No gays at this debate! (NOT!)

Well, fuck this fucking shit.

They had a Democratic debate in Las Vegas tonight (but Brian Williams thought he was in Los Angeles--for this he gets millions and millions of dollars).

So not only did the three candidates NEVER utter the words gay or lesbian at any time (much less bisexual or transgender), they discussed the law forcing colleges and universities to permit military recruiters and ROTC without EVER mentioning Don't Ask Don't Tell.

What a fucking crock of shit.

More shit after the break....

The major objection to recruitment and ROTC by liberal institutions of higher learning IS DADT. This is what the court cases over the Solomon amendment have been about. So fuck Tim Russert for asking the question without referencing DADT and fuck Obama, Clinton, and Edwards for answering it without bringing it up.

You CAN NOT talk about this issue without discussing DADT. It is integral to this discussion.

So fuck them all and the respective horses they rode in on. I don't ask much. But I will not overlook a central issue to our people being swept under the carpet.

I am so fucking pissed. Sure, they talked about blacks, hispanics, asians, women, immigrants, middle class, low-income, homeowners, people with life-threatening illnesses, veterans, people with disabilities, active-duty military...but not ONE fucking mention of LGBT people.

FUCK THIS FUCKING SHIT!!!

I said cut them some slack. I said, they're all good on our issues (except that whole McClurkin bullshit). Well fuck me.

So that CA absentee ballot sitting on my desk--KUCINICH HERE I COME!

I have a new sig line:

"Fuck me once, shame on you. Fuck me twice, shame on me."

That is all.

•  Tip jar.

  Can you tell I'm pissed?

  by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:30:30 PM PDT

  •  Sorry. . .

    the Nevada Supreme Court decided late this afternoon that you can't vote for Kucinich.

    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:33:11 PM PDT

    •  No, I live in California.

      by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:39:54 PM PDT

    •  You can vote for him.

      But Kucinich can't force us to listen to him just so we can hear from the real Candidates.

      by GunLovinDem on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:42:00 PM PDT

      •  "Force you to listen"

        Nice play with alnguage, I guess you're thus "forced" to listen only to Obama, Clinton and Edwards instead.  Beyond tired of the twisting of our language and the categories of rationality by partisans

        by ActivistGuy on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:49:11 PM PDT

        •  I actually wanted to listen to them.

          One of them will probably be President.

          Thats why they call it a Presidential Debate.

          by GunLovinDem on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:01:35 PM PDT

          •  One of them's chance of being President

            is much closer to Kucinich's than to the other two.

            by Partially Impartial on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:17:23 PM PDT

  •  Hah! But, you're thinking too narrowly,

    because, when JRE gets rid of DADT, your objection will be moot.

    John Edwards on LGBT

    Military Service
    Edwards opposes the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays and lesbians serving in our military. The military ought to treat all service members equally and in a way that promotes national security, without regard to their sexual orientation.

    by Newzie on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:37:16 PM PDT

    •  So?

      What the fuck did he have to say about it TONIGHT?

      by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:41:01 PM PDT

      •  Was never asked?

        They didn't ask about many things.

        by GunLovinDem on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:42:58 PM PDT

        •  You can go now.

          Maybe you could clean your guns. You know, rub them over and over and over...

          by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:08:32 PM PDT

          •  hehehe

            that's just evil.

            by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:09:58 PM PDT

            •  Ohhhh, flattery will get you EVERYWHERE!

              by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:14:53 PM PDT

      •  He said he'll enforce the law that requires those

        campuses to allow ROTC.  When the universities say, "But, they discriminate and we can't allow that," John, the brilliant lawyer, will turn to the military and say, "Hmmm... well, I guess you'll just have to stop discriminating then."

        Yay!

        by Newzie on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:43:13 PM PDT

        •  And he said that...when?

          by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:45:44 PM PDT

          •  In my happy little brain which loves John Edwards

            relentlessly.  And will continue to, just so long as he doesn't throw us under the bus.  The Clintons did, Obama has -- I'm sticking with Edwards.  I believe in him.

            by Newzie on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:48:25 PM PDT

          •  I guess I should add,,

            that what he did say was the first part of my comment, that he would uphold that law... it is my belief that upholding that will come at a price to the proponents of DADT.  That's the way I see it.

            by Newzie on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:50:22 PM PDT

  •  Nice rant

    Sometimes you just have to vent.

    I voted for Kucinich today as I noted in this diary.

    by slatsg on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:39:45 PM PDT

    •  Thanks.

      Really, thanks.

      Yes, I'm venting. But we ask so little, and we get even less than that.

      I'm pissed because I've been defending these assholes.

      So what, they don't think there are any dykes or faggots working in Las FUCKING Vegas?

      Fuck 'em.

      by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:49:53 PM PDT

      •  Civil rights issues are rather personal for me.

        My brother died of AIDS back in '87. I was involved in the Civil Rights movement back in the 60s and I married into a Latino family. Placating bigots doesn't set well with me.

        Bill Clinton's DOMA will forever be a blight on his record. Harold Ford lost me with his transparent attempt to court the homophobic bigots.

        You have every right to be angry. We all should be.

        by slatsg on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:04:38 PM PDT

        •  They should be personal for all of us.

          It's appropriate today to note the Dr. King said that injustice for one is injustice for all.

          by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:10:35 PM PDT

          •  Yes, and none of us is free until we are ALL free

            by snackdoodle on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:05:49 AM PDT

      •  don't be such a grumpy homo tonight.

        Gay issues just didn't come up tonight.   Honestly, I think that all three of them would push tolerance, but I don't think that any of them are going to have a gay rights focus to their agendas.

        You know, perhaps the candidate who stands to save the most lives would, by default, save the most gays.  By ceasing all combat missions and pulling our troops immediately, not over the next year or five, like Obama or Hillary, John Edwards will TECHNICALLY save more homos than any other candidate.  
        There!  Argue with that!

        Seriously, I really do feel your pain on this.  I'm just being a dork to cheer your ass up.    It's frustrating to feel so marginalized.  The thing is that the rest of our problems are just so much worse right now, with the "war," the economy, the climate, the foreclosures, the fraud, you know, things are so bad that I think that gay rights are a second tier issue right now for our candidates, given the limited amount of time that they have to talk.

        Now let's split this joint and go read Michael K at DListed.

        by kate mckinnon on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:12:38 PM PDT

        •  That's all well and good, but they were given

          an opening.

          I don't expect them to make gay rights a centerpiece of their campaign, but they can acknowledge it when asked.

          by AUBoy2007 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:14:42 PM PDT

          •  Not just an opening.

            It was a question about an issue that centered on DADT. It was the elephant in the room.

            They fucked up. They fucked us.

            by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:16:36 PM PDT

            •  It was noticeable that they didn't not answer

              by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:18:55 PM PDT

              •  That makes sense. . .

                by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:31:57 PM PDT

                •  The scary thing is that I understood it.

                  Hell, I didn't even notice it.

                  by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:36:47 PM PDT

          •  I'm sorry, I didn't realize that.

            I didn't watch the debate, and I was just reading the transcript.   I missed it and I apologize.

            by kate mckinnon on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:24:26 AM PDT

  •  heh

    I suppose you may as well

    by Salo on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:47:23 PM PDT

  •  Try being Native American

    Nobody has been ignored like we have. We haven't existed ONCE in any of the debates I've seen....

    by jennybravo on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:26:15 PM PDT

    •  That is true.

      My oldest friend was Rosebud Sioux. I learned a great deal from him over 21 years before he died of AIDS. Our treatment of native peoples is a national shame.

      by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:38:08 PM PDT

      •  And did you know?

        Our treatment of native peoples is a national shame

        Did you know they used to kill us just for the feathers????????
        (Old Indian joke....)

        by jennybravo on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:29:32 AM PDT

  •  Fixed your tags. Gee, no one mentioned Chinese-

    American, Jewish BDSM ex-porn star geeks, either. I'm so insulted. Guess I'll vote for Dennis, too.

    ^{That will show them. Meanies!}

    by Jacques on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:15:33 AM PDT

    •  Wow. TR-ed for truth. There's a first for me...

      by Jacques on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:15:34 AM PDT

  •  Tipped and rec'd

    ...while taking exception to the Kucinich thing.

    by MBNYC on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:29:37 AM PDT

•  Well,

  I understand it's a vote based on principle, but I'll still note that Dennis Kucinich won't ever, ever do anything about gay issues as president. Because he'll never be president.

  by Addison on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:33:21 PM PDT

  •  I don't give a fuck.

    These assholes came to the HRC/Logo event emoting how sincere they were on LGBT issues.

    Well this issue is ESSENTIALLY about LGBT people. The ONLY major objection to campus recruiting and ROTC is DADT.

    by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:37:51 PM PDT

    •  I understand...

      It's a problem. And having to make a decision -- which you feel is now a lesser of evils decision -- is difficult. But Kucinich isn't going to be president. He will literally do nothing on the issue you're concerned about because he's polling at, let's say, 4%. I don't see how his going up to 4.001% will get that issue discussed, much less resolved.

      This goes for all issues, everywhere.

      by Addison on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:47:47 PM PDT

      •  We all know that

        But frankly, in this campaign, no no Democrat has been worse than your candidate.

        by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:38:01 PM PDT

        •  Yeah

          in the campaign. But give them a chance. The campaign ain't over yet.

          /Snark?  I don't know...

          by jennybravo on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:07:26 PM PDT

        •  oh my

          We all know that

          I've been dwelling on this remark and I was going to let it slide. But I can't.  I'll bet you have no idea how much it pisses me off.  Talk about marginalizing someone....

          by jennybravo on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:27:00 AM PDT

    •  I don't understand

      seriously. I'm totally ignorant about the history of recruiting on College campuses and how that relates to the LGBT population.

      by jennybravo on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:36:51 PM PDT

      •  Brief History

        The Solomon Amendment basically said no federal funds if you don't let army recruiters on campus.

        But law schools and other institutions objected, because they have non-discrimination policies, where they don't allow employers who discriminate.  And, the military discriminates with Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).

        The schools sued, but were slapped down, so now they have to allow the recruiters or skip out on federal funds.

        The question about it was a perfect time to bring up DADT, because that's the objectionable policy here, and that's what's preventing recruiters from being accepted.

        by AUBoy2007 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:40:38 PM PDT

        •  I've never felt more taken for granted

          than tonight, because all three of them know this, and not one could be bothered to raise the issue.

          by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:42:18 PM PDT

          •  It was so obvious.

            The last time I noticed something so blatantly obvious was in Bush's "War on Terra" speech after 9/11 when he listed all the nations offering support on Sept. 11 and omitted Canada. My response in real time was "you ungrateful fuck" because Canada had worked their ass off to take all our grounded planes. The town in Nova Scotia where the big airport is mobilized the entire fucking town to take care of the stranded passengers. And then, when Prime Minister Chretien and Governor General Clarkson hosted the memorial service on Parliament Hill in Ottawa with 100,000 people, Chretien called America the best neighbor a nation could have. IN YOUR FUCKING FACE, Bush!

            For me, tonight was that bad.

            by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:51:01 PM PDT

      •  Perfectly good question.

        Basically, the Solomon amendment requires colleges and universities that accept federal funding to allow military recruiters on campus. This is in conflict with the non-discrimination policies of most institutions because of DADT. It has been particularly egregious in the cases of graduate schools that have defied the DoD. Court cases have upheld the governments punitive policy of witholding funding not only to the law school (for instance), but also to the undergraduate school including research grants.

        So the federal government has bullied schools into accepting military recruiting against their own non-discrimination policies.

        Similar condition exist with respect to ROTC.

        No discussion of campus recruiting or ROTC can take place without including DADT and the Solomon Amendment.

        by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:43:28 PM PDT

        •  Unless you assume

          that a discussion of the issue won't really make a difference to anyone.

          by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:45:52 PM PDT

          •  Don't be pessimistic, Eeyore.

            That's my job.

            by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:51:48 PM PDT

            •  You don't know me so well

              by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:53:15 PM PDT

          •  Thank you all

            That makes sense now. As for whether or not I assume that discussion of the issue wouldn't make a difference to anyone, all I've got to say is that if it doesn't make a difference to the straight white population, it's usually not up for discussion, or even up for than the least bit of attention. You must know how it works by now....

            by jennybravo on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:54:35 PM PDT

            •  Yeah, unfortunately we do. n/t

              by AUBoy2007 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:57:04 PM PDT

              •  What's really ironic from my point of view

                is that this was supposedly the "Black/Brown" (oh gag me with a grenade, who came up with that?) debate. Still not a word about Native Americans.

                by jennybravo on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:33:17 AM PDT

    •  There, again,

      they were all snuggly-cuddly when they were on LOGO where it wouldn't hurt them. But once the "real" media turns on its cameras and somewhat more than 0.0000001% of the population is watching (and not all of that minuscule number LGBT), it's back to the back of the bus with us and our issues.

      by musing85 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:26:37 AM PDT

•  It would be interesting to be able to

  confirm or disconfirm your apparent conviction that, had Kucinich been at the debate, he would have thought to mention DADT.  Maybe he would have.  But maybe he wouldn't have.

  I think voting for Dennis is fine.  It's a shame that your only reason is apparently a fit of blind rage.  There may be other reasons to support him.

  by Mother of Zeus on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:37:03 PM PDT

  •  My point is we have been played.

    Lots of people have been saying this, but I've been defending the candidates' sorry asses.

    by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:39:09 PM PDT

    •  What we've been PLAYED on

      is the fact that he wasn't on the debate AT ALL.

      MSNBC has been added to our list of blocked channels. It's our one piddly little effort, but fuck them, they're no longer welcome in our home. The provider can see that, anyway.

      And if KO has a goddamn conscience, he can find another network to ply his considerable talents. Otherwise, we're gonna miss him a whole bunch.

      by o the umanity on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:44:02 PM PDT

      •  It's not MSNBC's fault

        It's the fault of the candidates, all of whom should have known better.

        by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:44:47 PM PDT

        •  ??

          My understanding was that it was the network's parent company who changed the rules and dis-invited the candidate. Do I not have that correct?

          by o the umanity on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:46:54 PM PDT

          •  I don't personally care that Kucinich wasn't

            there. I didn't like that the real candidates were unable to answer in the way I would have liked.

            by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:48:01 PM PDT

            •  So...

              it's the network's fault that the candidate was initially invited and the was, indeed, uninvited.

              Oh, I know, you didn't say that...

              by o the umanity on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:50:54 PM PDT

              •  I actually don't care one iota about Kucinich

                And why he was there or not. I'm talking about the other candidates.

                by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:51:35 PM PDT

                •  That's nice.

                  My comment was about the actual debate, and how the network uninvited this real candidate after they'd invited him, but decided to change the rules.

                  You responded to my comment about the network. It was incorrect of you to say it wasn't the network's fault.   The network clearly had a hand in this, and they are no longer welcome in our home. Hopefully, KO will find a new one someday, so we can watch him again.

                  by o the umanity on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:59:13 PM PDT

                  •  My comment was different

                    I said that, irrespective of who was there or what MSNBC did, all of the candidates should have given better answers.

                    Your comments here seem barely on topic.

                    by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:01:22 PM PDT

                    •  The diarist mentions Kucinich

                      and the thread comments I responded to clearly note that had he been there, he might have mentioned the diarist's main concern.

                      I pointed out that it was damn criminal he wasn't there at all, period, let alone there to have a chance to address the diarist's concern.

                      You stated that it wasn't the network's fault that he wasn't there. That was clearly incorrect.

                      by o the umanity on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:04:43 PM PDT

                      •  I said it wasn't MSNBC's fault

                        that none of them gave good answers. That's why I keep telling you that I don't care about Kucinich.

                        by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:05:37 PM PDT

                        •  Then you didn't read my comment

                          before you responded, because you clearly didn't get my point to begin with.

                          The candidate the diarist appears to favor was invited, and then uninvited to the debate, by the network. So there was no way for the diarist's concerns to be addressed by his/her candidate, period.

                          That had nothing to do with "the other candidates" and everything to do with the network uninviting Kucinich. Do you understand now?

                          by o the umanity on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:11:19 PM PDT

                          •  Why don't you ask the diarist

                            whether he care more about Kucinich or the way the other candidates responded to the question.

                            by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:12:19 PM PDT

                            •  I'm sure if the diarist

                              wants to weigh in, he/she will do so. The comment thread is here in the diary, along with my tip and recommend.

                              by o the umanity on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:13:41 PM PDT

                              •  See, I'm pretty sure I know the answer

                                but you're so tone deaf that you decided this diary was primarily about your candidate.

                                by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:16:28 PM PDT

                                •  Well, see, I'm pretty sure

                                  that whether you know the answer or not matters very little to me--because you jumped on my post so fast that you appeared to be deaf to my point, period.

                                  by o the umanity on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:20:46 PM PDT

                                  •  No, I dismissed your point

                                    there's a difference.

                                    by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:21:24 PM PDT

                                    •  That's nice. You've made your point

                                      and I've made mine. Carry on, please.

                                      by o the umanity on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:22:18 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    There may be other reasons to support him.

    How about because Kucinich, as poor a candidate as he is, happens to be the only real Democrat in the race?  (with Edwards being a reasonable facsimile most of the time)

    by corvo on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:46:14 AM PDT

•  Good for you, bud.

  I'm not, but I'm glad someone's willing to say they are.

  I'm still debating if I should write in Gore on the 12th here in Virginia.

  by JR on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:39:22 PM PDT

  •  Gore is good.

    Hell, Gore is great.

    by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:42:06 PM PDT

•  We're only important when we're a wedge issue

  Otherwise, don't expect a mention of us.

  Although I do have to say that for all of them to agree to a debate that focused solely on LGBT issues was a cool move.

  by BoiseBlue on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:39:42 PM PDT

  •  Too bad they shot their wad that night.

    I don't expect them to put us front and center all the time.

    But JesusTittyFuckingChrist, they mentioned everybody else, then addressed one of OUR issues WITHOUT mentioning US!!!

    Give me a fucking break!

    You cannot talk about mandatory campus recruiting or ROTC (the Solomon amendment) without discussing DADT. Period.

    by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:44:47 PM PDT

    •  I agree with you

      And I think they're all pandering idiots when it comes to the issue of queers' rights. If I were voting purely on LGBT rights, NONE of them would get my vote. Not one.

      by BoiseBlue on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:58:09 PM PDT

•  Well, I'm not voting for Kucinich

  But I can't tell you how disappointed I was. Not one of them even qualified their answer by promising to work to repeal DADT.

  A pathetic moment in an otherwise good debate.

  by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:43:09 PM PDT

  •  Thanks.

    Yes, I'm ranting. But it pissed me the hell off.

    by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:11:57 PM PDT

  •  Especially since

    all three of them have pledged to eliminate DADT if elected.  It seems an easy way to reiterate a basic platform point, unless - I know this may come as a shock - it's only something they reiterate when they're in comfortably pro-gay territory.  

    by pico on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:10:34 AM PDT

•  So

    to sum up: They didn't mention your issue in this particular debate. Therefore, they suck, they must hate you, therefore you hate them.

    Oh brother.

  by usmeagle69 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:46:11 PM PDT

  •  Bullshit

    None of them answered the question he cares about in a sensitive or substantive way. Isn't that the sort of thing we're allowed to be upset about?

    by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:47:26 PM PDT

    •  He's not upset

        he's raging. He's cursing and angry about the lack of substantive answers on a subject that got the barest of mentions in the debate.

        He might as well rant about how the candidates didn't address the atrocities of animal testing, or why we haven't found a way to counter the Chestnut blight and get our beloved Chestnut tree back.

        All of our candidates (from what I can tell, though its often impossible to tell how committed Clinton is to anything) to repealing DADT. Want to rant...fine!! Waste your vote and your voice. Just try and find a slightly less silly reason to get so bent out of shape.

      by usmeagle69 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:50:43 PM PDT

      •  Further bullshit

        They were all asked explicitly about this particular issue, and none gave a satisfactory response.

        by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:52:39 PM PDT

      •  Fuck you.

        Don't EVER put words in my mouth.

        "Silly reason" my ass.

        Now get out of my fucking diary, asshole.

        by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:53:38 PM PDT

      •  Well I'm glad you compare us to animal testing

        But believe it or not, this is an issue that a lot of Americans want to have addressed. Please don't minimize that.

        by BoiseBlue on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:55:14 PM PDT

        •  I guess it's better than comparing us to animals

          which is what Republicans do when they say that if you extend marriage rights to same-sex couples, you should also allow people the right to marry their pets.

          by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:04:23 PM PDT

          •  Or criminals

            look down in the comments

            Your use of the term homophobic is interesting. That's what pro-homosexualists say we who have moral objections to homosexuality are -- merely afraid of homosexuals. We are not. To say we are homophobic makes about as much sense as to say we are cleptophobic, because we think stealing is immoral.

            ... it's a discussion about secularists not understanding "religious" belief (it's OK to try to influence civil laws if the matter isn't "religion" but "natural law".) (science isn't "objective" it's another religion, blah, blah, blah...)

            by julifolo on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:13:23 AM PDT

      •  I think the definition of what is silly ...

        depends on the person who is the victim of discrimination.

        by slatsg on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:56:14 PM PDT

•  I hear ya.

  And I support your angst.

  They didn't mention atheists either though, one of which I are...who are actually less popular in this country than people who are homosexual.

  Though I had atheist on my ID tags when I was in The Army and I didn't get kicked out for it.

  by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:49:06 PM PDT

  •  No offense.

    But what question was that an integral part of?

    I'm against marginalizing atheists. I want to kick the BSA in their fucking teeth over it. But when did that come up tonight?

    by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:52:23 PM PDT

    •  It probably didn't come up.

      It never comes up.

      Atheists are too evil to even mention.

      by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:57:21 PM PDT

      •  Nah.

        You're not as evil as queers or uppity women. They can't stand them.

        / snark

        by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:06:02 PM PDT

        •  I am too as evil!

          Wait...that's probably not a good response is it?

          by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:08:09 PM PDT

          •  Sounded good to me!

            Keep up the good work. I only WISH I was as evil as people say I am. (Wait--I think that's "I only wish I was having as much fun as people say I am. Oh--maybe that's the same thing!)

            Thanks for the laugh. I needed it.

            by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:13:54 PM PDT

•  Agreed. Simple as that. n/t

  by AUBoy2007 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:04:41 PM PDT

  •  Thanks.

    by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:06:44 PM PDT

•  So, NBC is going to tell us which candidates

  we get to hear from?

  MSNBC is crap. Except KO they've got nothing, except for missing 20-something blondes.

  As far as the parent NBC...now that the writer's strike is starting to bite, there's no entertainment value there either. What's there to watch?

  To think that NBC would fight Kucinich's appearance all the way to the Nevada supreme court
  really pisses me off, and I've got an Edwards sign planted in my yard.

  Dennis is the heart and soul of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Let him sing.

  by bleeding blue on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:17:21 PM PDT

  •  This diary is like a reading test

    by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:17:54 PM PDT

    •  I know, but this is the first diary I've come

      across in which I could sound off about the fact that Kucinich was excluded from the debate tonight. It's the second time in a week. And it sucks. Are we going to let the networks pick our candidates?

      by bleeding blue on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:25:50 PM PDT

      •  We always have before?

        by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:14:35 PM PDT

    •  Yes,

      especially the part that says

      So that CA absentee ballot sitting on my desk--KUCINICH HERE I COME!

      Gee, maybe if his invitation hadn't been rescinded, he could have weighed in on the topic and given a better answer than those other three candidates you're so all-fired upset with.

      And then homongenous would have lower blood-pressure right now.

      by o the umanity on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:26:13 PM PDT

      •  malkovich malkovich malkovich malkovich

        malkovich malkovich malkovich malkovich malkovich malkovich

        by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:28:45 PM PDT

    •  Nobody told me there was a test!!!

      OMG--I don't have anything to WEAR!

      (Yes, the adreneline is wearing off.)

      by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:28:16 PM PDT

•  yo.. homogenius.. can you

  stop already with all the sexual symbolism?  I'm having a hard enough time trying to focus as it is.

  Gutter, here I come.

  /snark  :-)

  ps: In all seriousness, I do feel your pain.  But speaking as an Edwards supporter, I believe that any Dem candidate will do far more than any GOP candidate with respect to our rights and being treated as equal members of society.  There may not be statutory laws passed with support us... but the overall social factors & perceptions I honestly believe will change for the better when a Democrat is President.

  pps: my idea of pillow talk: Tell me about Edward's policy positions, again?  please?  And this time, say it like you mean it.  sigh  now if only I could find someone else that is as into politics as I  lol

  by Johnathan Ivan on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:57:09 PM PDT

  •  Oh, John...

    You have such wonderful hair--I just LOVE to run my fingers through it while you tell my ALL about your WONDERFUL policies. Tell me again how you, and you alone, can save America! Oh, baby, that's sooooo good. Yes, louder. Takn ON those corporations! Ohhhhh, yes, yessss, YESSSSS!

    You were saying?

    by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:07:41 PM PDT

    •  P.S. Rule #1--

      Never dare me.

      by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:08:25 PM PDT

    •  It's not even noon and I'm already

      worked up  lol

      by Johnathan Ivan on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:29:57 AM PDT

•  I am pissed , as a transsexual, I am invisible

  to all of them all the time..

  by Notanicegirl on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:24:46 AM PDT

•  You didin't make the identy cut.

  Sucks for you, but with so many....

  by valion on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:43:46 AM PDT

•  I'm outraged.

  Really.

  by SFOrange on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:40:28 AM PDT