What a bunch of dicks. Somehow revised position is “offensive and callous”. No mention of how many in their own party would have them imprisoned for homosexual acts – forget about support for gay marriage.
Nice to see they hate Obama more than they love their own rights.
“Log Cabin Repubicans” – boy, they ain’t goin’ for subtle, are they?
“So, how many logs have you had in your cabin, Senator?”
I agree they are dicks and honestly I never understood them. To me it is akin to a black man supporting the KKK. Makes no sense.
That said I would agree that Obama’s announcement, while welcome, is politically timed (which makes it calculating) and Obama has been underwhelming in his advocacy for gay rights (witness his heel dragging on DADT).
Late to the party is better than never but neither do I think Obama deserves hearty “atta boys” either. A polite thanks and then move on.
How did he drag his heels? He insisted on a legislative solution, which makes it much harder to reverse than an executive order. How was that not the best possible solution (to DADT, I mean)?
Here is one instance:
He had a chance to repeal DADT and didnt at first. He did later, but balked at his first attempt.
He alienated a lot of people in the L&G community
If Romney announced he was for gay marriage the same people would be having parades of course. Quisling fuckers.
Hijack: It would be interesting to see how the Mormons would react if Romney made such a pronouncement (not that I think he would- total Joseph Smith Piss flavored Kool Aid Drinker that he is). On the one hand it goes against everything that worthless herd believes in, but on the other this is likely their one chance ever to spawn a president and he doesn’t need their money and breaking with the church would gain him as many votes as it would lose him. So it would be interesting to see how they dealt with it.
What was the first attempt?
According to this the first attempt was filibustered- why is that Obama’s fault? And why does it really matter if it failed the first time, considering that he pushed hard and succeeded the second time?
What do you think of what Obama did as mentioned in Post #6?
I’ll note the title says “yet again” suggesting this is not the first instance but I am running out and don’t have time to look it up just now.
I don’t know- I don’t fully understand what happened (I don’t fully follow the language used by the article- maybe it’s the term “a stay on the order until the close of the business day”), and how Obama was involved. That may have been part of the agreement he made with various Senators and military leaders- that it would not be implemented immediately all at once- in order to get their support. The article certainly doesn’t offer a better explanation- is there ANY explanation? And do we know that this was directed by Obama, and not just some odd bureaucratic move?
From my own experience in the Navy, military bureaucratic requirements change slowly and agonizingly.
Meh, they hate themselves more than anyone. Nothing but pity for those poor self-loathing souls.
Im going from memory here so please forgive if I am not correct. I believe it was before the filibuster that Obama had the opportunity to repeal the act. He balked.
This sticks out in my mind because my buddy said he would never vote for him again after that (yes, he is gay).
If I remember correctly, at that time, Repubs didnt have the voting ability to stop the change.
All I remember is his ranting at Obama. He felt betrayed
…and the people here at the Dope would be bitching about flip flopping and political motivations. Partisan politics in the 21st century, I’m stunned. You must be new to the US. Welcome.
Obama could have (I believe) used an executive order to end it. But he didn’t want to- he wanted a legislative solution- which was filibustered the first time. I’m not aware of any other legislative opportunity he had.
Considering the outcome, I think his strategy was good and the correct one.
Frankly, I agree with the first part,
I disagree with the second part,
Au contraire, it is now that this is needed the most.
And I agree again, at least until I see proof otherwise, on the third part,
And of course I agree that if it were Romney saying the exact same words, this organization would have a completely different reaction. So they are to some extent hypocrites, and clearly they are Republicans first and gay second (I don’t quite follow how they manage that in their heads), but they are not without some justice in their observations.
Roddy
Any idea how many Log Cabin Republicans there might actually be? I’m putting the over/under at about 500…
Nope, too low. I can’t find specific #s, but they claim about 22 state chapters.
So, at least 22 of them.
Or since they’re rich, maybe 11 with summer homes.