:mad: Shame on you for omitting Roberts and Alito from your prayers.
Why Roberts?
It’s kind of funny that people feel this way since Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was one of the first things he tackled when getting into office.
LGBT stuff with Obama is the perfect example of the Progressive instant gratification culture. Obama hasn’t solved every problem in the first 11 months in office, therefore he doesn’t care about ‘insert offended constituency here.’
No it wasn’t; his not doing so was one of the complaints from the homosexual community. And the perception of him betraying the homosexuals who voted for him started earlier, when he had an intensely anti-gay preacher speak at his inauguration. Imagine the reaction if Bush had had a KKK Grand Imperial Wizard speak at his inauguration - but then, being an anti-gay bigot is more politcally acceptable than being an anti-black one.
It was, he immediately ordered a stay on all DADT precedings. Ordered that nothing new be implemented. He just hasn’t repealed it yet.
The complaints about who spoke at his inauguration are not even worthwhile to mention. The point was bipartisanship. Obama can’t win. If he’s not a progressive extremist then he hates gays. Any right wing preacher would have been non-kosher to them. Therefore their opinions should not be taken into account as valid.
KKK Grand Wizard. :rolleyes:
Obama obviously HAS done things for his gay constituents.
As I said, instant gratification culture. They don’t just want it, they want it NOWNOWNOWNOWNOW! It’s supposed to take precedence over anything else. Otherwise Obama hates the gay community. :rolleyes:
No, the point was sucking up to bigots.
Forgive them for not liking people who want them dead. :rolleyes:
And why is that an unfair comparison?
You cannot use the word bigot and expect me to respond to you. You have overused it.
Who wants them dead? Show me evidence that he wants homosexuals to be killed.
If you can show me evidence that he actively lynched and killed and supported legislation to outlaw homosexuality then the point is valid. If on the other hand he just stuck with Christian dogma and said it’s immoral then it’s not the same at all.
In other words, I point out the obvious and you don’t like it.
Lots of Christians want homosexuals dead; the American Christians supporting Uganda’s anti-gay genocide plan for example. The fact that he refused to condemn Uganda’s plan until pushed into doing so shows where his sympathies are.
And how many KKKers have done any of that these days? And bigotry that is Christian dogma is still bigotry. If you condemn homosexuality, then you are a bigot; your motive is irrelevant.
Right, I knew you couldn’t back up what you had to say. As usual. You’ll just insist that you get to make up a bunch of bullshit and when I don’t believe it it’s because it makes me ‘uncomfortable’.
Come back when have cites, until then. Blah.
Cite from the first google result; I’m sure you can find more yourself if you actually care about the truth. It’s not like any of this is obscure.
Honestly don’t expect me to google anything you write. I assume you’re wrong unless you prove me otherwise. But you went out of character and provided a cite.
This cite doesn’t prove your point about anything.
Agreed. Look, I support gay marriage, but it’s hardly the most important issue right now, in general. Additionally, I think it’s detrimental to the overall LGBT movement that the MSM’s focus has been on this one issue (which is about the only barrier white male homosexuals have to fully integrating into mainstream society), rather than on other issues like homelessness and violence (which Obama addressed with the Matthew Shepard Act).
Hey, she’ll finally find her place–getting paid to say ridiculous bullshit.
Please. Fiorina, even with all her millions, simply can’t win. Plus, Chuck DeVore may pull a Doug Hoffman and siphon off votes from the Republican candidate. In fact, the degree to which the tea party candidates will help Dems by splintering conservative voters should be considered in every race.
I wonder if Lou Dobbs will actually run for anything. If he does, you can bet that he’ll be a high-profile opponent of any immigration reform measures.
Well, 538 is still projecting a Reid hold, but his capitulation on the public option is going to cost him liberal support. OTOH, I have no idea what the Pubs have in storage in Nevada.
THAT’S what we can use Nevada for! Storage of toxic Republicans!
Dear God, no. There are some things you just don’t want to risk leaching into the groundwater.
Apparently Crist is taking in campaign donations hand over fist, so somebody out there likes him. Wouldn’t be surprised at all to see him win. And Reid will probably squeak out a victory; I’m guessing that there are enough people who like the thought of their guy being the one in the Big Chair to keep Reid in place.
Obama and gay rights: the optimist in me says he’s keeping his powder dry while fighting the more contentious battles of healthcare reform and economic recovery, given that open support for LGBT issues is a rallying cry for right-wing opponents. The pessimist in me says Obama’s a crypto-fundamentalist deliberately dragging his feet. It is, however, still way too early in the game to tell which view is right.
It’s interesting that according to the OP and/or Newsweek, “ultraconservatives” will have an important say in which Republicans get elected/re-elected, but there are no “ultraliberals” mentioned as influencing any Democratic races.
Guess there aren’t any. :dubious:
Well, it’s been pretty consistently stated on this board that the fringe right has far more political power than the equivalent fringe left. Whether or not that’s true, it appears to be the prevailing perception, and in all honesty I haven’t seen any evidence for ultraliberals being any kind of political force.
Immigration won’t even be raised in 2010.
Of course. Liberals are reasoned and moderate. It’s only conservatives that even have ultras-.
The problem with that sort of argument is that for the vast majority of problems, “X isn’t the most important problem right now” is always going to be true. Waiting until there aren’t more important problems means waiting forever. And since when on a civil rights issue has waiting until the bigots see reason worked? Civil rights are something you have to demand, regardless of who is offended or you’ll never get them at all.
That’s a distortion. Neither Bosstone nor anyone else said that.