to those DUers minimizing the outrage from the GLBT community

[sniffa]

this is not about candidates (though i wish some of the hiLLary supporters wouLd stay out of it, because they don't actuaLLy care - they just want to desperateLy Latch onto something to attack obama) but about hatefuL bigotry.

the sweLLing of the outrage is not even about obama's initiaL decision to have mccLoset singing for him - it's about his stubborn refusaL to acknowLedge how much this hurts the GLBT community.

it's about his attempts to stifLe the HRC with his supporters.

it's about his refusaL to drop donnie.

it's about his stubborn refusaL to admit that maybe this is a mistake, and to actuaLLy fix it.

it's about his supporters not acknowLedging that we're not upset because we want someone eLse to beat obama.

it's about his supporters caLLing us fake gays, and gay expLoiters.

it's about his supporters teLLing us we don't matter.

it's about his supporters triviaLizing, and mocking our very genuine anger.

and for some of the supporters who have been caLLed bigots, i apoLogize; you're mereLy bigot enabLers.

[William769]

1. Well I for one do actually care.

And I take offense that you would even make a bullshit comment like that.

[xultar]

4. Agreed! Why can't anyone make a post without swiping @ Clinton supporters?

[NMMNG]

12. Thank you

And I know we don't always agree on certain things, but on this we're definitely on the same team. :hi:

[denem]

30. I guess the word solidarity doesn't mean what it used to

If it;s primary season, partisanship trumps pride any day. QED.

[xultar]

2. I agree with you. Obama wouldn't have hung out with Jerry Fallwell...why

Cuz Jerry Fallwell is a racist asshole.

Then he shouldn't have hung out with an ignorant ass anit-GLBT fundie.

For the record I support all our candidates but Richardson and Obama have angered me with their GLBT gaffes. They are officially off my list.

[yardwork]

21. I agree with you on all points.

And I also agree that this is not about Hillary Clinton's supporters or anyone else. This is Obama's issue. He chose to invite an outspoken bigot to be a highlight of his campaign - a person who makes a CAREER out of going around spreading vicious lies about gay people, contributing to homophobia and oppression of all gay people and ultimately contributing to making our culture less inclusive for everyone.

There is no difference between Obama inviting an outspoken homophobe to stand up on stage with him and inviting an outspoken racist or holocaust denier. No difference.

Encouraging any kind of bigotry encourages all bigotry. Elevating a homophobic bigot as part of a presidential campaign also elevates white supremacists and every other kind of bigot.

Arguments that somehow homophobic bigotry is different than other types of bigotry are offensive and hurtful to many people, and that is why we are seeing these angry posts on DU.

[daninthemoon]

3. I'm waiting for the event to actually happen. I'm hoping Obama

uses the opportunity to address intolerance head on.

[KittyWampus]

5. So you can't see the BIG PICTURE which is ANY Democrat appearing w/ black homophobes?

Apparently not, it's too much fun whacking one particular scapegoat.

[sniffa]

9. you're a reaL piece of work

and by work, i mean something eLse.

it's sad that your idea of "big picture" means win the white house at aLL costs. sad, sad, sad.

but, continue to deny and enabLe if you think it heLps obama.

[Bluebear]

37. We get it already, you could give a shit about GLBT issues. We get it, we get it, we get it.

Now back to your "big picture".

[terrya]

6. I wish people would understand our anger.

I don't give a damn if McClurkin just sings, dances, does funny impressions, whatever. He has gone public numerous times talking about how homosexuality is a "curse". Shades of the time when we gay and lesbian people were once thought to be sick and mentally ill. And to top it off, McClurkin is an "ex-gay", apparently. Do the people here know how offensive this is to us? How truly disgusting the idea that we need to be "cured" to be accepted?

The fact of the matter is the Obama campaign fucked up big time with this. He should have dropped that asshole, but it didn't happen. That's hardly the fault of people who are angry over this. And the way this campaign is trying to deal with this issue...as you said, trying to get us to pressure the HRC to shut up about it...very, very poor handling. But again, that's hardly our fault.

The Republican Party is the party that embraces homophobia. Their own President has repeatedly called for a federal marriage amendment to enshrine forever bigotry against gay and lesbian people. The Democratic Party should be the party of acceptance and to fight for GLBT equality. Situations where our candidates seemingly embrace the politics of hatred are a cause of righteous anger.

[KittyWampus]

7. I wish you could understand the Issue goes further than just one Democratic politician.

[terrya]

8. Did you read this sentence?

"The Democratic Party should be the party of acceptance and to fight for GLBT equality. Situations where our candidates seemingly embrace the politics of hatred are a cause of righteous anger"

Candidates. Plural.

I deplore any candidate who would do this. And, well, since you brought it up, Obama is hardly covering himself with glory right now over this unfortunate situation.

[William769]

10. Neither are his supporters.

[JohnnyLib2]

32. ".....party of acceptance and to fight for......"

I think an important question is, which candidates are stronger in this regard? That point seems to be lost or buried in the current uproar.

[jonnyblitz]

11. all you are doing is hijacking this issue to spin for your favored

candidate, which I would presume to be Obama based on your "everybody does it" excuses. Insincere people like you and others are just posturing for your favored candidate and could give a fuck about GLBT issues. you don't fool anybody with your bullshit.

[ThomCat]

23. You're absolutely right.

It's always charming when people who clearly, historically don't give a fuck about GLBT issues try to pretend that they do. x(

[calteacherguy]

53. I disagree that Obama fucked up. I think it's good to get a dialogue started. nt

[Maven]

54. Apparently, Obama doesn't agree with you

Well, when it comes to racists, anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2138551

Oh, but homophobia is just a point of view, right?

[calteacherguy]

55. I believe he does agree. If he didn't he would have banned the performance. nt

[Maven]

57. No, if he had any integrity he would have banned the performance. nt

[NMMNG]

13. Thank you, and K&R

It's not about faux or manufactured outrage. The outrage is very, very real, as is the pain.

It's about a candidate sponsoring outspoken homophobes as part of his campaign despite widespread protest in an attempt to garner votes.

Every election cycle we're thrown under the bus despite lip-service to our needs and our rights. Then when we speak up we're told to shut the eff up or we'll cause Dems to lose the election.

Nobody would put up with this if it were another group being denigrated so why are they doing so because it's LGBT people? Why?

[bigscott]

15. personally, i cant wait

until this guy (McC) gets cought in a restroom with a wide stance

I personally dont buy the ex-gay shit. i cant believe Obama wouold have this guy involved with ANY part of his campaign

[NMMNG]

16. I don't share that sentiment

But AFAIC, "Ex-gay" is nothing more than a repressed homosexual. All of that nonsense with berating them with how sinful homosexuality is and how much God wants them to turn straight and all. It's pure emotional and psychological abuse disguised as "love" and religious therapy.

[terrya]

19. It is psychological abuse.

That's the perfect way to describe this "ex-gay" stuff.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

14. I don't appreciate being called names for having a different opinion

My problem is with the people who insist that McClurkin merely getting the roster in the first place is an indication of Obama's "bad judgement" and unfit-ness to be President. For them, it wouldn't matter if Obama denounced him and cancelled the whole tour. There were numerous posts to this effect and it really started to irritate me. If we're talking about "judgement" then let's look at all of the candidates and all of their decisions over the past few years. That's why I keep bringing up the war. People keep calling it a red herring but it's not. It's about judgement.

Now that Obama has acknowledged the situation and doesn't seem to be making any moves to take McClurkin off the tour, people are much more justified in their outrage. He should remove him from the lineup, no question about it. If his campaign is putting pressure on the HRC not to criticize him, that is alarming. Then again, if the HRC is only intent on denouncing Obama and plans to remain silent on Clinton's homophobic associations, I will have no respect for that organization.

And now I have a question for you: John Edwards appeared on Bill Maher last week to do an interview. Maher positively gushed over him and I later found out that he has endorsed Edwards. Bill Maher is a misogynist. He regularly makes spiteful and demeaning comments about women. Though he isn't actively calling for discrimination against women, his disdain for us is palpaple in his TV shows, comedy specials, and writings. Maher's target audience is clearly young white males, and he provides them a steady reinforcement of stereotypes of women. So my question is do you think Edwards should not appear on anymore of Maher's shows and disassociate himself from him, due to his views on women? Why or why not?

If you don't think he should, explain to me how you are not enabling misogyny.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. Maher is also vehemently pro-choice and a supporter of women's rights

There is absolutely no comparison.

Yes, he makes juvenile swipes at certain feminine behavior, and yes, he goes overboard with it, but he's also pretty scathing about lunkheaded macho crap. The issue isn't gender, it's behavior, and that shouldn't be off limits. That's why (at least to me) religion should be open for criticism but race shouldn't be: one is a choice, the other isn't.

He does not consider women inferior, nor does he marginalize them as guests based on their gender. His issue is with certain forms of behavior. He respects intellects and willingness to speak honestly, and he's very consistent with that.

If taking swipes at the opposite sex was an abhorrent crime, then there are a lot of comediennes who'd have to be singled out for some serious dismissal, too, but somehow that doesn't seem to come up. Many talk shows and "women's interest" shows are based on the dirty little assumption that men are primitive inferiors and need to be tolerated and fixed like the clueless projects they are. This is somehow just fine. Recriminations from the downtrodden are just fine: black comedians making jokes about clueless white folk are just fine, but reverse it, and it's an outrage.

When it comes to taking swipes at the behavior of the opposite sex, how is Bill Maher any worse than Rosie O'Donnell, Phyllis Diller, Roseanne Barr, Sarah Silverman, Joan Rivers, Wanda Sykes, Kathy Griffin, Laura Kightlinger, Elayne Boosler, Judy Tenuda, Judy Gold, Oprah Winfrey or the precious panelists on "The View"? Or does being a member of the great downtrodden give one an exemption?

Take it a step further: have you EVER NOTICED THAT GENDER JOKES ARE PROBABLY THE BIGGEST STAPLE IN STAND-UP? It's beyond being a cliche; when Rainier Wolfcastle (the Schwarzenneger character in "The Simpsons") tries lame standup, he's remarking about the toilet seat being left down. Buh-dum-bump.

Are you seriously going to equate Donnie McClurkin to Bill Maher? It can't be done; for that, Maher would have to be advocating that women shouldn't exist.

Maher makes jokes about vapidity and cloying bullshit; he also makes corresponding jokes about blustering male puffery. If you're going to be consistent with the outrage, please either repudiate the women I've mentioned or try to defend their snideness and blanket dismissals.

If those people are out of line, then either disavow them or explain why you should get special treatment and accommodation for your persecution. If they're not out of line, please explain that.

Maher's little swipes are against certain types of BEHAVIOR, not the gender itself. If it was, he wouldn't invite the accomplished and smart women on that he does, and his verbal sparring with them wouldn't be as issue-based as it is; it'd all be colored with a dismissal of the individual and a condescension. It isn't. You should also ask yourself why so many smart and no-nonsense women choose to be on his show. Then, when all is said and done, how about looking at his career in perspective and compare to McClurkin's. Maher's schtick about girlie behavior is a relatively minor amount of the subject matter, whereas McClurkin's is one of his major messages.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

29. POE, I get it, Maher is a hero to you.

Sorry, but the fact that he is sometimes respectful to individual women doesn't make up for him opining that as a whole we are stupid, irrational, vapid, gold-diggers. I remember reading in a column of his that rational, pragmatic women were more the exception than the rule. I don't remember the exact words he used but that was the gist of it.

As for the female comedians and female-themed shows, I don't care for them because I believe they perpetuate the same stale gender stereotypes that Maher does. I frankly find them as insulting and stupid as juvenile male entertainment. I find the incessant portrayals of men as loutish buffoons on TV and in the movies to be offensive and counterproductive. I reject the notion that either gender is 'better' than the other and I find entertainment that has that theme to be at best, boring and cliched, and at worst patently offensive.

The important difference is that an endorsement by Judy Tenuda carries far less weight than one by Bill Maher. Even Oprah, who is arguably very influential, carries the 'stain' of being a women's entertainer. Once you have been relegated to the Women's Ghetto, so to speak, you lose credibility with most men, and unfortunatly a lot of women.


BTW, McClurkin is only taking swipes against BEHAVIOR too. Loves the sinner but hates the sin, you know.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. That's a bit of a leap of logic

He's more than just a bit of a bete noir, and he's irritating along the same lines as Stone and Parker (South Park, etc.) are, but he's got his points. To dismiss him outright as a female-hating primitive is a bit out of line in my well-thumbed book.

I agree with the assessment of the cliches and the cheap shots, and they don't justify reciprocal actions, but thumping on Maher about this is sort of like calling out Gilbert Gottfried for being screechy about Jews; he's screechy about EVERYTHING.

Maher is not a "hero" of mine. His libertarian bent and derision towards liberals has always set me on edge, but I find him genuinely funny and often surprising with his opinions. His repeated cracks about women make me cringe, too, but taken along with his other transgressions, they're in keeping with the overall schtick: not wanting to grant people special favors and not wanting to let them off easy when they expect special treatment. When he gets called to task for it, he usually takes his medicine and he doesn't consider himself immune.

In short, you're correct: the guy's got some problems with women. Considering that he's got problems with men and humanity in general, how horrible is it? It's a question of taste.

As for the difference with McClurkin, I completely disagree. McClurkin's saying that homosexuality is a choice, not a hard-wired bit of reality within the mind of the individual. I side with science on this and think he's completely wrong. This is like saying that someone can choose to not be black, and I think Michael Jackson's amply proven this to be a bit off-base.

His respect for individual women is not just occasional, either. He respects people who are forthright and not full of shit, and he likes people who don't expect special favors for being from one group or another.

He's a mixed bag, but he's also been a pretty good public source of rationality against the ruinous idiocy of the reactionaries and we've benefited from his ridiculing of the right.

To simply dismiss him as a sexist is to sort of miss the point. It's like calling Gloria Allred a man-hater: in many ways, she deserves it, but she's more an advocate of the downtrodden.

Doesn't Senator Clinton deserve some hits for hanging out with the misandrists on "The View"? Isn't that deliberately divisive?

I'm not a fan of the concept of relativism when it comes down to giving one's particular favorite a break because "the others are doing it", but I AM a fan of relativism when regarding an individual's overall career and public persona. On this regard, Maher's an abrasive loudmouth, but his value is to cut through artifice and hold people accountable for their actions. The chafing between what is and what should be is the grist-wheel of comedy; taken all-in-all, he comes down on the side of pluralism.

Some of the stuff is just plain funny, like this "new rule": "Women cannot complain about men anymore until they start getting better taste in them." Yep, it's sexist, but it plays into a bit of truth, too.

Enjoy the guy for slinging some arrows in every direction; that's his value for us.

Some quotes:

"Men are only as loyal as their options." Now THERE'S some equal opportunity derision: all men are opportunistic cheaters at heart. I guess if you laugh at that, you're a sexist, too. (Then again, if you don't, perhaps a humor transplant might be in order.)

"Maybe every other American movie shouldn't be based on a comic book. Other countries will think Americans live in an infantile fantasy land where reality is whatever we say it is and every problem can be solved with violence."

"Apparently Bob Dole's new election strategy is to find a Republican policy so stupid, even Clinton won't copy it."

[mrreowwr_kittty]

40. I may have already said this to you in another post, I can't remember

But it bears repeating nonetheless. I've noticed that whenever someone is said to be "an equal opportunity offender" who "hates everyone equally", strangely absent from that person's rhetoric will usually be anything that is actually offensive to the straight White able-bodied males who are generally his target audience.

Take the example you used: "Men are only as loyal as their options" Leaving aside whether or not that comment is humorous (it's not IMO), I don't believe that it's meant to be insulting to men. He's saying that men are compulsively unfaithful horndogs. Okay, how is that really problematic, given our society's beloved and entrenched double standard? It's certainly not anywhere near the scale of calling a woman a 'slut'. At worst, it suggests that men are incapable of love and commitment. Which ends up being more hurtful to women because the implication is that, as individuals, men view us interchangeable and easily discarded. It's the type of disingenuousness that I'd expect from someone like Maher. It's supposed to prove that he picks on men too but it's really just another way to kick women.

This will be my last post to you because I try to make it a rule not to engage in dialogue with people who use terms like 'misandrist' in earnest. It pretty much pegs you as an MRA. If you don't know what that is, look it up.

[PurityOfEssence]

58. Ah, so men are fair game, the louts.

Somehow you don't think it's insulting to say "that men are compulsively unfaithful horndogs." It is.

To justify this, you say that "at worst, it suggests that men are incapable of love and commitment", as if this is a mere trifle and goes without saying. Good thing you didn't let loose and say what you REALLY think. That's just a minor thing.

One of the definitions of prejudice is making sweeping generalizations. This fits.

It really shouldn't bother guys any to hear the casual truth of their animalistic selfishness and inability to be honorable. That's a given, after all. They should have accepted their emotional inferiority long ago. Then again, they would have to have emotions to recognize this deficiency, so playing on them doesn't make much sense if they don't exist.

It's either a lame tactic or it betrays a pesky and denied truth: that the faintest ember of decency might exist within the beasts.

Still, they're brutes, and should be given little leeway.

John Edwards must be completely mystifying to someone of this mindset: someone as pretty, smart, rich and pleasant as he is simply couldn't be faithful to one woman for as long as he has. There has to be some kind of deception there. To this worldview, such a creature simply couldn't exist.

Hearing such bleak portrayals of humanity reminds me why friends and loved ones are so important: there are many whose views of the world are just downright depressing.

Bigotry is an equal opportunity affliction; not all racists are white, not all sexists are male and not all orientationists are straight. There's plenty of self-congratulatory sneering to go around.

Here's another fun Maher quote, one of the new rules: "Women cannot complain about men anymore until they start getting better taste in them." I'd imagine you don't see the humor in that, either.

You'll note that this points out that some men are skunks.

Misandrist: a fine and very applicable word.

[truedelphi]

49. I also think that Maher realizes his behavior in the

Relationship sector is a throw back to the old silk PJ clad ladies' man,
where the lady in question might be a 20 year old whose still a bit immature.

If you date ditzy twenty something's who call you Daddy, you are undoubtedly immature yourself.

He makes fun of himself. I watch him a lot, and I always think that maybe in five or ten years he's gonna grow up. Some Katherine Hepburn type will come along and make noodles out of his aorta
and he'll change for her. Of course, given that he has adopted this behavior for so long, he might not change until she's gone. And like a lot of closet chauvinists, he'll either revert back to his ladies' man guise, or really truly grow up.

I respect him for having Garofolo on and letting her steal the show away from him, as she has done time and time again. So I forgive him - he is a domestic chauvinist, but not an external world chauvinist.

Also I give him props because back in the day - he was willing to lose his TV show in order to say what he thought about W. and W.'s policies. He was really the first big time comedian to come along and denounce the President on mainstream TV - and the networks weren't ready for that. He paid for his remarks by being off the air for a while. And now everyone lambastes W. - Letterman makes fun of Bush every night with his "Great Presidential Speeches"

[closeupready]

17. As a gay member of this board, this is how I feel

I'm not surprised at the enablers here, because there are a lot of closeted homophobes active on this board. Doesn't mean I'm not going to speak out.

Second, I'm not really mad so much about it anymore, because I know that this scandal has made the reality of Obama winning the nomination an even more distant reality than it would have been otherwise. He's obviously not at a point in his career where he's exercising the best political judgment on a lot of matters of concern. So I'm satisfied that the point has been made, and I hope that someone with the potential which he has goes on to achieve lots, and maybe at some point later, the presidency.

But it's not going to happen this time around. So that's why I can let this issue go now, more or less.

[truedelphi]

50. You say, it's not going to happen this time around.

I have been wondering how I feel about obama - as Kucinich probably will not get the nomination.

And there has always been this cloud in my mind that he waits until he knows which way the wind is blowing poll wise to vote on things.

The McClurkin affair has made me see that that intuition is right - I cannot give him a free pass any more. I'm sorry that people in the L community are hurt by this. (And there isn't any other way they can feel) But it does make it clear who the guy is. I'm sorry it had to be at the expense of people who've already paid one too many times before.

[question everything]

20. I really want to read and uderstand and follow your message

but I am having hard time following your strange way of putting capital letters in the middle of the words. They may mean something to you, and to others, but I just quit.

[Forkboy]

22. We had a whip round to get the money for sniffa to get a new keyboard...

...but dammit if the new one didn't do it too!

Strange things are afoot at the Circle K. :scared:

[Cha]

26. Poor thing.

[Bluebear]

38. I got your subject line even though you said "uderstood". Is there a learning problem here?

[bicentennial_baby]

41. Our children isn't learning, apparently

;)

[Rainbowreflect]

24. I personally cannot support any candidate that does not

support human rights including gay rights. You can tell me I am just sending another republican to the white house, but I am past voting for someone just because they have a "D" by their name. If they won't support basic human rights for everyone and/or they continue to support this war, they will not get my support, period.

[ThomCat]

25. Absolutely right, and Well Said!

:applause:

[IndianaJones]

27. you caught me...I don't care. While the hate is displayed from one side...

it is refreshing to see stupidity well represented on both.

[Forkboy]

28. Many of his supporters have made this far worse than it should have been.

Instead of saying, "Yes, this was a mistake, let's fix it and move on" they've gotten so ugly at times, and so desperate to turn this into a Hillary thing that it boggles the mind.Some of the posts last night were unreal in their denial of the situation.

The ironic thing is many of those same people harp on Hillary for not apologizing for her IWR vote, saying that she just doesn't get it.They've done as much damage to Obama as the people who scheduled this thing in the first place.The goal is to help steer your candidate through the rough waters, not crash him into the rocks.

To the Obama supporters that get it, my hats off to you.You showed me that you place respect and integrity above winning.

:thumbsup:

[sniffa]

39. this post is spot on

i'd Like to say i'm shocked by the reaction, but this doesn't shock me anymore here. :(

[Rowdyboy]

31. I do care what Obama says and does-but not what his "supporters" here say or do

These "supporters" speak for no one but themselves, and I try not to let their arrogance and crudeness influence me against him-just as I do for some "supporters" of senators Clinton and Edwards. Listen to the candidates, not the fools claiming to speak for them.

The most vocal and alienating of any candidates "supporters" usually do the candidate much more harm than good. Thats certainly true in this case.

[Clintonista2]

33. Hillary supporters should "stay out of it"?

As a gay man, and a Hillary supporter, I'm offended by your OP.

[IndianaJones]

34. its a clique thing. nt.

[CreekDog]

35. so your response is to call everyone you're referring to a name in return? nt

then you said hillary supporters don't actually care (got data on that?)

and you keep speaking as though you were the representative for the entire LGBT community --who appointed you?

[MethuenProgressive]

42. Great OP. Thanks.

:kick:

[lips]

43. The consistency of this OP makes me wonder when it ceased to matter in politics.

[sniffa]

45. come again?

[bigwillq]

44. Bravo.

Great post. :thumbsup:

[calteacherguy]

46. It does not hurt the GLBT community. In fact, iit helps the community

by bringing folks together in at a forum to support a strong supporter of gay rights. Hopefully, some will leave enlightened after hearing word of Obama's strong disagreement with McClurkin.

We simply disagree on what this action means, and the effects of this action. We disagree.

[toughboy]

47. Oh, yeah. The media and everyone else will keep Obama's words in context.

Do you have a copy of what he is actually going to say at the event? Will there be separate entrances for homophobes versus non-homphobes? What is that strong supporter of gay rights name, again.

The only thing this event and its publicity will accomplish is to telecast to other homophobic black men that they are welcome to vote for and even protect a brother from being pushed around by a group of punks. There will be no subtle understanding of this issue.

What country do you live in?

[calteacherguy]

51. No, there will not be separate entrances. Hopefully, conversations will be started. nt

[Maraya1969]

48. It just occurred to me that Obama would never hang with a black racist

and say that he disagrees with the person's beliefs but supports them in other ways so all is forgiven. That is exactly what he did to the GLBT community. If he were able to put himself in one of their shoes he would never have done what he did.

I concur with you 100%

[beaconess]

52. Howard Dean did something similar in 2003, and his supporters thought it was just great

He said he wanted to be the candidate of the guys with the Confederate flag decals on their pickup trucks. And when some black people got offended, we were told to just get over it.

[toughboy]

56. Uh, a whole lot of white people were offended as well.

But it kind of made you feel unimportant and powerless,no? Maybe you get it now?

[yardwork]

62. That was a stupid and insensitive thing for Dean to say, and I said so at the time.

Imagine if Dean had actually invited a white supremacist up on stage to emcee a campaign event. Imagine if the white supremacist had been allowed to talk about his views about black people during the campaign event. Imagine if when Dean was asked to drop the white supremacist from the event, he refused, but did invite a black person to give a brief prayer at the very beginning of the event, when most of the audience hadn't arrived yet, and then had that "representative of the other side" leave the event, while the white supremacist and his supporters hooted and hollered throughout the rest of the evening.

Imagine if your protests were met with the response that you are a "hater" for not being willing to "reach out" to white supremacists.

This is exactly what we're talking about.

[sniffa]

59. kick because peopLe are stiLL doing it

and intentionaLLy so.

[sniffa]

60. what's that you say? they're stiLL doing it?

weLL then. :kick:

[sniffa]

61. one week Later

and i need to do this again. :kick: