Day by Day, Law by Law, Mind by Changing Mind

Never underestimate the long-term effects of small, unnoticed acts and omissions. The previous administration used under-the-radar acts to chip away at any rights or recognition of GLBT's. It's great to see things go the other way.

No thanks to Obama whose DOJ compared us to pedophiles and incest.
Not to mention pressuring Rep. Hastings when he tried to end DADT.
And who can forget Obama's opposition to the equal right of marriage.
These advances aren't because of Obama, they are in spite of him.

Friday, June 12, 2009
Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-just...

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) said yesterday that he withdrew an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that would have weakened the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy because of “pressure” from the White House and some “congressional colleagues.” Hastings’ amendment would have prohibited “spending money to investigate or discharge members of the military who reveal they are homosexual or bisexual.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/30/hastings-...

"I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman."
- Barack Obama

(From the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Presidential questionnaire)

So I take it, Robert, that you loved the treatment we got from the Bushies? That you wish McCain/Palin were now in charge?

nhjeff wrote:

So I take it, Robert, that you loved the treatment we got from the Bushies? That you wish McCain/Palin were now in charge?

It is not an either/or proposition unless you choose it to be, I voted for the Green Party.

nhjeff wrote:

So I take it, Robert, that you loved the treatment we got from the Bushies? That you wish McCain/Palin were now in charge?

Legitimate criticism of the current administration in no way implies support for someone else. This kind of rhetorical questioning is illustrative of someone who doesn't have a logical counterargument, and thus must resort to the sort of intellectual dishonesty that makes me want to puke.

Oh, and people really ought to learn to recognize propaganda when they see it.

Seriously, it's written by Brian Bond, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement.

"Public Engagement", meaning he's one of the White House propaganda chiefs.

But keep drinking that Kool-Aid,'kay?

Robert wrote:

<quoted text>
It is not an either/or proposition unless you choose it to be, I voted for the Green Party.

You're welcome to vote for the Green Party. Their level of support demonstrates the importance of their message, even if they don't win.

But in the end, we have to work with the administration we have, not the one we wish we had. The fact is that this is the most gay-positive administration in US history. let's give credit when due, and let's continue to yell, scream, and demonstrate about all the open items on the agenda.

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
You're welcome to vote for the Green Party. Their level of support demonstrates the importance of their message, even if they don't win.
But in the end, we have to work with the administration we have, not the one we wish we had. The fact is that this is the most gay-positive administration in US history. let's give credit when due, and let's continue to yell, scream, and demonstrate about all the open items on the agenda.

For me, it is not about winning at any cost but about supporting the correct positions.
I'll work with anyone however when they actively campaign against my interests I will fight back, regardless of what party they represent.

Inquisitarian wrote:

Seriously, it's written by Brian Bond, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement.
"Public Engagement", meaning he's one of the White House propaganda chiefs.
But keep drinking that Kool-Aid,'kay?

Thanks for all of your comments.....I judged them as helpful and that I agree but for some reason only the negative judgments about my comments are appearing....strange that.

Robert wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for all of your comments.....I judged them as helpful and that I agree but for some reason only the negative judgments about my comments are appearing....strange that.

When you continually denigrate every forward movement by the current administration regardless of it's historical nature or major forward movement such as the recent hate crime legislation it certainly appears that you are, in fact, the expert when it comes to negative judgements.

It is truly amazing that so many gay people suffer from battered wives syndrome. They accept the belief that they are not truly equal and should be appreciative of any small gesture.
Then add to that the numerous Obama apologists who want to give him credit for bills that were in the legislature before he was even in office. They will argue that he signed the bill and didn't have to which only highlights how little they view their own self worth, exactly like women who suffer from abused wives syndrome.
These people don't base their opinions on facts or logic but resort to name calling such as "pajama wearing, internet left fringe".

So the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes bill is a small gesture. Right! If you think the White Houses fingerprints aren't all over this bill you'd be dead wrong. Some gay people are so small minded and fixated on their "I want it all and I want all the ice cream right now! syndrome they just can't wrap their heads around forward movement. You can keep your pajamas, I sleep commando!

Robert wrote:

It is truly amazing that so many gay people suffer from battered wives syndrome. They accept the belief that they are not truly equal and should be appreciative of any small gesture.
Then add to that the numerous Obama apologists who want to give him credit for bills that were in the legislature before he was even in office. They will argue that he signed the bill and didn't have to which only highlights how little they view their own self worth, exactly like women who suffer from abused wives syndrome.
These people don't base their opinions on facts or logic but resort to name calling such as "pajama wearing, internet left fringe".

Give one example of how the "white house's figerprints are all over this bill" please?

Robert wrote:

Give one example of how the "white house's figerprints are all over this bill" please?

Attaching it to the defense bill, PURE Rom!

You DO realize that there are NO bills at the beginning of each legislative session don't you.

TomInElPaso wrote:

<quoted text>
Attaching it to the defense bill, PURE Rom!
You DO realize that there are NO bills at the beginning of each legislative session don't you.

Actually, the credit for that strategy belongs to Ted Kennedy. It had passed in the House last year as a stand alone measure, but didn't have a chance in the Republican controlled Senate. Kennedy attached it to the Defense bill in the Senate as an amendment on a voice vote, but it got taken out during the conference committee under threat of a Bush veto over its inclusion. THIS Administration deserves credit for signaling its willingness to allow the strategy to work this year when it backfired last year. Even with a 60 vote majority in the Senate, there was no guarantee that the bill would have passed if it had not been amended to the Defense bill again and Obama's going along was what guaranteed its eventual passage...

So basically you want to give Obama's administration credit for not blocking it.....that is very white of you.