• on a comment on Blacks and Gays over 5 years ago

    No, I'm not insinuating.

    You are racist.

  • on a comment on Blacks and Gays over 5 years ago

    What is "sonning"?

    Granted, I don't know every name on your list, but when I think of James Baldwin, for example, I think of "The Fire Next Time," his masterful racial treatise, not anything tangentially related to gay issues.

    I'll take a look into every name on your list.

    But you're wrong: where 20th Century black icons are concerned, racial issues were also preeminent and predominate.

    So I'll take your word for now on some of them, but the fact that I don't recognize some of them, leads me to believe they don't fit into the category of icon but instead activist.

  • So the Republican zealots in GA are upset Obama won and are voting for Chambliss out of spite?

    We'll see if they actually show up to the ballot box!

  • on a comment on Blacks and Gays over 5 years ago

    "In sum, blacks have always lagged behind nonblacks"

  • on a comment on Blacks and Gays over 5 years ago

    And RuPaul is more popularly known as a cross-dresser.

    Maybe I see it differently because I'm black, but all the people you're naming grappled with racial issues primarily, not gay issues.

  • comment on a post Karl Rove's Spurious Numbers over 5 years ago

    You're putting Rove's statement in an actual context, and of course, we're seeing he's full of hot air.

    What vulnerable Democratic U.S. Senate incumbents will there be in 2010?

    Zero!

    We may lose some seats in the House, but then again with Van Hollen back in charge, we may gain one or two. But the House flipping back to the Repubs? Not a chance.

    Who knows.

    But Rove is definitely making that statement out of any sort of real historical context, especially considering that he and Bush gained seats in 2002.

  • on a comment on Blacks and Gays over 5 years ago

    Please name a gay, black cultural icon.

  • on a comment on Blacks and Gays over 5 years ago

    It is generally agreed that the No on 8 was a focus-group tested, media disaster that was a panoply of various Hollywood elites, and other demographic non-starters....

    I'm speaking about the gay movement in the general.

  • comment on a post Blacks and Gays over 5 years ago

    I took stats in college, so I'm able to follow you somewhat (!) here.

    But, that's not the point.

    I think African Americans should and will continue to feel any they want on this issue. Some are more liberal, others are more conservative; others are in the middle. What matters is that they voted they way they felt and should not being considered "laggers" or culturally backward or any such analytical label you're seeking to apply by your charts and graphs.

    And let's not forget that the gay movement has a long way to go. To this day, that movement continues to promote, blond, blue-eyed white men as its spokespeople, media personalities, and cultural contributors.

    And don't say "that's the way it is"!

    That's racist.

  • on a comment on Sarah Palin 2012? over 5 years ago

    I'm gonna answer my own point b/c I think it's the best answer here.

    Considering that Lisa Murkowski is pro-choice, Palin can better define her appeal to conservative Alaska voters in that she is stridently pro-life, and that Lisa is ultimately defined by her original appointment to her seat by her father, a member of the old, tainted Alaskan Republican political guard.

    I think challenging Begich will always be harder because he will always be known as the clean-cut, come-from-behind underdog who eventually bested the meanest, baddest Alaskan of them all, Ted Stevens. Plus, if she ran for the U.S. Senate in 2014, she would have no time to settle into Washington, learn the issues and then start fund raisers for a presidential campaign.

    So, if she's serious about politics and her future, look for her to challenge Lisa Murkowski in 2010. And I bet it'll come like a thief in the night. One day she'll have no comment, and the next she'll be running. And Senator Murkowski won't know what hit her.

    And that would free up the governor's seat in 2010 for a Democrat, and in 2016 when Palin runs for Prez, that seat would be open, too!

    Everyone wins.

    And Palin loses.

  • comment on a post Sarah Palin 2012? over 5 years ago

    She's young enough.

    Clinton v. Palin, 2016?

    A possibility.

    Especially if she challenges Begich in 2014 and wins or knocks off Lisa Murkowski in the primary in 2010 (a more interesting possibility).

  • comment on a post How are Democratic voters like Jesus? over 5 years ago

  • He wouldn't lose his tax-exempt status because he would be refusing marriage to someone OUTSIDE his faith.

    He would be entitled to do so because he is part of a private organization?

    Don't you get it?

  • Prop. 8 preserved what always was, that's all.

    IN fact, I think that both sides will come away from this better educated about the other, and that's the most important lesson of them all.

  • canadian gal, I like you because you talked to me honestly and openly, without insults.

    And I hope I've treated you the same way.

    If this were Daily Kos, my comments would have been deleted from the beginning, but you've been willing to listen. I like that.

    There are myriad reasons why the Yes side won, including bigotry, hate, self-denial, etc., but I'm just trying to get you to understand why the faith-based community backed this proposition to the extent it did.

    That's all!

Diaries

Advertise Blogads