the now irrelevant Daily Kos and its band PC-DNC-Nazis who would descend like a horde of Flying Monkeys on anyone who dared question their man behind the curtain in the Oval Office. Now, after so many defections (and after driving away so many desenters) the Daily Kos (Krazy Obama Sycophants) is starting to shed its politically polarized glasses and see what the Wizard in Emerald City is not . Genuine, is the operative term here.

    FYI, I am not a Republican (not that it is anyone’s business). I used to be a Democrat (and still vote mostly for Democrats in local, state, and federal elections), but I changed my voter affiliation to Independent after Obama proclaimed, with glee, that “Gaud is in the mix” (hallelujah!) in marriages likes his, but absent in my marriage because my spouse just happens to be of the same gender as I. If I were a religious person I might be offended and worried that God didn’t get the invitation in time which I sent to Him for our wedding. But, being an agnostic and a rationalist, I simply understood that Obama was just being an asshole.

    Still, one must ponder this: If we were minority people of color and some white presidential candidate had proclaimed, at a racist church, that he believed that “god” favored white people, how in hell could any self-respecting minority person of color vote for that sack of shit. Yet, here we are, after the Donnie McClurkin fiasco and kissing the holy (kill the gays in Uganda) ring of Rick Warren at Obama’s inauguration, still wondering if the perpetually “evolving” whirling dervish of deception, Obama, is our special friend.


  • Queer Supremacist

    @james_from_cambridge: Let’s see the big ol’ book of gay Obamunist ad hominems:

    Psychological projection of your own self-loathing? Check.

    Uncle Tom? Check.

    Demand to prostrate themselves before the almighty donkey? Check.

    Cryptomarxist class warfare? Check.

    Fatuous idea that fiscal conservatism and gay rights are a zero-sum game? Check.

    Insinuation that criticism of Dear Leader Breeder equals support for The Kraut Bitch? Check.

    Calling someone a psycho when it is clearly you who are the psycho? A big fat check.

    Got any real arguments? This is the political equivalent of refrigerator magnet poetry. I just love watching so-called “liberals” eat their own. Pass the popcorn.

    @Rainfish: Well-said, but Obama is more analogous to the Wicked Witch of the West than the Wizard of Oz.

  • Some guy who pays attention

    @Queer Supremacist: Obama publicly supported repealing DOMA as early as 2008 and this may have been his position before 2008.

  • robert in NYC

    PLAINTOM, I agree, not that I’m overly enamored of Obama. That said, I’d like to know why Ron Paul has NEVER called out Bachmann, Pawlenty and the rest of the scumbaggers for their opposition to equality including same-sex marriage? If the Civil Libertarian party (republicans in reality) are so supportive of marriage equality, why aren’t they making noise about it? Why hasn’t Paul condemned that absurd Van der Plaats pledge in Iowa? What exactly are the republican/civil libertarian parties going to do for LGBT equality? Which bills are they going to introduce and who will represent us at their conventions and allowed to address their constituents? R. Clarke Cooper, Chris Barron? NOT!

  • Ronbo

    @inoits2: You are the only “miserable queer” I see. Keep your self-hate to yourself. Obama has a full history of saying one thing and doing another. You are a the Charlie Brown and Obama is the Lucy with the football. How many times are you going to fall for this?

  • Ronbo

    @PLAINTOM: Do you remember when Obama said he was for Single-Payer healthcare and then, at the first opportunity, Obama took it off the table? Obama has a history of giving nice words then taking action in the opposite direction. He vowed to not support the Bush tax cuts; but, he was first in line to keep them on the books (by the way, these reductions of income are now the justification for cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid). Obama is a trojan-horse Republican smack dab in the middle of the Democratic party. He is doing what a Republican can not. Open your eyes.

  • Ronbo

    @inoits2: You simply don’t realize that Obama is the opposite of a friend. He SAYS nice things, then takes action in the opposite direction. Obama reduces our military personnel in our five (yes five!) wars/military actions/drone attack victims; however, he increases the TOTAL number of persons by sending in MORE contractors! Renaming WHO you send in, isn’t solving the situation. You need a higher IQ than your remote control.

  • Interesting

    @Kev C: Thanks for the Obot response. I have a degree in political science. There are several definitions of leadership. None of which includes the weak leader theory you and the rest of the Obots like so robotically spout when confronted with your own rationalizations. First it was a false choice between gay rights and the economy. Now its he has no choice. You are full of excuses. I get why you are so desperate. In hard times, people cling to myths and delusions more so than an other times. I just want you to understand I am not willing to live in your fantasy world while the country around me is burning down.

  • Cam

    @Derek Washington: said..


    Cue the whiny Laptopists who aint never gonna give him credit for anything….”

    Credit for what? This bill wasn’t put forth when the Dems were in control, they waited until it won’t have a chance to pass the GOP controlled house. DOMA is about to get shot down in the courts, so Obama knows he had to say something, because if it went away without him saying anything he would seen as being on the wrong side civil rights.

    I give him credit for refusing to defend DOMA, but this is just window dressing and butt covering on an issue that is moving faster than they hoped it would.

  • xander

    Come election day, there will be no true Democrat running for the presidency. You’ll have a DINO (Obama), and a mix of Teabaggers & far-right wackos.

    Obama’s late support for DOMA seems like a desperate stunt.

  • xander

    “for DOMA repeal”, I ought to have said…

  • Spike

    @Queer Supremacist: You silly silly fool. Go ahead abandon Obama just so you can make your point, in the mean time, the Supreme Court has a 5-4 with a conservative lean, after you have made you and all your angry bitter gay friends vote for some nonsensical third party candidate, and again make your point, and a republican is elected, guess what, genius, the Supreme Court will then have a 6-3 conservative lean, at which point you clowns will be to blame!

  • robert in NYC

    Spike, exactly. You don’t necessarily have to like Obama but the thought of a republican in the White House in 2012 means that after Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires or dies because of her battle with cancer, we will see a sixth staunch catholic judge replacing her. Our fate will be sealed if that were to happen. Ron Paul isn’t exactly that popular, in fact trailing at only 5%-6% in the polls. He’ll NEVER get the nomination. So let the fools vote for him, pissing in the wind. Many gay republicans when push comes to shove will vote for whoever is the nominee, just to get a democrat out of the White House at their own peril, but then equality isn’t the highest priority on their agenda, never has been.

  • james_from_cambridge

    @robert in NYC: I don’t think you guys get it. They’re not going third Party these self-loathing queens. They’re voting for the Republican nominee. They are (most of them anyway) saying that it ain’t just about gay rights, they want the general Republican, right-wing agenda shoved in their giant, prolapsed rectums (it’s probably the one thing that fits in there since feet, fists and tree stumps just ain’t doing the job anymore.) Unfortunately,there have always been gays in right-wing and fascist movements, starting from the 19th century on, and these cunty little queens like Supremacist and Kev are fulfilling that sick little legacy.

  • Markie-Mark

    @Spike: You said: [if] “a republican is elected, guess what, genius, the Supreme Court will then have a 6-3 conservative lean, at which point you clowns will be to blame!”

    Actually, Obama and the democrats will be to blame. If Obama had shown better leadership we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

  • Markie-Mark

    Besides, when a republican president nominates a Supreme Court justice the Senate has to approve the nomination. And usually democrats do. Just have a look back at Obama’s voting record in the Senate to see how he voted on Bush’s judicial nominations.

  • Markie-Mark

    And while were’re discussing DoMA, VP Joe Biden voted for DoMA when he was in the Senate. Why don’t we hear from him? Why doesn’t the administration address this?

  • the crustybastard


    The purpose of third-parties is not necessarily to get the third-party candidate elected (although that might be nice.) The purpose of third-parties is to create a correcting force on an unresponsive major party.

    For example, Ross Perot’s nontrivial support from the electorate derived principally from fiscally conservative “classical republicans” who had the sense to recognize that Mr. Perot was correct that the short-term job destruction caused by “free-trade agreements” would lead to a long-term economic downturn caused by toxic unemployment, which would lead to massive housing devaluation, which would lead to lender-hoarding, which would lead to prolonged stagflation.

    You know — the perfect shitstorm we’ve been wallowing in since 2008?

    Oh, and — having evidently not learned a goddam thing — the current president is promoting yet more “free-trade agreements,” because despite the fact that none of those treaties has ever failed to weaken the American job market and depress wages, this one will surely be the key to employment and economic recovery…this time.


    Likewise, Ralph Naders’ nontrivial support from the electorate derived principally from socially liberal progressives who had the sense to recognize that Mr. Nader was correct that Democrats were doing nothing to rein in the runaway power of corporate oligarchs and the military-industrial complex who seem determined to convert the middle-class into impoverished serfs desperate for any opportunity…even the opportunity to be a bullet-sponge.

    You know — the perfect shitstorm we’ve been wallowing in since 2001?

    Oh, and — having evidently not learned a goddam thing — the current president has bent over backwards to accommodate and guarantee the ongoing expansion of corporate and the military power because, besides inevitable relentless fascism, what could possibly go wrong in a country where the military and private corporations are the principle forces determining public policy?


    I realize that your steadfast partisan streak makes it difficult to understand that some issues are more complex than “blue side good, red side bad!”

    But you might at least fucking try once in a while.

  • Rainfish

    @the crustybastard: Brilliant! Absolutely brilliantly parsed, extrapolated and expounded upon! May I use your exposition on my blog (with full attribution, of course)? I think you, in describing the need for a third party, summed up the motivational factors essential to bringing more honest discourse to the political table. You said it as well as it can be said in your incisive outline. Thanks!

  • Rainfish

    The fact of the matter is that the Democrats think that their progressive base have no other place to go, so there is no need to really accommodate them — other than mollify them with a few vaguely worded platitudes and insincere promises. On the other hand, Republican office-holders soil themselves living daily in utter fear of their base whom they know will stay home on election day in order to reap vengeance upon them if that base is crossed in any way which defiles party dogma.

    Contrary-wise, we have so many Stepford Wives in the Democratic Party base who are so terrified of the Republican Boogie-man, that they will turn their car keys over to any drunk driver in the Democratic Party and sit in the backseat in abject horror chewing on their fingernails while assuring themselves, “Well, it could have been worse”, as they are being driven off a cliff politically.

    The Democratic base does not demand accountability, hence the battered housewife syndrome which weakens and fractures the base. Any Democratic ally who questions this sado-masochistic relationship is ostracized and branded an apostate — or worse, a closet Republican. Yet, it is ironic how Republican voters can criticize their party clowns openly and they don’t get branded outlaws for doing so. It makes one wonder who is really holding the leash in the Democratic party — the voters or the voted for?

  • Queer Supremacist

    If Obama had any character or integrity gave two shits about our rights we would have them by now. McClurkingate, Warrengate and the stay on Log Cabin Republicans v. United States revealed his true character.

    @pithyscreenname: No, I don’t hate everyone. I follow the Golden Rule and assume others do, too, and from the way they have treated me, I can only deduct that they wish to be treated like shit. I’m just treating them as they apparently wish to be treated. Do unto others and all that. I find it funny that I’m being called hateful people by some of the most vindictive, psychotic assholes I have ever had the misfortune to know. I feel like half of the young couple from “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf” whenever I come to this misbegotten pit of hypocritical venom and bigotry. I don’t attack people who don’t attack me or infringe upon my rights. But when in Rome I do as the Romans do. I enjoy watching Obamunists’ heads explode.

    @Rainfish: Republicans at least pay lip service to the idea of government of the people, by the people, for the people (Libertarians actually mean it). Democrats believe in the exact opposite in theory and practice. And funny how it was Reagan who said “thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican,” yet it’s Democrats who actually seem to enforce that “rule” about their own party as if it actually were a rule.

    @james_from_cambridge: You’re a psycho. Figures that a supporter of Obamunist corporatism and Palestinian terrorism would have some screws loose. Now you’re projecting your fascism onto anyone who calls you out on your shit. Obama and his stooges have far more in common with Benito Mussolini than I or even the left-wingers you accuse of being Republicans. Fascism was an alliance between big business and big government. Here we live in a supposedly free country where “what’s good for General Electric is good for America,” where big corporations are involved in legislature allegedly designed to protect people. This is not what I support. Do you think Mussolini would have given the time of day to F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, or even Ayn Rand? Nope. When did those who oppose the expansion of government power become the “Fascists”? Like “racist”, that word has lost all meaning and is just the desperate cry of someone who’s run out of arguments.

    @Spike: Who nominated Vaughn Walker to the bench? And who nominated David Souter to the SCOTUS? Using the Supreme Court as a scare tactic is another worn out ploy from the bottom of the Obamunist bag of tricks.

    @robert in NYC: Ron Paul is a faux libertarian “constitutional conservative”. He doesn’t oppose tyranny unless it’s on the federal level. He’s perfectly okay with it as long as it’s on the state or local level. I am not. Funny how you people feel that you can claim the authority to tell me what my beliefs are.

  • The crustybastard


    By all means. Honored. Thanks.

Comments are closed.