Comments on: Solid interpretation of Obama’s HRC speech this weekend: the connection to civil rights

By: texascowgirl

texascowgirl — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:06:16 +0000

Oh, sorry. No harm, no foul. I read that crap and lost it. I think I got you confused with Kimi or Kami. That fool is always posting crazy stuff.

It's all good.

________________________________

By: Guns3000

Guns3000 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 05:46:15 +0000

I'm not going to respond to your insults because the post was big misunderstanding. I didn't realize how long the post was and how much room it actually took so it came off like I was trying to be a smartass or something. I was actually trying to highlight the garbage out there that reinforces the negative stereotypes of black people but I should have posted this in a lot smarter and more concise way and gave my opinion rather than posting it like I did. Anyway, just wanted to explain myself.

By: Guns3000

Guns3000 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 05:40:45 +0000

I didn't realize how this post “came off” looking. I was just trying to highlight how an article like that feeds and “justifies” to some people the negative stereotypes of black people. I also didn't realize how long it was. I'm a “fuck you” type of a guy but wrong is wrong and the way I posted that conveyed the wrong message. My fault.

By: Guns3000

Guns3000 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 05:35:20 +0000

I just got a chance to catch up on some emails and I'm reading some responses to this post. I'm not going to respond all the negativity because I hate it when people do longs posts like that and I ended up doing the same thing. Go figure.

I was just trying to show people some of the nonsense out there that feeds negatives stereotypes of black people. There are people that read stuff like that and take it as the gospel that was all. It was so long so I tried to post just a “piece” of it but I didn't realize how long it was. Anyway, my bad.

By: texascowgirl

texascowgirl — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:06:16 +0000

Oh, sorry. No harm, no foul. I read that crap and lost it. I think I got you confused with Kimi or Kami. That fool is always posting crazy stuff.

It's all good.

________________________________

By: Guns3000

Guns3000 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:46:15 +0000

By: Guns3000

Guns3000 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:40:45 +0000

By: Guns3000

Guns3000 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:35:20 +0000

By: lizadiamond

lizadiamond — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:56:28 +0000

Gays did and still do transform Nazi holocaust symbolism in the form of the pink triangle. As Craig says, Gays and Jews were both reviled and exterminated by Nazis. So when some historically informed gay activists in the 1980's were searching for a symbol to use for their struggle, they chose the Pink Triangle, which was the badge Gays in concentration camps had to wear. Rather than a badge of shame, the pink triangle became a badge of honor in it's new incarnation.

Interesting history here: http://thepinktriangle.com/history/symbol.html

As a Jew and a Lesbian I feel totally comfortable with people making comparisons to the holocaust as long as they are accurate analogies. Saying that Obama is like Hitler is not accurate, it's an inverted projection and is just wrong and shameful. Saying that the thousands who die annually from lack of health care due to corporate greed and government apathy is a holocaust is, in my mind, a good usage.

I wouldn't care if people said Gay is the new Jew, by the way. Besides the fact that a portion of gays ARE jews (and Black,and Hispanic and...well, and everything) I'd personally consider it an honor.

Gay is good. Gay is great. Gay is fabulous. Being considered an equivilant is a good thing. Woohoo! yay. We're here, we're queer, we're jews, we're black, we are a rainbow, we are everywhere.

By: rikyrah

rikyrah — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:00:34 +0000

let's see Lieberman on my tv talking about repealing it…until then, it's all talk.

By: Plantsmantx

Plantsmantx — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:57:00 +0000

Hmm?

By: caribgirl

caribgirl — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:48:33 +0000

So after complaining that Obama is reneging on his campaign promise, when presented with evidence that they are taking concrete steps to fulfill his promise, they are complaining about how its being done? With friends like these, who needs enemies?

By: rikyrah

rikyrah — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:44:53 +0000

when Lieberman actually does something on this issue, get back to me.

By: Alexander2

Alexander2 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:56:16 +0000

Do you agree with the folks at Firedoglake that's its somehow wrong for the administration to be working with Joe Lieberman, out of public view, to get DADT repealed? Joe Lieberman is a dick, but he has been a vocal critic of DADT from the beginning. And he is a strong member of the Senate Arms Forces Committee.

One would think that it would be worthy of a post on JJP that the administration is following its strong words last Saturday with concrete action.

I'm not hating tonight like I have in the past. I just don't understand why some important news and information is censured here.

By: trose1

trose1 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:21:08 +0000

Many AA's have no sense of their ancestry. They have no cultural base. Many AA's will sell out their race for money.
Think about it. On the cover of a national gay magazine the headline was “Gay is the new Black.” What exactly did that mean? Where was the outrage in the Black community? Where is our Black Pride?
Why won't gay people make up t-shirts and banners that say “Gay is the new Jew?”

By: rikyrah

rikyrah — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:07:00 +0000

1. this was posted awhile ago.
2. why in this post and not the regular open thread.

By: rikyrah

rikyrah — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:04:58 +0000

I believe that if you wanna get married, get married. No man who wants to marry another man is in the pool of possible husbands for me.

and you know that I believe DADT should have been gone ages ago. I'm not willing to pick up a gun and put my life on the line, so I have no qualms about anyone else who wants to, whatever their sexual orientation. that, in this day and age, when the Armed Services have lowered their standards so much to the point that they allow ACTUAL CRIMINALS in….

you'd exclude LAW ABIDING PEOPLE, because of whom they sleep with…nope…don't think so.

By: morphus

morphus — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:16:19 +0000

Thanks

By: patatsea

patatsea — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:03:07 +0000

It's right there in the quote the author pulled from the speech, about seven paragraphs down in the full transcript.

By: CraigHickman

CraigHickman — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:35:43 +0000

Funny. Someone else posted in the Obama HRC thread that Jews don't mind anyone comparing anything to their holocaust because in the comparison, the story is re-told.

The World War II holocaust didn't just affect Jews. It affected gypsies and gay men and lesbians and transgendered people, too. The number of the non-Jews killed in the holocaust is in dispute, but some estimates put it at 4 million.

It's unfortunate that that history is usually lost in the re-telling.

Slavery in the United States is unique. But Africans in America weren't the only slaves used to start and grow empires.

No one owns any historical experience. We'd be better off if we embraced that.