« Rep. Millender-McDonald Passes | Main | Shoe Designer Courtney Crawford Named to Paper's "Beautiful" List »

23 April 2007

Comments

C. Baptiste-Williams

Maybe I am just a little slow but what is the point of releasing these names?

To me I could careless who is supporting who... my vote doesn't follow others especially a list of people I have never heard of other than Ramon and only cause we have mutual friends.

I would rather have a list of their stance on the issues.

madprofessah

It's a time-honored tradition of releasing endorsers from particular communities to particular communities to let them know the candidate has a level of support from the "who's who."

I'm more curious as to why Rod thinks that more Black Gay and Lesbian leaders haven't appeared on these lists?

Bernard

Perhaps six degrees of separation applies and somehow someone somewhere will be able to make a connection, but I'm less than impressed by the "local" nature of his list. Those of us not from Chicago or Illinois are left wondering, "who are they and why should we care?"

He needs broader support geographically.

Courtney B.

Are we nitpicking here?

Barack's list is really no different than Hillary Clinton's list, which was stacked extra heavy with New York City or Washington names. The main difference, of course, as Rod noted, was that there were two or three black lesbians on the Obama list.

Edwards is the only candidate who has revealed a broad-based LGBT endorsement list. Plus, he had a gay black man on his list.

John

WHAT (!?) is the LGBT community in Illinois smoking? Hello?!
Barack Obama has made it unequivocally clear that on matters of 'fundamental' civil rights he would establish a public policy in accordance with his religious beliefs and therefore deny them their civil rights solely in the name of religion. This is not an inference but a boldly and repeatedly stated promise!

While all presidential candidates would deny marriage equality in favor of civil unions not one candidate or lawmaker has provided even one legal reason for that position. However, a distinction with a very real and very important difference, is that Barack Obama is the ONLY (let me spell that out, the O.N.L.Y.) one to explicitly and repeatedly state that he would deny this right ONLY for reason of his religious beliefs.

Don't ask this so called civil rights lawyer for legal reasons. It is axiomatic (that's legal talk for a no-brainer) that if religious beliefs are the only rationale for denying civil rights then the First Amendment is violated. When so many people demonstrate such encyclopedic ignorance of the bedrock principals of their own Constitution there is reason for cynicism.

And NO ONE has shown the courage to ask this so called civil rights lawyer on what legal basis he has the audacity to violate the First Amendment (Separation of Church and State) for the illicit purpose of denying 'fundamental' civil rights (due process and equal protection) guarantied under the Fourteenth Amendment. This from a so called civil rights lawyer?! Gimmie a break! See Internet article "Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo" by retired attorney John P. Mortimer at http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73 .

And, oh yes, those who have been paying attention know all to well about the phoney Advocate "poll" where Obama's clones could vote in true Chicago style: Early and often! And we can't help but notice that the poll mysteriously ended the moment a few in the know readers began tell the truth. Witness the all around rape of the First Amendment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends


  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches

    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0


    Categories

    Media

    Netroots

    Blog powered by Typepad