(Report comment to the moderator)

No he has failed because despite his pledge to abolish the 'abhorrent law' – the Defence of Marriage Act, Obama is now fighting to keep the law. The disgusingly homophobic language he used to defend it said that gay marriage should not be legalised as this may leave the door open for incest and paedophilia.

That's language even more sickeningly homophobic than George W Bush used.

Obama is not to be trusted. He is just another 2 faced, opportunistic b@stard who will betray his promises the moment it is convenient for him.

(Report comment to the moderator)

The majority of gay people don't WANT gestures (June is Gay Pride month or whatever), they want real improvements in equality – the sort that have to be pushed through, the sort that cost money, the sort that need political courage.

If he doesn't do it now, at the beginning of his tenure when he's rifding the popularity wave and has support, he won't do it in the run up to the next election campaign (less then two and a half years to go I imagine), and he's noit guaranteed a second term (certainly some of his supporters may stay at home if he chooses to ignore their aspirations)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

YES.

If he won't act now with a thumping majority, and the popular vote, he sure isn't going to do anything four years from now.

Sometimes Social change NEEDS great leadership, and much as I like him, Obama has failed on gay rights. He will not ever again have such a strong mandate for social change.

It's NOW or NEVER.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

"In a roundabout way, give Obama a chance – if he’d had as much self-pity and little determination as the people on this forum then he would be hiding in some blacks-only bar, sniffing lines for escapement and slighting everyone around him because of deep-rooted bitterness. He is a strong man, that’s why he’s there and I have much admiration for him."

I cannot and will not give him a 'chance' or the benefit of the doubt because I know (and have pointed out) that he is backed by the same big business, Zionist, right-wing 'men in suits' that Bush was.

Obama is a puppet for these people. So even if, on a personal level, he wanted to make changes he cannot.

Contrary to your belief about me: gay rights in the U.S is not my main concern. I would like it ofcourse, but I would sooner Obama sorted out relations with Iran, Russia and China, and then get our troops the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Obama won't/can't. As I've said, Obama is a typical Orwellian cult of personality figure. He comes across as a 'strong man' and a nice guy, but his actual policies are unrelated and completely different from that for the simple fact that he isn't the one who makes them. Even in Obama's speeches (that he doesn't write) he does that dramatic actor thing of pausing and looking down before delivering a crucial line; much like Tony Blair only slightly more slick. It's all in the media training!

When a Presisdent is chosen who isn't managed and appointed by the elite (Bilderberg Group, Council On Foreign Relations, Rahm Emmanuel, Zbiginiew Brzezinski) , then I'll have hope and give a chance to them. But as I said, the last two who were not chosen by these people were Abraham Lincoln and JFK, both of whom were sadly murdered in 'assasinations' *cough, cough*.

I admit it's a horribly negative view to take, but I feel it's better to be informed about these things than live in hope only to be let down.

(Report comment to the moderator)

Having looked on various comments pages here and despite people being very informed about the subjects they are commenting on, there is an overwhelming air of negativity and self-victimising. Not to mention the continual reinforcing of the very stereotypes that, paradoxically, gay people say they hate being labeled with by the straight community (celebrity-obsessed, superficial, promiscuous, ditsy, over-dramatic, over-sensitive, camp, bitchy etc). One would believe that the entire world is against us and we are ALL suffering discrimination at an appalling level day in day out. It’s as if people are trying to out-do each other with tales of woe to attract pity. In Western Europe, we are not subjected to the prejudices of our African or Asian counterparts, so why must people keep harping on as if we were? It needs to be kept in context and with a whiff of reality. It’s almost as though gay people do not want the situation to get better as they’ll have no-one to blame for their problems any more. We must stop living in the past and clinging to the challenges faced by our predecessors for some pathetic attempt to get attention. It’s just embarrassing and makes our cause seem all the less credible.

If people just thought for a minute about how much the straight community has actually helped us in our fight for equality also, then maybe they would see that things are not so bad. After all, only a tiny percentage of MPs that voted through laws to protect us were actually gay. Even that much-detested Margaret Thatcher actually fought for the decriminalisation of homosexuality at one point at a time when it was pretty taboo. On the flip-side of the coin, not all our gay campaigners make good leaders – advocating cruising, cottaging and drug-taking as part of “gay culture” (whatever that is supposed to be) and screaming blue murder at dog walkers for homophobia when they are simply sick of seeing two men at it in a dusky park. It’s just asking for resentment by being so outwardly anti-social (and yes, shagging in public areas is anti-social – from anyone). There’s a lot of foot-shooting going on and this is why guys like me don’t feel part of the gay world, simply because we don’t share the same self-loathing, defensiveness and need to isolate ourselves. Of course, we just get the usual diatribe of being “self-hating” and having “issues”. Maybe it’s just because we have more self-respect than lots of other gays and don’t feel the need to make an exhibition of ourselves. That’s what insecure people do. I’ve never had a shred of shame about being attracted to my own gender, but I am embarrassed by the uncivilized behaviour of the “community” I am associated with (through no choice of my own, I might add). Perhaps I am fortunate that I have always had supportive family and friends, but then I am not the only one. Maybe it’s also because I made a choice to integrate into the wider world as I actually have more to talk about than just my “difference”. The only way we will win the respect of our societies is by acting in a civilized and respectable way. Right now, gay lifestyle lacks respectable behaviour – and, no, that doesn’t mean we should all be celibate and become invisible. But we do need to clean up our act if people are to see that we are worthy human beings. The gay scene is undoubtedly one of the most discriminating, ageist and egocentric communities that exists – the world over, yet hypocritically shouts that it is the most hard-done by. No-one is going to warm to that.

I for one am positive about the future, but I also live to enjoy today with all the benefits that people like us never had 30 years ago. I know my gay history, I know my rights and what it took to get them. But that doesn’t mean I have to live like they did – isn’t that what the fighting has been all about?

In a roundabout way, give Obama a chance – if he’d had as much self-pity and little determination as the people on this forum then he would be hiding in some blacks-only bar, sniffing lines for escapement and slighting everyone around him because of deep-rooted bitterness. He is a strong man, that’s why he’s there and I have much admiration for him.

(Report comment to the moderator)

There will be no major differences, the U.S's stance on Iran, Afhanistan, Israel, China and Russia will remain the same.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Moreover, if you have been paying attention, his very election has pushed several states in the last few months to legalise gay marriage. Things are happening.

Or would you rather have Bush back?

(Report comment to the moderator)

Again sorry for the major downer, but Obama is not the new, shiny, well intentioned man we all wish he was. He's a pawn.

Oh and by the way regarding Canada; these groups have already decided upon a 'North American Union' consisting of The U.S.A, Canada and Mexico. Much like the European Union. They already have a plan to devalue the dollar to the extent that it's worthless, and will then bring in a single currency (sound familiar?) called the 'Amero'.

If you had told Europeans 50 years ago that they would have a single currency I doubt they would have believed it either.

I hope I answered your questions, and again sorry for it not being good news.

However I love an intelligent conversation, and I, like you, care about the world and it's happenings a lot, not just when it affects gays.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Imagine that with a Quebec accent and without the numerous syntaxical errors )

Well it is very depressing, someone like Obama, billed as a 'messiah' who will save the world, is already looking like a dud. To people like me who know who his backers are, it's no surprise. But to everyone else it's a major downer.

The alternative is to stop companies like Halliburton funding politics. Stop the Rothschilds and their banking chums from funding politics.

Stop these secretive (but all poweful) organisations like The Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and Council On Foreign Relations from having secretive meetings wherein the policies of North America and Europe are effectively thought up and decided upon. (previous attendees and memebrs of these groups include, Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands, King Juan Carlos of Spain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Rupert Murdoch, Prince Charles, the directors of companies like Coce-Cola, Citigroup, HSBC and McDonalds) I mean the list goes on. Virtually every PM of Britain and every President of the U.S.A have been a member of atleast one. The last President of the U.S.A to not be involved with these 3 groups in some way was John. F. Kennedy. The one before him to not be involved with these all powerful organisations (before they had these names) was Abraham Lincoln. Look what happened to them!

Obama's backers are the founding names of some of these groups, so it's no surprise that he is turning out to be extremely quiet over Israel, gay rights etc.

Not only that, but Bilderberg member Gordon Brown never looked so happy as when the British banks went tits up, why I hear you ask? Because now the Government legally owns the majority of the banks, and hence they'll do what he (and his backers) want.

It's all inter-linked, and I'm sorry to say, but it's all Western. These groups despise Russia and China because they refuse to play. When footage of 'Russian' soldiers steam-rolling into Georgian villages was shown on Sky, the BBC and all over the Western world last year, did you know thatin the vast majority of the footage they were actually Georgian soldiers in their own territory??? But Georgia's PM is a US pawn too.

It goes on, and on, and on. Google some of the stuff I've said about Bilderberg etc and you'll see.

So yeah I sound like a bit of a doom merchant. But unfortunately big money, and big business run the Western world. And I don't need Michael Moore to tell me that even if he is correct!

(Report comment to the moderator)

I'm trying to get in touch with you in the members' Forum!

(Report comment to the moderator)

Every word you say makes sense; I won't argue with you. You appear to have done your homework and I like to see LGBT's thinking about world issues, e.g. Israel.

'But', why do I feel that all hope is stiffled in your interpretation. I know politics stink when you look under the rocks.

We could all read about the rise of the ancient Roman Empire and see the very same instances of political corruption. Nothing new about corruption.

I did read Governor Andrew Greely's complicated autobiography, and I have him reading his book on CD's, and the insight into the stench of American politics has real rotting meat and bones on it.

I don't want to live without hope. I gotta have some kind of hope, an idea that carries me forward, a dream. If not Obama, then who? John McCain who used to drop napalm bombs in Viet Nam and yell YAHOO when he saw entire villages and its population of innocent men, women and children in flames? F*cking cowboy!

It was said that Pierre Eliot Trudeau was a cult personality too, and I think he was the last good thing that happened in Canadian politics. Now, we have a coalition government on a perpetual merry-go-round: one guy says 'jump' and the other says 'jump higher'. A cardboard parliament just because the Liberals don't have leadership qualities at the moment. Where's the hope for Canada?

Now with the BNP's success, what lies ahead for the UK? I did notice a considerable gain for the UKIP. Is that a sign of hope?

The future may not be in politics at all, but in Education, who knows?

I'm just babbling now.

Sorry, but the problem I have with your perception, and I do appreciate your insights, is that it destroys without suggesting a better or an alternate situation. It leaves us center stage with no lines, spotlights on us and we don't have a director telling us which way to move. Know what I mean, or is that too wishy-washy?

(Report comment to the moderator)

That's what I call strategy. Good thinking, especially when practically everybody is now online.

Pester the be-jesus out of him. And the UN too. There's nothing funny about executing gays in Iraq. Sometimes I wish I could break the world into a million pieces and put it back together the way I would like it. SCREAM!

(Report comment to the moderator)

The attraction to him is because he is 'black' (the fact that his mother is white and is actually the one who raised him doesn't matter apparently).

The second attraction is because he has no policies. No clear cut, 'this is what I'll do' policies. All style and no substance.

Obama says 'change' and 'hope'. Well OK, but since you have no policies, 'change' what? 'Hope' for what? We don't know because he doesn't specify, that's the trick…….'hope' and 'change' mean what YOU want them to mean, hence you find him attractive. It's a very clever political trick but once you're awoken to it, you see.

'President. Change' was voted in solely because of his ethnic background, John McCain's age, Sarah Palin's stupidity and a cowardly smear campaign against Hillary Clinton.

'President.Change' is also backed by the same rich political Zionist controllers who have been in the Whitehouse since the 70's, namely Zbigniew Brzezinski, (Bilderberg Group and man responsible for arming the Taliban against the Soviets, and from re-naming Iran a 'terrosrist state' after it refused to be a 'client state' any longer) Rahm Emmanuel (who's father was part of the terrorist cell Irgun which bombed Israel into existence at the cost of over 90 lives, many British) etc, etc, the list goes on.

I'm saying this as a supporter of Israel's right to exist, and as someone who despises Iran's extremism. BUT when you look into these situations the world of American politics, is very, very dark.

So expect no REAL 'change' from Bush's policies. Obama has already pledged the withdrawal of some troops from Iraq, only to place them in Afghanistan.

He's a fraud building a 'cult of personality' around himself to disguise the fact that he has, and will, do nothing.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Touché ! And especially no truth in the UK's faith school.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)