--From Reuters, via Drudge--
With incentives like this, how can any homosexual be a Democrat, or like myself, an Independent? The writing is on the wall people, we must become Republicans and join the Log Cabin! Look at the benefits!
UPDATE:
I've filled out my change of party application and sent it in. I may have overdone the postage, but the purple-heart stamps seemed especially appropriate:
It's only safe to be "out" in the Republican Party.
8 comments:
o-m-g!
The first comment on the article says:
"Is this a joke that the writer forgot to remove prior to publication or what??? I’ve read and re-read the article and this sentence really seems out of place, is not factual since belonging to a group like the LCR is not a grounds for discharge under the current DADT."
And now the sentence has been deleted.
I think it's pretty clear that the answer to the commenter's question is "Yes."
"But if you have to do with one of those people who, possessed with a mania of discussion, commence by contradicting before they hear, and who are always ready to sustain the contrary opinion, yield to him; you will have nothing to gain with him. Be assured that the spirit of contradiction can be conquered only by silence."
This is ironic coming from you.
Wow, this post is so bogus, but consider the source. yeah we all know how gay friendly the GOP, especially the Christian right. The cleverness of this post is overwhelmed bu it's innate stupidity
jaltcoh: And now the sentence has been deleted.
I think it's pretty clear that the answer to the commenter's question is "Yes."
I'm afraid you are mistaken. The sentence wasn't removed, the entire article was removed and replaced with another one! Originally it was about the Log Cabin Republican's case to overturn DADT and what the Justice Department wanted the judge to rule after loosing.
The Obama administration wanted the ruling to apply ONLY to members of the Log Cabin Republicans. That's what they were fighting for.
The original article also had statements from the Press Secretary saying how Obama was still a fierce advocate for gays and he was only doing this because it was "tradition".
But, as you can see, the entire article has been redacted--makes me think twice about anything I read in Reuters!
jaltcoh: This is ironic coming from you.
And now it's ironic coming from you!
Jakester: Wow, this post is so bogus, but consider the source.
The White House?
Let me tell you about a delectable predicament I find myself in. You see, being a registered Republican I am on their mailing and phone lists and when they call, asking for money I am happy to tell them exactly why they wont be getting any, and how the Log Cabin Republicans or individual candidates will.
Post a Comment