Internet convention is that if you do not specify a post you are asssumed to be responding to the post preceding it. And by this remark I am of course referring to Post #189.
Nonetheless, the point is valid.
Complaining that Obama hasn’t done enough when he’s done far more than anyone else in the position (and potentially more than is politically good for him) is perhaps a cathartic means of grumbling about the state of things but ends up blaming the wrong guy. Heck, I’ve certainly complained about Obama dragging his feet on LGBTetc issues. But this thread is about the Log Cabin Republicans, who seem to think that the best alternative for Obama’s lack of sufficient progress is to vote for a guy who will reverse course at maximum speed. Their complaints about Obama’s stance on LGBTetc issues are bizarre - it’s like cutting your head off to spite your face.
And how any of that translates to “Don’t question the Messiah!” is still unclear to the rest of us.
I think he’d rather have the argument he can win, rather than the argument we’re having.
Great equivocation there from Romney’s former aide. As far as I’m aware, the far left aren’t trying to get an amendment to define Republicans as heterosexuals, prevent them from serving in the military, from marrying or from having children. They probably just advocate switching parties. Which is precisely what this guy’s profession was prior to being ousted.
[QUOTE=Condescending Robot]
Messiah-President
[/QUOTE]
Of course, I never said anything like that (except my tongue-in-cheek reference to his “moral perfection”) but I guess you’ve picked up on the typical strategy of claiming that anyone who says anything good about the President must think he’s the second coming. Congrats, did you learn that at the Free Republic?
Your complaint boils down to him failing to engage in actions that would either accomplish zilch beyond alienating voters or else would get him kicked out of office. You basically sound like every other dumb whiny high school student who’s full of angst at every person perceived as an authority figure and can’t even come up with a real justification.
At first I read that as “an amendment to define Republicans as homosexuals” which would be hilarious. A waste of taxpayer time and money, but hilarious.
It’s just an advanced form of the playground taunt “If you love X so much, why don’t you marry him/her/it?”. And I think we should give it all the due consideration that its original form merited.
Yeah, well I love Freedom so much I am going to marry it.
And ask its mother and her partner to dance at the reception. And get its flamboyant uncle Wendell a water chestnut wrapped in bacon, and join its Roller Derby team in singing a kareoke version of YMC… oh, wait, then Freedom won’t be as free. Okay, forget the whole thing.