Comments on: RachelWatch: Constitutionalist minority-rights dorks in crisis

By: Rebeca

Rebeca — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:56:16 +0000

It is important that a site like 365 support the only openly gay news/opinion person to break through the very fortified heterosexual main stream media barricade. Just because we are lesbian/gay, etc. does not mean that we should close ourselves out to any type of news that does not contain the word gay or gay topic!
Besides, she is brilliant, and bases her information and opinions on facts, something of a rarety in the business!
I don’t have cable, so I can’t watch Rachel, hence, I do appreciate 365 giving us a highlight of her show. I think it is totally appropriate for 365 to offer this info to us, thank you!

By: GrrrlRomeo

GrrrlRomeo — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:36:23 +0000

Burnf, in other words you want fake balance. You want 365gay to pretend that there’s a conservative side that would be willing to support pro-LGBT issues in order to appear “fair and balanced”.

And it’s liberal bias…not Democratic bias. It just so happens that lots of Democrats are lean liberal and lots of Republicans are very conservative. That’s how the parties currently map. And LGBT issues are liberal issues. LGBT issues are not under the conservative tent.

Does this mean LGBT Republicans are not part of the LGBT group? Nope. It’s just that the LGBT community and Gay Rights Movement cannot support conservative politics without also supporting an anti-gay agenda. Though individual LGBTs are free to do so. But there’s no trade-off, no benefit for the LGBT community in doing so. Conservatives, both D and R, campaign on being anti-gay rights. Individual LGBTs may support them for other reasons though.

By: Burnf

Burnf — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:44:50 +0000

The extra articles that show up on this site are far biased towards the democratic party. If there was balance and differing views, an attempt by people from within the community to discuss today’s issues from both sides and moderate mid positions, I’d be fine with articles and clips like these, but if this site only runs biased articles, it will drive moderates like myself and republican LGBT away from this site, and send out an already far too pervasive message that we’re not part of the group.

You can either only allow news that’s actually related to gay issues, or you have to balance out opinions with opposing views. If you don’t, you lose credibility and alienate audience.

By: GrrrlRomeo

GrrrlRomeo — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:56:06 +0000

Rachel has done stories on Prop 8, she covered the Rick Warren pick rather extensively, and also had openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson on, as well as humorist Kate Clinton. She may not cover LGBT issues every night, or every week but she does cover it. It’s just mixed in with other content. And by mixing it in, and just being her obviously gay self she’s able to maintain a broader liberal audience.

When gay people show that, yes we do care about other issues, we are able to form alliances with straight people who also care about those non-LGBT issues.

When we hyperfocus on ourselves, we end up being the only ones focusing on ourselves.

By: Burnf

Burnf — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:47:16 +0000

Bunny Snuggles, I know she’s a lesbian, but that doesn’t make what she says LGBT news.

It’s like when Ruby Sachs decides to just rail on some social issue. I come here to read about what affects our community, not to get biased opinions. That’s my criticism of this being here. Nothing she says here has anything to do with our community.

She’s fun to listen to and endearing. If this site needs more material because we’re no longer in the Bush anti-gay era, then maybe they should add a section that shows the work of prominent LGBT people. I just wouldn’t label it as news.

By: Bunny Snuggles

Bunny Snuggles — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:52:40 +0000

Oh…dear Brunf…it is more than enough that MSNBC hired an openly Gay woman (unlike a closeted Silver Fox I could mention on CNN) — not that they would like Rachel to mention her “orientation” directly or even imply it too frequently.

Rachel did make note of her “partner” once that I saw. But, I’d imagine the “phobes” at MSNBC would consider her too much of an activist if she is caught doing anything terribly germane about GLBT issues. Or even critique the media as to why the mainstream media is ignoring our issues. Why that would label her as too PRO-HOMO. Right?

You know Black reporters and Afro-American TV personalities never get to talk about race issues in the media. Do they? Right?

….yeah, right!

Now, our new Black US Attorney General talks about how people are “cowards” in that they don’t say how they really feel about race issues.

Hmmmmm…speaking of “cowards”…it seems to me that Obama and the Democraps in Congress have a yellow streak a mile wide on the GLBT civil rights issues. And why nobody ever points out that when they talk about Blacks and discrimination that there really is only ONE minority group that it is legal to persecute and to discriminate against — and that minority is US (GLBT Americans) — all thirty million plus of us.

They just keep making us invisible — the so-called “liberal” news media, gutless Democraps, and lying Obama. And we let them.

But we have our token Rachel…so let’s be happy.

By: Burnf

Burnf — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:25:33 +0000

I find the filibuster thing interesting. It is obstruction, so it needs to be curtailed. I shouldn’t be banned, though. Perhaps we need to set a limit on the number that can be raised per congress, like time outs in a football game.

That said, again nothing talked about her is about glbt, so why is it on this site..?