Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘hypocrites’

So I just received this little ditty in my email regarding pat boone.  

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82830

It pains me to put this link up…literally.  I hate to think all the press this hate monger is going to get.  In this recently posted article of his he went as far as to equate our struggle (regarding Prop 8, gay marriage, and other rights) with the extremists that caused the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Go ahead read it…I’ll wait.

Now that you’ve had that chance to digest his horrible and awful words lets take a moment and discuss.

First,  mr. boone, I’m gay and I am in no way shape or form like the individuals who have caused the terror in Mumbai.  If you think that me being a political activist equates me to someone who will kill people then you are sadly mistaken, small minded, and unable to comprehend our community.

Secondly, for you to write such awful things about our community and our people then at the bottom of the page tout about your “Broadway headlining,” I have a newsflash for you.  You have performed with tons of gay men and women and it’s a shame that you would say such hateful things about actors and actresses that have aided your career.

Thirdly, let’s take a moment and look at a few things you’ve said shall we…

Every homosexual citizen has the same, identical rights as any other American.” If every homosexual citizen has the same rights as any other American then why is it that we have to fight for regulations to protect us from jobs that will fire us because we are gay…or protect us from those people who will kill us leaving a gay bar?  If we have the same right how is it fair that my married parents can be on each other’s health benefits despite the city in which they live where as I couldn’t have my partner on my benefits nor would he be covered depending on the state we live in?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/nyregion/10assault.html?_r=2

(Mr. Sucuzhanay wasn’t even gay.)

Because this elemental building block of society has been so defined and respected throughout history, elected representatives in our self-government have granted certain supports and tax relief and privileges to marriages and families. Again, these privileges did not originate with some benevolent higher authority – they originated with the people, through the democratic process.

That’s how a free republic works. Our people consecrated our Constitution and determined to live within its provisions, voluntarily. It was determined that the will of the voting majority would rule, though it was subject to change if the majority will changed.” What you fail to realize mr. boone is that a voting majority does not have the right to take away others rights.  That’s not the way it works.  If we were voting on tax raises or voting to create a new road system a majority vote would be acceptable but the minute you try and justify that a  majority can take away rights then the democratic process has been overstepped.  Also, just because you may be in a majority that doesn’t necessarily mean that the “said” majority is right.

No “rights” were ever granted to citizens on the basis of their sexual habits or lifestyle. There simply are no such “rights.”  Perhaps mr. boone needs to study up on his Constitutional Law.  Its a little Supreme Court called Griswold vs. CT.  For those of you who don’t know what this case involved, mr. boone, it involved the use of contraceptives in the state of CT.  Women at one time were not allowed to use contraceptives in CT.  This case argued that a woman’s body is her body and can do with it what she wants…in terms of contraceptives.  The law was over turned allowing for the use of birth control.  It was a crash course in what the meaning of “right to privacy.” A right provided for by the Constitution.  In other words a woman has the RIGHT to take birth control because her body is private and the State cannot dictate what she can and can’t do regarding birth control.  Might I add that this “privacy” which a woman has was granted on the basis of some women’s sexual habits and or lifestyles. This was just a quick glaze over the case it really is a great case and merits further investigation and trust me there are many more cases regarding rights then you realize.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496/

 

“Slavery was abolished, blacks and women obtained the rights to vote, and these true rights were not obtained by threats and violent demonstrations and civil disruption (though these things did occur, of course), but by due process, congressional deliberations and appropriate ratification. This was democracy in action, not mob rule. As noted journalist Thomas Sowell has said, there never was “a right to win.” In America, at least the America we’ve known till now, rights are earned and won in a deliberative, legal way – at the polls.”  Uuummm correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t one of Thoreau’s and Martin Luther Kings’ tenants Civil Disobedience if a law was not fair. I think I remember something from my Civil Rights class I took in college…that we are obligated as good citizens to demonstrate against rules that are unjust and unfair.  At the moment I don’t think we’ve had any giant violent gay demonstrations?  And if we want to nitpick even more due process wasn’t necessarily reached in your “congressional deliberations and appropriate ratification” when Eisenhower had to call in the Army to desegregate Little Rock Central High School for the Little Rock 9 or when a white mob tormented the people who sat at Woolworths. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobediance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins

Finally, “There never were any “rights” granted or designated to those who dissented with the will of the majority, other than the same rights all citizens have to work through the democratic process to accomplish their purposes.”   I think if we operated under this assumption we could very well be British citizens still.  I do believe that our 13 colonies were a minority in regards to England.  I believe we dissented with the will of the majority and fought a war for what we believed were our rights as a new nation…I believe we dissented with the majority when England tried to impose a tax on our tea….a la the Boston Tea Party.

 

The point is mr. boone while you try to paint us as crazy, unjust people, our history is littered with people who have been considered radical but in actuality were quite sane fighting for the rights they know they deserved.  We are no different.  And while you can compare me to a “sexual jihadist” lets not forget to turn that powerful ability to judge on yourself.  You’re right hate is hate and those people who perpetuate it by taking away the rights of others and those people who take the time to fan the flames, mr. boone, are just as guilty of hate as well.

 

P.S. Your argument lacks consistency and validity.  It falls apart with every flimsy argument you make.  I’m not quite sure what is irresponsible or hedonistic of gay men and women fighting for the right to marry one another.   In fact fighting for the right seems to be the exact opposite of hedonism and irresponsibility.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Yesterday I had a quick chance to check out the Newsweek article that is causing pandemonium amongst the religious right.  If you haven’t read please do, the link is below.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1

 

I had saved the link to do a post about it yesterday but unfortunately I was running errands for my job and never had the chance to.  So here is my quip about the article.  I think Newsweek hit the story right on the head.   Lisa Miller has taken what the religious right clings to and used it against them…the bible.  It’s a simple as that.  What is in question is the conventionality of the bible.  Is the bible a reliable source of morals and ethics in today’s society?  I think the answer is yes and no. 

I believe that there are several over-arching, capital T (for you philosophy majors), Truths that are detailed in the bible that add to a moral code that will always be part of life.  Love thy neighbor, treat others as you would want to be treated, don’t kill, don’t steal etc.  These are a part of a moral code or ethics that all people should live by.  But, these morals and ethics are not just a construct of the bible or religion.  They are products humanity.  Now here is where it becomes tricky.  So we have a moral and ethical code created by humanity and it is supported by a religious group, doctrine what have you.  What happens when there is a disconnect between humanity and religion.  What happens when you have humanity saying that it’s okay to do one thing but religion telling you it isn’t okay to do said “thing;”  in this case gay marriage. 

The problem is that the religious right argues points in the bible that are not in accordance to a capital T Truth…a Truth that is in accordance with humanities views.  That’s the problem with the bible is that it lacks the conventionality to continue dictating peoples lives.  I’m not saying Love is an advent of conventionality but is something that is Truth regardless of age, period of history etc.  But the moment people try and use leviticus to tell me I can’t sleep with the person I love and they are wearing a cotton blended shirt they have lost their argument right out of the gate.  While leviticus says a man laying with a man is an abomination he also states that wearing blended fibers is wrong as well.  That is an unconventional belief, hypocritical, and not part of a Truth. 

This is the argument that Lisa Miller put forth in her article for Newsweek and she doesn’t even have to say it.  Miller chips away at the hypocrisy that is contained in the bible.  Notice while she does it she never takes away from the importance of love and loving your neighbor.  Notice how she doesn’t have to dog-ear the hypocrisy in not killing and not stealing….she doesn’t dog-ear those precious pieces of the bible because they are not part of a trivial, unconventional, part of a substandard way to dictate life.  They are part of something much bigger (Truth).    It amazes me how quickly these “religious” people are willing to put up a fight for these little pieces of the bible.  I would understand if Miller argued to not love anyone and to kill and steal.  But, to argue so fervently for doctrine that can’t even be proven as truth blows my mind.  Now I know there are people out there that believe that the bible is a capital t truth but I have one question if your religious doctrine is a truth who are you to say that other religious doctrine aren’t also capital t truths?  Also, if your doctrine is a capital t truth then why aren’t all the followers abiding by it?  I know I know your going to pose the same question to me regarding Love and that is fine.  Not everyone Loves someone else or Loves at all.  But Love is not denied from them, all people have Love and can give Love and can deny Love.  The point is that every one has Love no matter color of skin, creed, or sexual orientation, or gender…it’s your choosing to do with it what you want and nobody can take it away from you.  But marriage on the other hand can be taken away because people believe that Love between to men isn’t the same kind of Love between a man and a woman, and that a marriage which affirms the Love between two people isn’t possible if you’re gay.  It’s funny how we easily equate love and marriage (queue the Sinatra) and how easily people try and dictate that love and marriage only is possible between a man and a woman.  But now we are stepping on the Victorian ideal of marriage…and I’ll save that for another post.

 

 

P.S. I have also added this gem below.  It was comment on the Newsweek blog that posted Millers article.   Delightful I must say, glib and to the point I especially enjoyed the part how nice it was 20 years ago and going back into the closet.   I wonder if we can get their right to vote revoked…..

 

·         Jesus Christ… Here we go again… The Gays are trying to shove there lifestyles in our face,Dam the Constitution! Im sorry but i dont want to hear it. And im so tired of these Liberal whiney peaple who are more worried about political correctness then the law of the land. Hey,i dont hate Gays,thats your business if thats how ya wanna live. I dont have a problem with civil unions,but ill be dammed if the Gays think they can have there own rules. Im not a Religous nut,i dont even go to Church. But im tired of America bowing down to every group with an agenda. We need to bring America back to Normalacy,and the Gays need to cool there jets… It was alot nicer 20 years ago,when they were in the closet. If they cant live by the rules,Maybe they should GO BACK!

 

P.P.S.  Here’s a big gay WOOT WOOT for Lisa Miller whose article was AWESOME!

Read Full Post »

I know all of you that read my blog are feeling neglected and miss my gay musings. I apologize!  My event for work is done but things are still flying by.  I am impressed with how booked my October has been.  So here are a few quick updates.

 

Last weekend was low key lots of laundry and wedding gift shopping.   I have an uber big wedding I’m attending in Oklahoma the second to last week this month.  Both myself and Lauren are going to be in the wedding.  Unfortunately, I will be unable to blog that weekL.  I also have two back to back weddings this weekend.  The nice thing is that I am just a guest.  Whew just dancing, eating, and drinking.

 

On the dating front….things are still a big old gay muddled mess.  I met Craig out for drinks on Monday…it resulted in LOTS of fooling around in his car.  It was welcomed!  I tried to let Craig know that I wasn’t really looking for anything official; I’m just looking for STF aka sexy time friends.  That may be mean but its true.  I just hope he understands.  We have emailed back and forth and talked on the phone a couple of times.  I have offered myself up to have some fun times but he doesn’t seem to respond to my advances.  I can’t figure out if he is just worried about it, or the age difference is too much (I am five years younger than his last boyfriend), or if he is looking for something more in terms of a relationship (which I’m not in the market for as of yet).  He certainly seemed interested while his hands were down my pants.  But then again, I am advocating a no strings attached fuck buddy kind of thing (excuse the swear, but I have no idea what else to call it other than “friends who occasionally see each other naked and do gay things to each other”) LOL.  I’m sure this comes with the territory.  It will be nice to have a weekend free where I don’t have to think about it…although I do hope to get a salacious text from him or something.

 

With that in mind I consider myself still on the market.  Lauren just discussed with me a coworker that she has who she believes is gay and she seems to think we would be a good fit.  I have stopped by at her work and she’s pointed him out to me.  So last night I made an emergency stop at her place of employment with Lucy in the hopes of introducing myself to him.  IT WORKED!!!!  After some minor shopping, you wouldn’t believe what you home with from a store when you specifically go there to flirt with a guy, Lucy and I stepped into line.  As we are standing there I ask him about his other job and he looks at me confused and I casually mention that Lauren who works with him has mentioned him a couple of times and that it was nice to put a face and a name together.  I introduce myself and Lucy to him he shakes my hand.  Nice firm grip…he is quiet spoken, taller than me, short almost buzzed reddish blond/brown hair, he has a beard…there is a certain dreamy quality about him.  Something happened to work out in my favor, I couldn’t find an item in the store so someone had to go and get it for me…they left me at the checkout allowing me some quality time to flirt SCORE.  Lucy and I get into an economic discussion while he checked someone out as I waited for my item.  Afterward he finished the check out he ended up commenting on our conversation that we were having between us meaning he was listening!!!  So my item comes and I check out, just before I leave I lean over and say to him “it was nice to meet you” and I think I said I hope to see him again.  I think I’m not sure but besides that he responded with something like “I’ll see you again” or something like that.  So it was a good gay flirting adventure.  We’ll see what happens.

 

So that’s the mess known as my love life at the moment.

 

Also, in the political rant realm I would like to say

 

 VOTE NO TO PROPOSITION 8!!

 

I’m over these people trying to stop gay marriage.  If you vote for it you are simply voting against the “equal protection clause of the California Constitution.”  Basically what people are saying is that every one is due equal protection except when it involves two men or women who love each other and want to be married.  People are fucking hypocrites (and I’m not sorry about that swear).

 

For those of you who do not know what Proposition 8 is let me explain.  When two men want to marry each other, in California, previously they would run into a little problem called Prop 22.  Prop 22 defined, in California, marriage as being between a man and a woman.  Just as a side note, at one point in time in California their marriage language looked like this “…defined marriage as: “a personal relation arising out of a civil context, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary.””  Sounds pretty gay friendly doesn’t it?  Well eventually those people who can’t handle to men loving one another (and women loving women) managed to get Prop 22 passed thus gay marriage was done for.  That was until May of 2008 when the California Supreme Court declared that Prop 22 violated the California Constitution.  To the happy gay couples of CA this meant that they could marry, and marry they have.  Now in a desperate legal turn individuals have produced Proposition 8.  This is basically the same language as Prop 22 only if it wins in the voting booths in November, Proposition 8 will change the language of the California Constitution.   This means the equal protection, guaranteed by the California Constitution, guarding will be done away with. 

 

Literally the words protecting the right for men to men and women to marry women will be erased from the law.  A RIGHT THAT WE DESEVER WILL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM US.  I DON’T KNOW HOW CLEARLY I CAN STATE THIS.  LET ME TRY AGAIN….LEGALLY PEOPLE WILL TAKE AWAY A RIGHT THAT WE WANT, DESERVE, AND CURRENTLY HAVE IN CALIFORNIA.

 

Now let me say this if you are gay and living in California and not registered to vote then shame on you.  This is important for the gay community.  I don’t care if you don’t believe in marriage or don’t want to get married.  There are a significant amount of others that do want to get married and because you didn’t register to vote you are basically apathetic.  Rights that we want are being taken away from us and you can’t even go register to vote is offensive.  Those hypocrites that want to take away our rights depend on people like you with your apathy to help rewrite state Constitutions to their liking.  It’s sickening.  Also, if you are registered to vote and vote for Proposition 8 I think all your rights should be taken away from you…do you like talk of taking away your rights.  I didn’t think so. 

 

 

 

Finally, I would like to point some things out about the VP debates from last week.  First, I love LOVE that Palin can tolerate me, lucky me (ahem dry sarcasm).  Secondly, go figure they would spend only two questions on the whole gay marriage issue, once again we gays are second fiddle to the economy and foreign policies.  Finally, I am a liberal Democrat and I would vote for Obama except Biden exemplified exactly the reason why I find it hard to vote for them.  Biden stood in the national spot light and said he would protect gay rights (notice he said rights but never said marriage) but when asked if he believed in gay marriage he said personally no, the same with Obama.  Now I know it is nice to finally have an Administration that will to some extent fight for gay rights, but publically Biden said he didn’t believe in gay marriage.  I have to be passionate about my gay rights because there are many people who will not back them.  How can I vote for someone that only goes halfway?  He will protect gay rights but he doesn’t believe in gay marriage.  Isn’t marriage a right I should have?  It’s like me saying something like, women can vote but I personally don’t think they should vote or be in the political world. 

 

I’ve voiced this to several of my friends who are upset over the fact that this issue is keeping me from voting for Obama (and may I say I would never vote for McCain).  I’ve been told it’s the best I have right now.  Well, why do I have to settle, am I not allowed to want more from my President and Vice President?  It’s like being paid lip service.  If Obama or Biden don’t believe in gay marriage personally how can I expect them to fight for it on a nation wide level if need be?  It’s not an issue that can just be swept under the rug.  How can I be sure that they would be passionate advocates as others are about gay rights and marriage?  I want a politician who believes in what they say on a political and personal level and perhaps that’s more than I can ask from someone but I truly believe it is something that should be asked of our leaders. 

 

Well that’s about it for now…I know it’s long but I had a lot to say.  Have a great weekend.  Let me know your thoughts about Prop 8 and the VP debate.

 

Here’s hoping all of you get lucky this weekend!!!!!!!

Read Full Post »

So imagine my surprise when I opened up word today to re-write my Palin politic blog and found that the computer somehow recovered the document.  Needless to say I WAS EXCITED.  So below is the blog I was working on. Enjoy.

 

I think it is safe to say that McCain has made a decisive choice in selecting Palin as his running mate.  I mean those of us who were Hillary Clinton supporters are now left with several choices considering she is out of the running for the presidential ticket.  We could vote for Obama and keep to our political party lines, we could vote for McCain and cross party lines, or we could exercise our right to not vote for a presidential/ vice presidential candidate (while there are some out there that believe not voting in the election is a vote for McCain…I look at it as a personal decision that people are allowed to make as long as it is an informed decision and not just out of laziness). 

 

Why shouldn’t McCain make a play for the Hillary voters out there?  I mean they make up a decent voting block.  But, and I stress but, here is the funny thing, just because McCain chose a woman as his running mate doesn’t mean he is going to sway the Hillary supporters.  It’s degrading to think that just because McCain has picked a woman to run on his ticket that Hillary supporters (especially women) are going to flock to his camp.  It feels as if McCain’s camp thinks that women voters will vote for a woman despite her policies.  I’m now going to call this gender voting and if I were a woman I would be repulsed by this assumption McCain’s camp has made.  Also, if McCain is trying to sway Hillary supporters to his side why in the world would he pick a conservative governor?  There are certain policies that appealed to those of us who were going to vote for Hillary if she were a candidate.  Perhaps some of us liked her views on education, or LGBT rights, or her being socially liberal, what about her stances on abortion, the point is Hillary supporters supported her for specific reasons, not just because she’s a woman.  Palin policies do not match Clinton’s policies (okay so they both approve of the death penalty…big whoop).  Strategically speaking, shouldn’t have McCain’s people advised him to pick someone who was more center of the road? 

 

I would just like to point out that in perusing of several blogs that it has come to my attention that McCain was suppose to be on CNN and field questions regarding Palin but he backed out.  The reason for this is that one of the listed questions was going to be asking him name one foreign policy that Palin has backed and McCain felt that was stepping over the line in terms of questioning.   First, asking someone about their foreign policy (especially if they are going to be in the second most powerful position in America) is not crossing the line.  Like all good job interviews it’s nice to know the skills one has.  I’m just saying Palin doesn’t seem to have those skills.  Secondly, it wasn’t like CNN (of all groups) asked about her pregnant unwed child.  That would be below the belt and not something necessarily for the American people to judge (while they do find it easy to judge the gays).  But it also brings up a talking point.  It is only and example, but Palin’s policy on abstinence only sex education.  Let us talk about how it is a flawed policy that has hit home with her.  I think it is very telling about Palin’s ability to govern.  Another point I’d like to make is that this is big time politics here.  And please don’t get me started with her supporting the teaching of creationism in science class.  We are not talking the population of Alaska (and I’m not trying to bash Alaska).  What I’m trying to say is that we are looking at a much larger extended population she would have to deal with and to go from Alaskan politics to world politics is a big change.

 

Let me also ask all of you this…if McCain died in office is this the person that you would want leading out country? 

 

Personally, I don’t want this “hockey Mom” leading out country.  I want a decisive leader who has experience and frankly Palin doesn’t do it for me.

 

Jesus, if McCain and Palin are voted in I’m moving to Canada.  This is going to be a long two months. 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UPDATE:   I just found this article please enjoy!  See below http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,1290251.story

Read Full Post »

So I have a few bones to pick with the state of Arkansas.  What in the world are they doing with this ban on adoptions for unmarried individuals?  See the link below:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080825/ap_on_re_us/gay_foster_ban

 

There are a few levels here that need to be discussed.  First, this is supposedly going to be on the ballot in November, meaning there is still a chance to overrule this proposal.  Secondly, I can understand the hesitation to allow unmarried individuals to adopt, but on the flip side doesn’t a state agency look into this sort of thing?  I believe there are requirements that have to be fulfilled if an adoption between two people should occur.  Thirdly, since Arkansas doesn’t allow for gay marriage gay men and women are, for all intensive purposes, unable to adopt.  Take this into consideration.  Let’s say we have a straight unmarried couple who wants to adopt.  The only thing that this couple has to do, other than pass state clearance for adoption, is get married.  They can literally walk down to the courthouse on a lunch break and have a Justice of the Peace marry them, whereas gay men and women can’t. 

 

As mentioned in article it was the Arkansas Family Council that brought this to fruition.

“Arkansas needs to affirm the importance of married mothers and fathers,” Family Council President Jerry Cox said. “We need to publicly affirm the gold standard of rearing children whenever we can. The state standard should be as close to that gold standard of married mom and dad homes as possible.” 

Gold standard my ass, this infuriates me because these people hide behind marriage jargon when all it really is rhetoric that says that adoption is only good for straight people because churches define marriage as being between a man and a woman.  As if marriage determines the ability for people to raise a child.

 

But, I think the most important aspect of this whole thing is the children that are involved.  It kills me to think that there are people out there, like Jerry Cox, that would rather a child stay in a state system than let gay couples adopt him or her.  That is what it really comes down to.  Their moral standard doesn’t help the children that are waiting to be adopted…in fact I will even go as far as to say that their (Arkansas Family Council) moral righteousness is keeping children in the state system.  What is good about that?  What is good about denying a child a good home because the couple just happens to be gay?  The mean, cynical gay part of me says screw them and their proposal let them do what they want; I’m fed up with dimwitted idiots like Jerry Cox trying to be a straight martyr.  Then I think of those kids in the system who deserve a good home and I know that we have to stop blatant discrimination like this.  This is messed up.

 

On the upside though Arkansas’s Families First is campaigning against the measure!  “”We’re going to work very hard to defeat this because it is just bad policy for children,” Willhite said.  Debbie Willhite is a consultant for Families First.

 

 

I do have one more tiny little rant to cover.  Madonna during her Sticky and Sweet tour made a tiny reference to McCain…a reference that compared him to Robert Mugabe….and Hitler. 

 

See the link below:

 

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1593432/20080825/madonna.jhtml 

 

Now let me reiterate that in a past post I bashed McCain’s camp for making ludicrous comparisons between Brittney Spears, Parish Hilton, and Obama.  I have to say that Madonna’s comparison is absurd as well.  Don’t get me wrong the liberal part of me is cheering for her!  And, I also have to suspect that this piece political “discourse” didn’t hurt her in ticket sales either if you get what I’m saying.  Political uproar is always edgy, controversial…and a great money maker.

 

And rightly so McCain’s camp has done damage control denounced the negatively charged comments saying, “”The comparisons are outrageous, unacceptable and crudely divisive all at the same time,” said Tucker Bounds, A McCain campaign spokesman.  “It clearly shows that when it comes to supporting Barack Obama, his fellow worldwide celebrities refuse to consider any smear or attack off limits.”

 

You know what I have to say about that:

 

HYPOCRITES

 

The whole McCain camp is full of hypocrites.  So it is okay for McCain’s camp to put out a PAID (yes paid as in campaign funds donated by McCain supporters used to shoot a video) video comparing Obama to Spears and Hilton.  Then when a private citizen chooses to make a big statement in the same manner against McCain, the camp is shocked and sickened by it.  How could McCain’s people not see this one coming?  I think the best part of this whole thing is that McCain paid to have his video against Obama done and Madonna just hauled off and put it into her tour for no money.

 

No I lied I think the best part of the whole debacle is that Obama’s camp came out and denounced Madonna’s political jabs while still sticking to McCain supporters.  Tommy Vetor, a spokesperson for Obama’s camp, also spoke out about Madonna’s controversial move. “These comparisons are outrageous and offensive and have no place in the political process,” he said in a statement to CNN. “We hope that John McCain will offer a similar condemnation as his allies increasingly practice sleazy swift-boat politics.”

Booyah!!!!!!

I just want you to remember that it was McCain’s camp that opened Pandora’s Box here, and that they paid for a celebutack (see below).  Where as Obama is playing with clean political campaigning.

(celebutack- c-leb-you-tac- n. meaning the use of one’s celebrity, whether it be of paid or personal use, to attack ones opponent.)

Read Full Post »