DISQUS

sonofloud · 4 months ago

Obama had no problem violating the constitution in support of kidnapping, torture, and indefinite imprisonment or when he increased the faith based initiative which gives our tax revenue to churches or when he pushed congress to renew FISA.

johnnyk · 4 months ago

This is not the man I voted for. This is not the man who inspired millions with his vows to be the anti-Bush. Now he bends to hateful right-wingers more than his once devoted constituencies. His eloquence is gone. He allows old farts like McCain, Gingrich, Beck, Lieberman to lie and misrepresent, to soil his front lawn like flea bitten mutts, and he has no righteous anger, no eloquent arguments, no justified condemnations of OBVIOUS Bush-era crimes. Silence, or submission, that is all we get now. I cannot begin to express my disappointment. 70% of the USA wants a public health care option, yet my once and future "hero" will kowtow to the GOP money interests. No, I am not disappointed. I am betrayed.

JustAGuy · 4 months ago

It would seem that Mr. Obama is an avid reader of George Orwell.

All of his soldiers are equal... but some his soldiers are more equal than others. Or, in this case, less equal than others.

Classic Doublethink.

-S

debbietee · 4 months ago

Yes, it is a straight gal and I did find my way over here. Let me just say if Obama backs down on this issue I think every liberal in the country should come at him (in a political sense, of course) like a Mack truck. And I am optimistic ALL of us will. Can't the Harvard grad spell "Civil Rights for All"??? Sorry, I'm just a bit snarky for me tonight, but what did we vote for...and work for...and contribute for...

Muzikal203 · 4 months ago

I'm with you. This is a basic equal rights thing, and Obama is continuously falling short. I guess one of his kids has to turn out to be gay for him to decide gays actually deserve equal rights (like Cheney). I'm straight and I haven't bought his "fierce advocate" rhetoric since he first said it, so I KNOW the gay people don't believe him (unless they are living in a fantasy world).

Less words and speeches, more action are needed here.

Keith & Dustin · 4 months ago

Thanks for your support debbie, we need all the straight support we can muster. I believe Obama will feel the heat of an angered public if he fails to act on the policies he advocated for during the campaign. He will become the president known for giving a good speech instead of one who changed a nation. I, like many others, just don't understand what the hell he is doing right now. He received wide ranging support due to his message of change. If that change doesn't materialize, the support will vanish as well.

SD_Dave · 4 months ago

John, Thank you! I am really not even becoming more disappointed, I'm really beginning to absolutely LOATHE the man/coward that we helped elect to the presidency!

TimK · 4 months ago

"Coward" is the word. He increasingly reminds me of Bill Clinton, who I voted for in '92 even though I could already tell he was spineless, then refused to vote for in '96 (I didn't vote) after he pulled that signing-DOMA-at-2-a.m.-on-a-Saturday-to-avoid-media-attention bullshit.

mikatuva · 4 months ago

In defense of Bill Clinton, I have never had the suspicion Bill Clinton was "intellectually uncurious," and I never saw Bill Clinton as an 11th dimensional Checkers player.

TimK · 4 months ago

I'm not sure who you're referring to here, but I do think your post qualifies as a good example of "damning with faint praise."

A President should be intellectually curious, but he or she also has to ACT.

ShirleyGoodnessanMercy · 4 months ago

Obama is just making me sick now. I guess moving to Canada IS a good idea after all.

davidasposted · 4 months ago

Shirley,

FWIW, there is not even a question up here that members of the GLBT community belong to the Canadian community, and should enjoy all of the subsequent rights and responsibilities. Canada is not perfect, bigots do exist here, but they are not regarded as 'mainstream', or as expressing views the rest of us should reasonably entertain, etc.

postdamnit · 4 months ago

Just one more reason why I have become totally turned off by this Obama guy. I can't even bear to watch him when he is on TV spouting some BS. I just don't believe anything he says anymore.

superstition · 2 weeks ago

The measure of a President is who long it takes a person watching him speak to get to the point of being revolted when they hear/see him -- especially people who supported him during his campaign.

Being lied to is revolting. Being patronized at the same time is even worse.

Lynne · 4 months ago

I am so frustrated and so furious over having been LIED TO once again by the Democrats. The same Democrats who -- in the last 20 years -- have accomplished more for the Republican party than the Republicans have ever managed to do.

Dear Mr. "Fierce Advocate" Obama:
I want my vote back. And don't count on my vote for ANY democrat ever again unless we get exactly what little you promised us, and within the next several months. At least the Republicans are *honest* about hating and using us. After all, if you really kinda support DOMA and DADT, you could have just said so while campaigning, or you could have just not said anything at all. Most Gay people are so desperate and/or stupid they would have voted for you anyway. And just being honest-but-mildly-bigoted would have been more forgivable than being the liar and backstabber you've made yourself to be now. Can you fix it? Well, you *could*. WILL you? At this point, as you dig yourself deeper and deeper into the hole not just over Gay rights but also over the war in Iraq, and health care, and protecting people who willfully did their best to suck dry and destroy the last of this country and its constitution, and more and more and more -- I just don't think you have the character.

Tom · 4 months ago

John:

I really think we need to be hammering home the hypocrisy of allowing AVOWED white supremacists in the military but not law abiding gays. I can picture Ana Marie Cox asking about this in a presser.

Topher · 4 months ago

I just have to say-I LOVE Ana Marie Cox.

Tom · 4 months ago

Such a storm would doubtless suck much energy out of the healthcare, regulatory reforms, etc., since the right-wingers would like to sabotage all he does.

This might be a legitimate argument if Obama was in the midst of putting through an edifying, ultra-progressive new New Deal. But he isn't-hes concerned with putting through legislation that is most pleasing to the party that lost the election.

John Aravosis · 4 months ago

It also might be a legitimate argument had Obama not made promised the repeal of DADT and DOMA, among other things, in exchange for our votes. He can't now say "oops, those are controversial! Never mind."

Muzikal203 · 4 months ago

Remember when he used to care about doing what's right, even if it will piss people off? How many times did he use that Detroit automakers story again?

TimK · 4 months ago

No, I can't say I recall seeing this at any time since he took office.

Before that, it was all talk, so we didn't know whether he really cared or not.

Jophus · 4 months ago

I missed that part, myself.

Gary · 4 months ago

Obama continues to disappoint...While you guys are ROCKING it for the community! I have read AMERICAblog since the beginning, and I am SO happy to see the new sub-blog!!!

You have been linked, promoted, and gushed about here & at home!

Nicely done...Now I have TWO AmericaBlogs to love! Thank you!!!!

John Aravosis · 4 months ago

LOL yep, we're the love-handles of blogs. More of us to love :-)

Gridlock · 4 months ago

I think Barry needs a fucking history lesson, I know some cotton fields he could acquaint himself with if he doesn't feel like cracking open a book.

Mawm · 4 months ago

You people make me sick. You called me a racist when I said that Obama was a homobigot during the primary, and now you are whining about how he is not living up to his promises(lies). You were simply idiots last year to not see the writing on the wall. But what really makes me hate you, is that you marginalized anyone who had anything negative to say about your messiah. You have set our cause back with your worship of this piece of sh**.

diablofred · 2 weeks ago

Oh please you really think Hillary would be doing any less back-pedaling once she got into office? Or should have voted for McCain? Or maybe Nader? Really throw our vote away? And the bitter "what makes me hate you-piece of sh**" vitriol makes me question what your motives really are.

Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas · 4 months ago

I am fucking fed up with the Southern white bigot trash bible thumpers holding the nation hostage on ANY type of civil rights. What fucking year is this, 1860? 1955? And what the fuck ever happened to leadership rather than poll reading? If LBJ had read polls, blacks would be at the back of the bus and not voting and in segregated schools.

SpGNo · 4 months ago

Here is what you're missing.

The army needs don't ask don't tell because it depends on a combination of homosexual hazing and blackmail to beep order. It's that simple.

Butch1 · 4 months ago

More double talk from the master of it. The signing statement is a good thing to put back into his face about his double talk and hypocrisy. We've been sold a bag of tricks.

Indigo · 4 months ago

But Signorile said we're cool with Brüno so it's all okay. Take us or leave us, we're not real. No fear, we're just satire.

Um . . . now does it begin to make sense why Signorile is dangerously wrong? Brüno is an insult. Maybe if we put on black face the point of the insult would be a little clearer. Huh?

Jophus · 4 months ago

You REALLY hate that movie, huh? I don't blame you. Bruno and Perez Hilton are on about the same level for me. Unless Sasha Cohen is bending over, of course.

mikekil · 3 months ago

Charel, Obama's a democrat. democrats are afraid of their own shadow. They do whatever republicans tell them to.

Polly_Tics · 4 months ago

All of Obama's hemming and hawing about policies that affect the GLBT community is incredibly disturbing; both in content and in actual outcome. I can't help but believe that the Military has Obama wedged in some sort of corner concerning this entire segment of his campaign promises.

We are at war in two countries (even though we are "supposed" to be OUT of Iraq) and Iran is looking awfully angry at the moment, so who knows what Obama has in mind for us in this year to come. I can't help but think that the General's pushed Obama against the wall and are somehow threatening him with not cooperating if he proceeds on DADT, DOMA etc.

And if that is the case, how come Bush didn't seem to mind pushing the bloody Generals around and had them eating out of his hand during the last 8 years?

If any of this IS true, it simply makes me sick and wonder why or how the Democrats will ever get the respect of the Military if they are such blasted wienies! Let's just say I am perplexed, confused and angry as hell...

myrrdnemrys · 3 months ago

lets be honest here.... the military in general is bigoted. Bush was a white man whose father was a white man.. both "running" the country. Obama is a half black man... trying to run the military.. you think bigot tigers change their stripes easily?

Polly_Tics · 3 months ago

For one thing, Obama is not a half white man, but an African American or Black man. The terminology "Half White" is used by Rush Limbaugh and other idiots on the Right who want to somehow denigrate and minimalize Obama and his heritage

As far as how Obama is working with the military goes, who the heck knows for sure, except for the small number of people in his cabinet and the military who can see the day to day dealings.

Now back to the gist of "my" post, I am frustrated and suspicious with what seems to be coming from the Obama administration when it comes to anything military; from torture renditions to prosecutions of those responsible to DOMA and DADT. There appears to be nothing except baloney coming from the mouths of the spokespeople...

offspring · 4 months ago

So far there are several times his administration hasnt followed the law, in regards to prosecution of intelligence failures, and outing spies, and lying to congress, or holding anyone accountable for the last eight years, also letting the wire taps go on, and gitmo still open, if we where to follow the law wouldnt alot of people in the previous administration be up on charges?

fuzzzy · 4 months ago

I saw an interesting point made over at the Sam Stein article - basically asking why didn't the interviewer (I think it was Anderson Cooper) ASK Obama about using the word CHANGE instead of REPEAL. The word REPEAL seems much clearer, and is in fact the word Obama used during the campaign; CHANGE is too vague, and we all know that the word CHANGE has been used in this context lately to mean, um, well, it's unclear what they mean - so wouldn't it have been better for the interviewer to ask for clarity?

and if we want to go even deeper- is REPEAL really enough? or do we need a change in the law that clearly says discrimination based solely on sexual orientation, in the military, is illegal? would the repeal be enough to accomplsih that?

SD_Dave · 4 months ago

The legislation before the House has an anti-discrimination clause, it is H.R. 1283 (can be accessed at thomas.loc.gov) which states specifically: SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE ARMED FORCES. (I'm not yelling, I just copy and pasted this part from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R....

fuzzzy · 4 months ago

ahhh, thanks for the clarification!

SD_Dave · 4 months ago

You're welcome :)

Don in FL · 4 months ago

It would seem to me that Obama is trying to couch the terminology of the repeal/change of DADT and DOMA so that another firestorm doesn't erupt to derail his attempt, as happened to Clinton. Such a storm would doubtless suck much energy out of the healthcare, regulatory reforms, etc., since the right-wingers would like to sabotage all he does.

TimK · 4 months ago

I would buy that if there were likely to be a firestorm...but polls show that even conservative voters support *repealing* DADT, not "changing" it.

JustAGuy · 4 months ago

Thank you!

Its not like repealing DADT is a controversial position supported only by a fringe minority. This is a majority position opposed by a fringe minority - the same minority that voted against him in the election.

He isn't leading on this issue so much as he's being dragged kicking and screaming.

If he can't lead on DADT, how the hell is he going to lead on issues of actual contention, such as Health Care reform?

-S

TimK · 4 months ago

AMEN. This is exactly why I'm rather nervous about what's going to happen with health care, rather than being optimistic. We've already seen him cave to the rich Wall Streeters on the economy; after that happened, I pretty much knew what we had to deal with.

Very disappointed.

Keith & Dustin · 4 months ago

He has to tread lightly because the republicans are just itching to make him look bad and if he allows them to derail DADT that would spell big trouble for him. Also, it really doesn't matter what the public thinks about DADT, it's about what the military leaders think. He's probably getting pushback from the generals and he doesn't want to overrule them, he would rather try to find a common ground. However, I wish he would be bolder in his pursuit of repealing DADT.

TimK · 4 months ago

I wish he would be bolder in his pursuit of:

- repealing DADT
- repealing DOMA
- passing ENDA
- pushing for true universal healthcare coverage that will really work (not the wimpy crap we're going to get out of the current process)
- holding Wall Street responsible for the economic collapse we're currently suffering
- holding Bush administration officials responsible for the war crimes they've committed

On this last point, as has been said elsewhere, he's neglecting to enforce applicable laws -- the same thing he says he cannot do when it comes to DADT. "You have to enforce the law as long as it's on the books" is his excuse for not issuing a stop-loss order to halt DADT discharges, but he's not prepared to enforce the law against those who egregiously broke it during the Bush administration.

So I'm seeing someone who takes the easy way out in all situations. In other words, Bill Clinton redux.

And I'm very disappointed.

SD_Dave · 4 months ago

Republicans don't have to make him look bad. He and the Democrats are doing that ALL by themselves.

Gridlock · 4 months ago

LOL you're giving him wayyyyyyyy too much credit. It's a bit delusional.

chris10858 · 4 months ago

Hmmm... maybe President Obama wants to change DADT so that we just have a separate but equal military? They can create special units just for us homos. Oh, and of course, they will have to make separate living quarters, bathrooms and even water fountains for straights/gays. I mean, what heterosexual would want to have to drink from the same fountain as some queer? This would be great if Obama did this! I mean, separate but equal worked so well for minorities after all!!

postdamnit · 4 months ago

28 other military's in the world have openly serving gays. What is the problem with straight American boys. Are they so insecure about their sexuality?

TimK · 4 months ago

Yes. Yes, they are. And so are their commanders. All the way to the top.

dula · 4 months ago

Yeah, it starts to make me wonder about Obama's sexuality...he doth protest too much.

caphillprof · 4 months ago

Yes, there are huge sexual problems on the putatively "heterosexual" rank and file. One of my sources reports an incredible modesty within the locker rooks of gyms at DOD facilities. Another says that the only way to end DADT would be for a Commander in Chief to order sex education as part of basic training, not homosexual awareness but actual human sexual biology.

Topher · 4 months ago

This is where I see this going. I don't think it will go as far as separate water fountains, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a "no serving in close combat" type of restriction, similar to the case for women; whom I belive have worked their way into some types of combat positions through the years. Translator jobs, administrative postions, state side office jobs,you know--"gays' work"--will be okay for now. That is a "change" in the policy. Is this what they are brewing up? If so, it will be an interesting watermark of how supportive our straight allies are. Will "sensible" limitation of assignment based on sexual identity be acceptable to the majority of Americans?

Drew2u · 4 months ago

"Translator jobs"? You mean they'll keep gays who speak foreign languages instead of discharging them? Better get Lt. Choi on the phone...

mikeyDe · 4 months ago

What next? A blasphemy law?

DougStamate · 4 months ago

Regarding the various statements already made about how polls show that support for repealing/changing DADT: what do the polls show about healthcare reform? They all show support for a public option of anywhere from 55% to well over 60%. So that means there's no problem about having a public option included, is there? There is? But, but...
Well, that's obviously all President Obama's fault, then. Not the Republicans who vote in lockstep against any and every administration bill and would against any change in DADT; no matter what the polls say. Nor the "centrist" Democrats, trying to show that they're not rampaging "SF liberals". And then there are the "Blue Dog" Democrats; mostly fiscal conservatives, but some represent socially conservative districts, too. Without a lot of preparation, getting a majority of Representatives to vote to change DADT is not a sure thing. By the way, how many of theose poll-obedient Representatives have signed onto Murphy's bill? I thought so...
As for the Administration going from "repeal" to "changing" in regards to DADT: repeal DADT and you're back to no gays or lesbians allowed in the military. At all. I was there and it wasn't nice. For any progress to made, the law has to be changed, not repealed. And that is up to Congress.
Another thing: try to imagine just how much push there would still be to change this law if its' effects weren't being felt? As crappy as it may seem, every time someone is forced out of the military solely because of their sexuality, it becomes a just a tinier bit easier to change DADT. It will do no good to have President Obama propose a legislative change to DADT and then have it defeated in the House or Senate and, to be brutally honest, if he ameliorates the effects before a change in the law, we just might not get that change for another three or four years. If then. After all, what's the problem if no one is being kicked out because the President has banned it? "Can't satisfy some people, I guess" is what you'll hear from those members of Congress afraid of fighting an election after supporting ANY "controversial" vote. There are a lot of such members and the RNC and its' offspring will do their best, regardless of the polls, to make that vote seem "controversial" at election time.
Our best strategy is to keep the heat on our members of Congress by telling them that the ATM is closed until DADT is changed so that gays/lesbians may serve their country openly and proudly.

Gridlock · 4 months ago

I'm sure they'll give it a spiffy new name when they 'change' it too.. like "Didn't ask, don't care"

pacnwjay · 4 months ago

I suppose, it's the lack of leadership that galls the most.

No one would deny that health care, DADT, DOMA-repeal are difficult political nuts to crack. But EVERYTHING in DC is a difficult issue... unless you want to re-name a post office or celebrate "national peanut butter day".

During the campaign, Obama picked up OUR banner and led us to the polls. He didn't have to do that... he chose to. Now he points to Congress and says, "they have to do the work." And, of course, that's partially true. But if he's not going to carry the banner and LEAD, why would Congress think he felt any urgency to act on these issues?

Perhaps just as troubling? He seems to be doing the same with health care. And Bush-era crime.

When good, positive, big stuff comes out of DC, it's because a President wrestled Congress and won.

FastAndBulbous · 4 months ago

John: I understand the rationale behind gay.americablog.com. Do you think it'd be possible to somehow create a combined RSS feed of both the original Ablog and the new site? This way, lazy schmucks like me still have one place to get everything.

Thanks.

John Aravosis · 4 months ago

That's interesting. I have no idea if and how that's possible, though. There must be some service that offers it, but again not sure.

paulesso · 4 months ago

I vote to keep gay.ameriblog.com as it is, I like.

rangertodd · 4 months ago

I don't know why some national group doesn't sponsor a national coming out campaign in which members of the armed forces both current and past who want to come out do so in an ad in the New York Times, USA Today and Washington Post. Imagine if a few thousand current members of the armed forces came out in one ad and the political pressure it would create.

tlsintx · 4 months ago

dear Reporters:

John and Joe have done all the hard work for you. Now just ask Obama about this for us. simple!

AR_HillBilly · 4 months ago

Not sure if anyone reported on this:


ALLIES' STANCE CITED IN US GAYS-IN-MILITARY DEBATE

NEW YORK – When it comes to dealing with gay personnel in the ranks, the contrasts are stark among some of the world's proudest, toughest militaries — and these differing approaches are invoked by both sides as Americans renew debate over the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090713/ap_on_re_us...

Mateo1970 · 4 months ago

It was embarrassing to see closeted Anderson Cooper blush and then move away from any follow-ups as fast as he could. When CNN's African-American anchors do segments on civil rights, they speak openly of their experiences as African-Americans and wouldn't show fake respect to some in the KKK (the equivalent of Tony Perkins).

Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas · 4 months ago

Well said...fuck you Anderson...fuck you for staying in the closet and playing footsie tootsie in such an interview.

thecrustybastard_blogspot_com · 4 months ago

I want to see this law changed too. Sooner rather than later.

But I'm just some dipshit with 1 vote. You're the most powerful man on Earth, and not coincidentally, the commander-in-chief of this military adversely affected, by your own admission, because of this idiotic policy. Your party also controls the legislature.

So please. Pretty please with sugar on top. Quit acting so fucking coy, like your goddam hands are tied. Dick.

This shit would NOT fly with any other constituency. Imagine BO telling hispanics: "I want to put a latina on the Supreme Court, but until such a person is palatable with white, male judicial conservatives, I'm forced to appoint another white guy. Someday, though — because I'd really like to see it."

We are the architects of our own misery by giving Democrat backstabbers our support.

We get what we deserve.

Arachnae · 4 months ago

I think you're getting hung up on the word 'repeal'. And frankly, you don't want DADT 'repealed' - you want another law to supercede it. Because when you repeal a law, you revert to the situation prior to the law, which is this case was a total ban on gays in the military.

Charel · 4 months ago

From what I see of your president, I can't help thinking that his views are more in line with the views of the black community than those of mainstream public opinion.
He seems to be scared of gays in general and only used them to get elected.
See also his pronouncements on gay marriage and his reluctance to do anything effective to scrap inequality, as prescribed in the constitution, at all costs.

timncguy · 4 months ago

Anderson Cooper, professional reporter / interviewer... thought to be reasonably intelligent...

But, he apparently doesn't recognize the change in language from "repeal" to "change" and ask for an explanation of what this change in language means?

WTF


This problem occurs with a majority of reporters. Why is this? Are they not prepared for interviews properly? Don't they do their homework and understand the background ofthe issues they plan to discuss? Shouldn't they recognize these inconsistencies and be prepared to ask follow-ups? If not, shouldn't someone with more knowledge of the subject matter be doing the interview?

Are restrictions put on them in order to gain access? If they are, shouldn't these restrictions be announced at the beginning of the piece so the viewer is informed of them?

This is all way to frustrating. If news organizations were doing their jobs properly, these kinds of unresolved questions would not be left unexplored at the end of an interview.

superstition · 2 weeks ago

Reporters from the mainstream media are supposed to be stenographers who give credibility to whatever lies are being put to the American public.

They're supposed to provide the pretense of accountability.

Bill_Perdue · 4 months ago

The real reason has nothing to do with partisan equivocations or legalese. It has everything to do with the fact that during his campaign, helped by the pandering expertise of bigots like Joshua Dubois and Leah Daughtry, Obama was able to capture many of the southern baptists, mormons and catholics back from the Republicans.

"gawd's in the mix" was his battle cry and it got him the bigot vote and torpoeded our chance to defeat Prop 8.

He's not about to do anything that might drive those bigots back to the Republicans.

We're paying the price for Obama role as the perfect Clinton clone.

blue cube · 4 months ago

But Hillary would have lied to gay people and betrayed them even worse, right?

JustaLawya · 4 months ago

Given that there's at least a colorable argument that DADT (especially when compared to DOMA) is unconstitutional given that it potentially interferes with the CIC power, wouldn't this be the exact type of situation in which the executive could step in and refuse to uphold it? Or couldn't he invoke the CIC power, say it's a national security issue, and then make the other side fight for it?

thecrustybastard_blogspot_com · 4 months ago

Yes on both accounts, but in this interview, he's now professing that (as a constitutional scholar) he DOESN'T question the constitutionality of DADT.

Which is consistent with his other statements that he's personally okay with teh gheys, and that he's philosophically in favor of gay equality in certain ways (but not the M word), but dangit — it really is a bummer that gays have such a cross to bear, and y'all totally have his sympathy for sure.

But y'know, that's not HIS fault, so it's not HIS problem to solve.

mikekil · 3 months ago

blue cube Hillary at least had a pair. Of course everyone said "she's mean, she' a bitch". Maybe a bitch is just what we needed. Obama's a typical democrat. Not just republicans are to blame for the last 8 years, democrats are just as much to blame for letting them get away with it. Even now when they have no real power their still setting the agenda!!! When will democrats stop being such god-damned pussy's!!

superstition · 2 weeks ago

Hillary told a group of lesbians at a campaign stop in her first Senate run that they didn't deserve the word marriage.

She had a pair. A pair of play books. One is the DNC's. The other is Bill Clinton's.

bobfromtahoe · 3 weeks ago

Obama orders his administration NOT TO ENFORCE marijuana laws in medical-use states, but he MUST ENFORCE Don't Ask Don't Tell because he "has no choice"!?

superstition · 2 weeks ago

Disgusting.