E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSObama announces support for same-sex marriage, but walks a careful line to respect states’ rights and religious views – always with an eye on the middle. … Obama was going to do this, but Biden expedited this… And, of course, the politics – in short, this ain’t 2004. Gay marriage isn’t the divisive issue it was eight years ago, but there’s always risk in overreach. … It was another day not talking about the economy, which can be seen as both pro and con for Obama … and GOP caught a break because stories about whether there’s room for centrists were overshadowed and were not driving the conversation as they would have … On to Wisconsin, more than $23 million spent – most in support of Walker (a full ad buy breakdown) … Dems try for show of unity, and Scott Walker’s focused on – manufacturing.
From NBC's Chuck Todd, Domenico Montanaro, Natalie Cucchiara, Carrie Dann, and Brooke Brower
Brendan Smialowski / AFP - Getty Images
President Barack Obama speaks during an "In Performance at the White House" concert in the East Room of the White House May 9, 2012.
*** Obama’s careful line: We said earlier this week that after Vice President Biden’s comments on Meet the Press, it was hard to see -- with the Clooney fundraiser in Hollywood tonight and the Ricky Martin fundraiser Monday -- how President Obama goes the entire week without saying something on same-sex marriage. And yesterday, he announced he believes “same-sex couples should be able to get married,” making Obama the first American president to hold that stance. But the president, always with the middle in mind, was very careful to be sensitive to the issues of states’ rights and religion. That blunted a lot of the potential criticism from the GOP that might have come on federal overreach, etc. The White House made it clear; it’s not going to make any sort of effort at the federal level advance this. If same-sex marriage advances on a national level, it will likely be decided by the courts rather than Congress. There’s always risk in overreach. Remember, 39 states have some form of a ban on gay marriage. That’s why you saw Obama more careful yesterday than some have noted in the coverage.
In an interview with Good Morning America's Robin Roberts, President Obama announced his personal support for same-sex marriage. NBC's Chuck Todd reports on the announcement and its likely fallout.
*** Biden – God love him: Obama told staffers a few months ago of his change, according to aides, and that he wanted his team to figure out an appropriate time to tell the country. But aides to the president admit that Biden’s comments Sunday expedited things. “I had already made a decision that we were going to take this position before the election and before the convention,” Obama said on ABC this morning. “He probably got out a little bit over his skis, but out of a generosity of spirit. … Would I have preferred to have done this in my own way, on my own terms without there being a lot of notice to everybody, sure.” The announcement was done hastily and out of political expediency of this week. They were going to do this before the election, maybe before the convention. But they had to do it this week to stop this line potentially of the president looking weak.
*** This isn’t 2004 -- the political impact of all this: If there’s any impact on all this, it’s at the margins and it’s on enthusiasm and intensity. The gay community probably feels more connected to the president and more fired up than ever before. Social conservatives, as Tony Perkins noted yesterday on Nightly News, who feel that feel traditional marriage is being eroded, they will feel the need to get behind Romney in a way they haven’t before. But this is not 2004, and that was evidenced by GOP reaction yesterday. The only line of attack you heard from establishment GOP was on process – why and how the president did it. The only people you heard from attacking Obama because of the POSITION he took were from the usual suspects in the social conservative wing – Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, NOM. But there have been several high-profile Republicans who have come out in favor of same-sex marriage, including former Vice President Dick Cheney and former RNC Chairman and Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman. Even former President George W. Bush, who pushed for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in 2004, has since said he’s in favor of civil unions.
*** Romney re-states opposition: Romney didn’t look like someone thinking this was an automatic help for him politically. He re-stated his position: “My view is that marriage itself is a relationship between a man and a woman, and that's my own preference. I know other people have differing views.” But noted: “This is a very tender and sensitive topic….” He seemed to relish the fact that his position hasn’t changed his position – he’s always been against same-sex marriage, though in 1994, signaled stronger support for gay rights. The president, by contrast, has changed twice. In 1996, he indicated support in a questionnaire, then reversed course in his 2004 Senate race, and in 2008, he argued for civil unions. The White House argues that if this somehow is a political debate, they’ll be on the right side of it, because it believes Romney’s position on wanting a federal BAN on it goes too far and is more unpopular than where the president is now. They’ll paint him as wanting to take the country backward, going with their “Forward” campaign. (And it makes that point today in a web video.) But neither side thinks it has a “winning” position.
*** Near-term political danger for Obama, Romney: It’s a given now that this will be a plank of Democratic platform at the convention. The campaign is owning it now. The issue has the danger politically – in the near term – for Obama of looking like he’s not focused on the economy. Any day, he doesn’t appear focused on the economy, is not necessarily a winning day for him. On the other hand, Republicans would argue that he’s purposely not talking about the economy, because it’s another day not talking about the struggling economy. The challenge for Romney in next 48 hours will be making sure that the same thing that happened on contraception doesn’t happen on gay marriage. He doesn’t need the Rush Limbaughs of the world going bonkers on this today and Romney having to defend comments from the rhetorical extremes. That’s Romney’s internal challenge – and one he has little control over -- that his party doesn’t go down the rabbit hole on this.
*** The other good news for Republicans – distracting from centrist story line: The president’s comments overshadowed the debates that would have been taking place today – of whether there is any room for moderates in the Republican Party, following the Indiana results. In a weird way, that is a small victory for them. Any day with a lot of stories in the news and headlines about the lack of centrists is NOT a good day for the GOP as it tries to re-appeal to suburbia. And there would have been yesterday, and it would have had (and still has) the potential to be a real issue for swing voters. It’s why you see the Obama campaign try to tie Romney to anything the GOP and outside groups do and say.
*** More than $23 million already spent in Wisconsin: The next 26 days are going to be among the most political toxic in the state of Wisconsin that we’ve seen in years, perhaps decades. More than $23.4 million in ads have been booked SO FAR in Wisconsin, and the REAL race is just getting underway. Ads supporting Gov. Scott Walker (R) have dominated with those groups booking $15.3 million in ads spent so far versus $6.7 million spent on the other side. Walker, who has raised $25 million for his bid, has been the biggest spender going up with $9.4 million in ads. Others of note: Right Direction Wisconsin (affiliated with the Republican Governor’s Association) $3.6 million; Wisconsin for Falk (backed by labor) $3.4 million; Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (pro-Walker); Americans for Prosperity (Koch Bros. backed), Greater Wisconsin Committee (pro-Dem), and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett have all spent more than $1 million.
*** Get ready for the sequel: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel sets the table: “Voters, get ready for the sequel. The historic recall election rematch between Gov. Scott Walker and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is just four weeks away, and compared with 2010 it's already more costly, harder fought and more driven by resources flowing in from outside Wisconsin.” Barrett and his former Democratic challengers gathered outside his home yesterday in a show of unity a day after the primary. By the way, check out what Walker is focusing on… “While the Democrats circled the wagons, Walker had events across the state to promote the state’s manufacturing sector, dubbing this week ‘Manufacturing Awareness Week,’” the Wisconsin State Journal writes.
Countdown to Wisconsin recall election: 26
Countdown to Arizona 8 (Giffords seat) special election: 33
Countdown to Utah Senate primary: 47 days
Countdown to Election Day: 180 days
Get the NBC Politics app. Download it now here for your iPad or iPhone.
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
A President's support is more than symbolically important, and President Obama is the first and only President to come out in favor of 100% equality for LGBT folks.
President Obama has "always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated equally."
Rachel Maddow attested and spoke emotionally last night, about how President Obama has been steadily working to improve the lives of LGBT folks since he came into office.
American support for civil rights for gay folks is increasing. Hopefully more and more states will finally give gays and lesbians the equal treatment and equal recognition they deserve.
We all have moments where a decision is no longer a decision and we have to go forward. On Tuesday, North Carolina became the 30th state to adopt a constitutional amendment to stop same-sex marriage AS WELL AS same-sex civil unions. Other states are attempting to make it legal to disriminate further against gay and lesbian people in the name of "religious freedom."
However, our V-P Biden and President Obama have taken the higher moral ground. LGBT rights are civil rights and in a country priding itself on fairness, every adult must have the right to marry the person of his or her choosing.
My, who knew Willard was such a merry prankster, bully & a homophobe?
No wonder the regulars on this board endorse him!
This is incident is a glaring reminder of what it wrong in this country!
Thank you Mr. President for doing the right thing!
However, our V-P Biden and President Obama have taken the higher moral ground. LGBT rights are civil rights and in a country priding itself on fairness, every adult must have the right to marry the person of his or her choosing.
Great point Backhouse.
You also pointed out some of what was seen last night on Maddows' program. I thought it was a good program. I also enjoyed the Last Word. I thought his guests did an excellent job of stating what the president did was not only the right thing to do but very gutsy as well. It takes a very special person to do what Obama did and I am thankful we have someone with his fortitude as our president. And it was fantastic to be able to see Krystal (WOW; Stunningly beautiful) Ball on the program.
It's flatly amazing that the search for truth is a subject of ridicule. At the moment, right-wingers can't tolerate the notion that President Obama's views on marriages for homosexuals has evolved. Now, isn't that a subject for ridicule - shaping your views to comport with change, with facts, with new information? Isn't it a subject for ridicule to see things outside a world of black and white?
They can't stand the idea that another group has a new champion in its fight for a right that the majority of us take for granted. How foolish we are to forget that our rights - all of them - are not given to us without battles. Indeed, wars.
Our rights are not a gift. We have to take them. We have to fight for them. It's not simply that we have forgotten about fights and wars for rights. In many cases we don't even know about them. We casually speak about our unalienable rights: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our forefathers fought for those rights, and that fight continues to this day, and we don't even know it.
Life is not an unalienable right. Otherwise, we would not have the death penalty. Liberty? Where is the liberty for a woman who is forced to carry a rapist's child to term. The pursuit of happiness? Ask the LBGT community about that.
When you get right down to cases, the line between unalienable rights and civil rights is very, very gray, and very fluid. Is it any wonder that a thoughtful citizen is going to have views that evolve? Not all that long ago, the right to vote was granted only to those who were white males, who were landed, who were 21 and free. No one else could vote. There's certainly been a lot of evolving there.
Marriage isn't a hell of a lot different in that respect. Only the totally uninformed can talk about a "traditional marriage" as one between a man and a woman. Until little more than a decade ago, a ten-year-old girl could be married in Kansas. Ten-years-old? A woman? Until fairly recently, men with dark skin could not marry women with light skin. Until recently, bigamy was an acceptable practice in the Mormon community. "Traditional Marriage"? There's certainly been a lot of evolving there.
The majority of us are heterosexual. We were jolted, if not revolted, the first time we saw two people of the same sex kissing. It just didn't seem right. Most of us can't shake that view completely. Yet, as little boys or little girls, the thought of kissing one of the opposite sex was pretty darned revolting too. For most of us, that changed. Big time. Something happened and suddenly kissing someone of the opposite sex didn't seem revolting at all. In fact, we liked it.......a lot. We didn't choose to like girls or boys. It just happened. It's not a choice.
As hard as it is to accept, the same is true of LBGT's. They don't sit down in their room and pluck flower petals. "I'm gay. I'm not gay. I'm gay. I'm not gay." Like heteros who find they are attracted to the opposite sex, one day it becomes clear to gays that members of their own sex attract them. That's how it works. Mother Nature has no respect for the rules we make. She runs the show.
If that's hard to understand, love is even harder to understand. We can't define it. We can't just make it happen. If we are fortunate enough to find it, many of us wish to enshrine that thing of rare beauty in marriage. It's not about sex. It's about love.
The President has simply come to accept what many of us already know.
Backhouse, terrific post. President Obama's verbal support of same-sex marriage begins the national conversation.
I don't recall the name of the state legislator or even the very red state but he argued eloquently and powerfully against denying gays and lesbians rights. He put down the Biblical argument by stating that if gays and lesbians are sinners and evil, why does God keep making them.
nomoresameo wrote: "It takes a very special person to do what Obama did and I am thankful we have someone with his fortitude as our president."
This President Obama sees us and he sees the big picture. Sometimes we encounter a truly kind person who listens closely to what we have to say.
I can't believe he said this!
I normally ignore the pronouns politicians use because they all have inflated egos but this one made my jaw drop.
"when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf "
Doesn't he mean on OUR behalf?
I'm sure the members of of our national forces will be glad to know they are now some form of Praetorian Guard.
nomoresameo, good points about both shows and I agree. David Walker, terrific post.
Wonderful post by all. Well almost all. And Wow, what a Great President we have, in standing up for Equal Rights for all.
Today, while others debate the wisdom and timing of the President's announcement on gay marriage, I want to concentrate on Rush Limbaugh. I would love to hear those from the right defend his remark yesterday that President Obama, by coming out in favor of gay marriage, has "declared war" on traditional marriage.
First, I would like to hear exactly how defending gay marriage is an attack of any kind on traditional marriage?
Or do conservatives believe that gays who can't marry each other will somehow make happy heterosexual marriages? Just how happy would those marriages be, anyway?
Second, I would like someone to explain how Rush's use of the word "war" is NOT unpatriotic, as the right has accused the left of being when the left uses the word "war" to describe the right's policy positions on women.
Or is the word "war" only unpatriotic when liberals use it?
And finally, I would like to hear someone make a case for how Rush Limbaugh, veteran of 4 marriages, of which AT LEAST 3 were unsuccessful, has anything relevant to say about marriage AT ALL.
Because, frankly, I just don't see that.
p.s. As for Mitt Romney, he should try a little tenderness.
When you deny rights for one, you deny them for all. Like Oprah says, "when you know better, you do better".
I know for one that I would be more tolerant of this evolution if the same consideration was given to candidates that become pro-life. However, in this case, one just sees a poll-tested politician change his views to pander to his voting base. Leading from the back indeed.
Oh for Pete's sake, Alan, it is "his" decisions that have them fighting. Nothing like some good old right-wing nitpicking to start the day. Get over it. No, I won't be engaging you any further today so don't expect another response.
Anna Molly, great points, terrific post. Listening to the clip of Mitt Romney yesterday declare that for 3000 years marriage is between a man and a woman, it was pointed out that his grandfather believed it was between a man and however many women he could support.
If you really want to protect traditional marriage, why not stop with preventing gays from getting married? Pass a law making it a federal crime to commit adultery. I'd love to see someone in the House propose such a bill and get it at least to a vote. Let's see if the so-called "family values" conservatives are actually willing to put their money where their mouth is and vote on such a bill. Or how about laws making divorce outside of physical abuse illegal? Adultery and divorce are far more damaging to the institution of marriage than whether Steve wants to marry Ken.
Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon who is trying to drum up controversy to increase his ratings. Glad to see he succeeded in your case by getting you to mention his show.
Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality.
Feisty, I saw that article this morning.
This is the deal.
The presidency for Romney is just one more tricket for his golden chain. That's it.
White, rich, with the blonde wife. 5 photogenic sons.
That's conformity and it's what Mitt believes in with every bone in his body.
Look like me. Act like me. Or else I'm going to do something about it.
Bastard.
To paraphrase Neil Armstrong, and with all due apology --
That's one small flip-flop for President Obama and a great big truckload of flip-flops for Willard Mitt Romney.
Including his flip-flop on gay rights from when he said while running for Senate that he would be to the left of Ted Kennedy on that issue.
Good Morning Anna Molly,
Don't hold your breath - I have been asking for a reasonable response for almost a week now.
So far all I have gotten back from them is, sex with animals, bible banging & the occasional 'faggot' tossed in for extra flare!
In case you haven't already heard, check out Gingerbread Mamma's comment #4 below!
Who would of guessed 'cheeseheads' were so wild & crazy? ;o)
Great Posts Backhouse and Feisty........both of them show the differences in upbring and how they are the men they are today.
I am so proud of President Obama, in an election year,it is a very courageous move. Thank you Mr. President, you give a great legacy to you daughters.
David, good to see you.
You wrote "They don't sit down in their room and pluck flower petals. "I'm gay. I'm not gay. I'm gay. I'm not gay."
Folks are waking up to the fact of human variability. Regardless of how we are put together, we deserve equal rights.
Alan----I took the statement to mean that the President recognizes that in his role as Commander in Chief he has sent our brave military into harm's way. And in doing so is recognizing that they risk their lives and yet can't marry the person of their choice if they are gay.
Thanks, Alan, for pointing out the egocentric "my behalf" line. It struck me, too.
I'm happy Obama's Personal views have "evolved" to support equal rights- now, how about instead of talking, we see a little action?
There's an EO sitting on his desk, waiting for his signature, that would bar government contractors from discriminating against their LGBT employees. He's been ignoring it for some time now.
During the last campaign, Obama told us not to listen to what he said, but to watch what he did. I'm watching. I'm not seeing action to match the words.
Finally- now that Obama has introduced the latest in a series of social issues into the campaign, (I thought it was Republicans who focused on social issues? Gee, what happened?), can we get back to the REAL issue of this campaign?
That would be the economy. I'm not surprised that Obama does not want to address it, but it is what is on everyone's mind. Looks like the trade gap suddenly widened more than economists were expecting- that means the already pitiful GDP rate of 2.2% is going to be revised way down.
I don't think Obama's personal view of gay marriage will have an impact on that.
Jody, Iowa:
1.12. PERFECT!
Find me one other President that has ever said that servicemen were fighting for him. It's a pattern not an isolated incident.
@Steeler
That is the best context you could put it in, that it relates to a decision, but it did not come over that way in an interview that was related to his personal views and evolution. It really did shock me.
The Repugs are all giddy over the fact that our President declared he's in favor of, and supports Gay Marriage. Good for him. He stands up for his beliefs, unlike others we know. And if you Repugs think this is going to make a BIG change in the election. forget it. The majority of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage, so as I recall the majority wins in elections.
You must know that the Religious Nuts, the Bible Thumpers, the Racists, and the Uneducated and Unwashed weren't going to vote for President Obama anyway. So where's the loss? Again I'm proud of our President for standing up for his beliefs and values.
Obama in 2012.
By the way, I have a pretty good idea we're going to be seeing the term "LGBT" a lot today. Can we please just shorten that to "LG"? I mean, c'mon..."bi-sexuals" are basically just straight or gay people who are either EXTREMELY kinky and want the best of both worlds, or are so wishy-washy they can't make up their minds about ANYTHING. In which case, they probably lean more toward their feminine sides.
And the "T" in LGBT? That must be "transgenders"? Puleeze. Those people are just mentally ill sickos who hate themselves. The less said about them the better.
No mention of the major flip-flop in position? All those videos of Obama saying he was against gay marriage before he was for gay marriage. Shades of Johnny Kerry saying "I voted for it before I voted against it".
It appears the media and left wing nutjobs give Liberals a pass on their flip-flops, they term it something called "evolving", which is nothing more than a euphemism for flip-flopping. I guess you Libs will do what ever it takes to get you through your wretched and hypocritical days.
So was Obama lying before about gay marriage (against it) or lying now about gay marriage (for it).
Obama 2012 - "I'll have it both ways"
Rush Limbaugh is like a big fat turd that want flush.
damage Why the hate?
North of Highway 29 it gets pretty wild, Feisty. Thanks for pointing it out. This is my favorite line --
Yeah, crazy liberal nuts daring to exercise their right to vote, and wanting to vote for a woman, at that.
Can you even believe it?
And thanks to Gingerbread Mamma for the original post.
Although, there probably are a few conservatives who will adopt this as a playbook for June 5.
At your peril. LoL
Temper Temper Willard!
The human cucumber lost his cool again yesterday when confronted on topics he doesn’t want to talk about!
If Willard can’t handle softball questions from a junior reporter, you can only imagine him
going ‘nucular’ during the debates;
Sorry Willard, you are in the major league now, contrary to popular belief, you do NOT get to call all the shots!
Jody, yes,
Full civil rights has still not been extended to LGBT folks. And that allows them to be treated -- as second-class citizens.
Feisty; I am outraged, reading that article you posted. If true, Romney is a despicable piece of human debris.
There's a photo over @ DailyKos showing Romney protesting in favor of the draft/Vietnam. The same Romney who didn't serve in Vietnam.
Can you believe it?
The Note:
The website BuzzFeed today unearthed an Associated Press photo showing Romney, 19, holding a sign at a Stanford University protest in support of the draft in the Vietnam War in 1966.
The poster says “Speak out don’t sit in,” ostensibly referring to antiwar protesters at the school who had taken over the president’s office. The organizer of the 150-person protest in California told the website that Romney had spotted the pro-draft demonstration and volunteered to handle situations with the news media. Romney didn’t make the sign, said the organizer, Carey Coulter.
“He walked up to me and said that he had some experience with the press, and that he would handle the press for me if I wanted him to,” Coulter said of Romney. “He just saw the demonstration, was sympathetic to it obviously, and came up.”
His presidential campaign confirmed that Romney is “protesting the protesters” in the photo.
As a Mormon missionary, Romney was exempt from the Vietnam draft. The London Telegraph wrote last month that during his mission in France, Romney lived in a “palace” with two servants, not the image that the candidate conjured when he told supporters that he was “not living high on the hog” and was showering with a hose.
With Obama it's all about him. Narcissism is the embodiment of Obama.
Wow, now you can't even get your one-liner hateful insults right. Thursday is the day we all use English Jobbers. Try to keep up with the schedule, mmkay?
"There's an EO sitting on his desk, waiting for his signature, that would bar government contractors from discriminating against their LGBT employees. He's been ignoring it for some time now.'
And will rightfully continue to do so. Why just sign an Executive Order that his successor could easily overturn, instead of getting it done the right way, as he did with the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell? Instead of complaining about the President not signing executive orders, where are the calls for the Republican Congress to finally pass ENDA and make it official? Why the sudden fondness for executive orders when you've spent the last four years railing against every other one this president has issued because he's taking on too much authority and trying to sneak something through over the objections of our duly elected representatives? You can't have it both ways.
Then again.....given the story NoJoe's been pitching for the last few weeks, I'm still hoping to see a news story today that explains how President Obama is not only the first President to support gay marriage, but the first "dog-eating homophobe" to do so. Of course, I haven't checked the British tabloids yet.....
You may think so but Obama has also flip-flopped on the individual mandate, NAFTA re-negotiation, Medicare negotiating drug prices, card check, indefinite incarceration, phone-tapping, NDAA.
I'm sure this would fill a pretty big truck.
Frankly I could care less if gays can marry. If they love each other enough to make that type of commitment, then they should be allowed to do so. If the word marriage is such a sticking point, then call it a civil union. It is none of my business what they do in their own home. Now can we PLEASE get back to how to fix the economy and the unemployment problem in this country???
It "struck" you? LoL
How many times have you heard soldiers say, "I fought for General Patton, or MacArthur, or Eisenhower, or Petraeus ... or any other general you can think of. Last I heard, President Obama IS the Commander in Chief.
Serioiusly. Sometimes you act like you think YOU are.
Oh, stop. You're spoiling my beautiful metaphor. ;-)
If Willard can’t handle softball questions from a junior reporter, you can only imagine him
going ‘nucular’ during the debates;
Good Morning my dear friend Feisty!! I am looking forward to the start of the debates. Mr. Romney will come away from every debate looking like a buffoon. President Obama will do everything but 'bitch slap' the weasel.
And when Lauber got up, there was an envelop with Bush's military records inside. The label said "For Dan Rather's eyes only".
The NY Times should get some more Seamus the dog stories going. Those are always fun.
Obama 2012 - "I'll say anything to get elected. And if I don't, the Washington Post will"
Republicans, specifically the ultra conservatives, will not be capable of "not going down the rabbit hole". This is gonna get chewed on for 2 or 3 cycles until something else more shiney comes along. The Limbaughs and Perry's and Bachmann's of the party will keep this fire burning because they cannot help themselves. All the while, the majority of "straight" people could care less. Romney's off the economy, so he's out of his comfort zone. Every day he's not talking about jobs and the economy is a day lost. Same for the president.
But really no political points to be scored here. Move on. The presidents liberal base solidifies, everyone says stand up job and moves on. But the conservatives will not let it go, and in my view, Romney is the one who will be trying to hurd the turds, so to speak.
Moderator: President Obama, are you for or against gay marriage?
Obama: No. Yes! No wait, maybe. I really don't know. Let me get back to you after I evolve. Now, if you don't mind, I have to check on my troops that are fighting for me.
Pat - Bos ..of course Romney wasn't living high on the hog when in Paris..after all he "ONLY" had 2 servants.......
Alan N.J>
Nothing would make you "tolerant" of Barack Obama. You'll always find some lame reason to hate him. And Obama's position really did evolve. His deeds preceded his words. He got rid of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and he directed his Justice Department to not defend the unconstitutional "Defense of Marriage Act" in court. It was no big surprise that he publicly supported gay marriage, other than the timing.
As for Romney, he just flip flopped on abortion without much explanation as to why, although the reason is obvious: He wanted to get out of liberal Massachusetts politics and be a player in national Republican politics. Many Republicans have flip-flopped on abortion, but Romney has distinguished himself by flip-flopping on nearly every issue imaginable, like his laughable double-reverse flip flop on the Ohio anti-union bill. He was for it, but when it became obvious it was going to be defeated in a referendum, he suddenly said he'd leave it to Ohio voters to decide. And when he got a tongue-lashing from rightwing bloggers, he flopped back to his support for the bill, hiding behind the lie that he'd "misunderstood" the question. He's used his mysterious talent for not understanding questions for several of his flip flops.
None of the daily attempts to insult Obama in this forum as disgusting as equating him with a coward and liar like Mitt Romney. Now, that's a REAL insult.
One dirty little fact that exists in this issue (and that none of you will want to discuss today) is the FACT that HUGE numbers of the Dem's favored victim/grievance groups; BLACKS and HISPANICS, are against gay marriage. Will you people be gratuitously bashing and trashing them today the way you are bashing everybody else? Of course not. Why? I know why. Because BLACKS and HISPANICS are ABOVE (for now) GAYS on your victim hierarchy. Again...identity politics at it's finest.
I am critical of the president for virtually all of his economic policies but I applaud him for making his flip flop. Many of us who voted for Clinton, Reagan and are fiscal conservatives abhor the social conservative positions taken by many on the right. I applaud Obama for this position. That said, give it a break David. I am glad he evolved but the idea that a person's abortion position cant "evolve" to pro life or the idea that Obama didnt do this for political pandering reasons is just hogwash. Any credibility you have at being objective or not a Obama campaigner flies out the window if you cant acknowledge that.
Anna Molly--I know you dont like my economic positions with regards to Obama but Rush is an a$%%%. I have no use for him and dont like to listen to him and he doesnt speak for me. That said, the people that no different than Rachel or any other opinion based entertainer, they all speak a kernel of truth at times that is intended to rile up their passionate supporters. Recognizing that is the best way of discarding and parsing through the crap they spew at times.
On the point of traditional marriage, the only place I have some reservations are religious ceremonies. I think the governments job is to provide equality of various rights provided to those that are married regardless of gender. I dont care whether the government calls all of these marriages as civil unions but I dont think religious institutions should be required to provide marriage ceremonies against their beliefs.
TPM:
Senior Romney adviser Ed Gillespie responded to a Washington Post story that details how Romney led an incident of bullying while he was a student at the elite Cranbrook school, on MSNBC Thursday morning.
“Gov. Romney doesn’t remember that at all. It was in high school. I suppose if there was an investigative team that went through my high school yearbook, they could find some incidents that I don’t remember that if I did remember I might not like,” Gillespie said, adding that those who know Romney “know that he is a caring, compassionate person” and “that has been evidenced in his career.”
*********
What a surprise. He doesn't recall
I say BS.
Well, you've got us there, JoAnna. But I'll see that and raise you this --
Willard-Mitt:
When running for Senate in Massachusetts, Romney said he would be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights issues.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/Gay_Marriage/
But that was not just a one-off. Romney reiterated this position as late as 2002.
Yesterday, he said on a clip that I heard on Hardball that he has held his anti-gay-marriage position "at least since he began running for office," which if it wasn't the Senate has to be the Presidency. He also said this:
http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/05/09/mitt-romney-says-he-has-no-plans-evolve-marriage-equality
So, just to sum up, Romney was for gay rights, until he ran for President, meaning about 5 or 6 years ago.
Ah, yes. Read on, Macduff (from the first link) --
But at least he did reassure us yesterday that he does plan THIS position to be permanent -- at least
Whew. I was worried about that. I feel so much better now, don't you?
damage Why the hate?
Houston your whole post proves my point. You give one politician the benefit of the doubt because you support him politically, but disparage the motives of your political opponent. Your argument in transparent to say the least.
And again with the ego. Why is this about Barack Obama? My comment was in response to a post that claimed right-wingers will be jumping up and down over his change in position. I pointed out that ALL politicians change position but the left is very intolerant when it comes to pro-life/pro-choice issues.
I'll say this from a personal point of view. I was very pro-choice when I was younger. I see it less as a black and white issue as I get older, and you realize life is precious, and when you have kids of your own. It's a very personal journey, and at the moment I am still pro-choice though I would like to limit it to 28 - 30 weeks.
Get over the fact Barack Obama is special in the context of being a politician. He is a unique individual and will always be remembered as groundbreaking, maybe even unprecedented, but as to being a great President, I don't think so.
First Read:
And just like yesterday, the First Read guys aren't going to tell you that most of the outside money is flowing to Walker and not to the Democratic candidate. They're too fearful being accused of liberal bias if they were to report that salient fact of how corporate money is perverting American democracy more than ever before, thanks to the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" abomination.
So, we are to buy into the BS of Willard not remember holding down a crying classmate while cutting his hair off?
I'm sure John Lauber does...
Un-freaking believable!
I'm with you Pat - talk about selective amnesia!
HEY LIBERALS - Get back with me on your version of equality when you stop hating conservatives. Got it?
Alan, NJ
Many Republican politicians changed their views from so-called "pro-life" to anti-abortion, such as G. H. W. Bush. Romney is taking far more heat for his change because it's only one of many flip flops he's made.
As far as being intolerant, endangering the health of thousands of women by defunding Planned Parenthood clinics that don't provide abortions because they're affiliates of clinics that do provide them is the height of intolerance.
That's pretty much where current law stands. I don't think many people object to severe limitations on the reasons for abortions in the third trimester (after around 24 weeks).
What about good jobs & home ownership???? Once again an election high-jacked by emotional issues that aren't going to create anything but division!!!!
I can see it now ... the GOP platform ... do you want "A Gay Loving Socialistic Black President" ...
In the South and in the backwoods of any state ... the answer will be a resounding "hell no" .....................
At least Obama didn't give that guarantee. Word is he has to remain "flexible" until after the election.
And you watch "Hardball" (there's a misnomer of name if there ever was)? Chrissie still getting those tingles in his legs? If so, he may want to get that checked.
You're right, I believe it's something like 20-1.
DiD YoU HeaR THAT First REaD?
They're fearful, all right, but not of that. They're fearful of losing all the advertising revenue that flows to them because of Citizens United. They know quite well where their bread is buttered.
Not bad for ad hominem re-direction. You've obviously been practicing.
Alan.. come on you are better than that. Usually your faults for the president have more merit than that. I could easily see myself saying" I take pride in the troops fighting on my behalf." Is he inccorect ? Is he not included in the our? You are focusing on one word in a sentence and a pronoun at that. I cannot believe it. The president did not say something like its MY ARMY. He simply said they are fighting on his behalf, which they are. They are fighting on all of our behalfs and to top it of he is Commander in Chief. If you want to attack the president at least do it on one of your usual points this one is just foolish.
As far as the President's announcement though I do believe its genuine, I think it is of no consequence. Nothing was accomplished, therefore I think the story has been made bigger than it is. The attitude shift has to be withing in Congress to have true significance. I do admire the president speaking out on this issue as I feel it turns away just as many people as it brings in but I think it is hardly a time to speak out.
The LGBT movement is a difficult one to win at the polls. In my opinion it is correct, most heterosexuals simply don't care, and think that lesbians and gays should do as they please. An indifferent attitude won't make someone go out and vote, that is where those who are against it have a huge advantage.
Congratulations. Strawman award-winner for today. I have heard no one suggesting this.
You had me there for a moment, Kirk, but then to attempt to compare Rush Limbaugh, who is no journalist at all, with Rachel Maddow, one of the finest political journalists of our time, just goes to show.
Houston said: Nothing would make you "tolerant" of Barack Obama. You'll always find some lame reason to hate him.
Actually Houston, the reasons are not so lame if you think about it. You have no real reason for hating conservatives but you do... and I'd call that lame, but when it comes to Obama, his actions are worth a great deal of hatred.
How many times has he thrown our country under the bus? While you might find it to be thoughtful and insightful, I don't. When he disses our country, he's speaking for me and I do not carry the same thoughts about our great country as he does. In essence he takes my view and distorts it just to make himself out to be this fair and loving guy... that makes me sick.
Obama is a narcissist. Everything good is I, I, I... Everything bad is We, We, We... Haven't you ever noticed that in his speeches?
How much does he cherish freedom? Have you read his executive orders as of late? He has given himself the power to commandeer all the resources of this country... He can do this without congressional approval or disapproval. He can take over the roads, the airways and the sea lanes... all in the guise of national defense. He has unfettered control of things he should not have control over. We have turned over all our freedoms to this one man that does not show any restraint when it comes to his personal enemies... such as conservatives and those on the right.
And you wonder why those of us on the right do NOT trust him.
Houston, the discussion on Planned Parenthood should be more about the endangering of children's lives and Cancer victims etc as a result of the government deciding that Planned Parenthood is a more appropriate "charity" to fund over others. All charities should be funded via private resources and donations as the government shouldnt decide on behalf of taxpayers which charity they want to donate taxpayer money. There are zillions of worthwhile charities of which Planned Parenthood is just one. If the government wants to take over Planned Parenthood and run it on behalf of low income health services, I would be fine with that.
I think you nailed it on this one.
As to the "fighting on my behalf" comment, I don't know why he said it. It jumped out at me because the normal phrasing is that they are "fighting for the country". It not just mistake of pronouns it's the way the President seems to interchange himself, the individual, and the institutions of state. The other thing is is that this is not the first time it's happened. However, at the end of the day it will be forgotten.
BTW, as was pointed out yesterday NJ may be the first state to actually vote FOR gay marriage. I think it will pass in November.
Um, you brought it up. If you're using "Hardball" as a source, do you really have any source at all? I mean, you're better than that, right? Well, maybe not.
Hardball. Geeze.
You see AM, that's how it kind of works. You comment on something, and others respond to your comments. You seem to be unclear on that behavior. It's called a C-O-N-V-E-R-S-A-T-I-O-N. Maybe if you practiced a little, I bet that would help you get better at it.
So, how does this fit in with a small government philosophy?
Oh, never mind. I don't really want to hear that answer.
You'll remember that I suggested a long time ago that charities cannot possibly do all the things that government could do, and that leaving social welfare to charity is merely leaving it to chance.
At least, maybe you remember it subliminally, because I think you're finally starting to get it.
No, dear JoAnna. You see THIS is how it works. As my post states, the words came straight from Romney's mouth in a clip that I heard on Hardball. But thanks for another round of unfounded i-n-s-i-n-u-a-t-i-o-n.
You are, indeed, the best.
What you know about real conversation would fit neatly on the head of a very small pin, JoAnna.
But projection becomes you, as always.
Ouuuuh... a catfight... gonna pay attention to this one between AM and JoAnna... Scratch, nip, claw, bite,
Obama frequently uses the rhetorical technique of speaking as "everyman", using himself as a representation of each individual in the country, and using pronouns in a way to make each listener think how something relates to them personally. When, in this context he says "me" or "mine", what he means is that is what each one of you should think. You all should think of our soldiers as protecting each of you personally. It is a powerful rhetorical technique to those who listen with an open mind.
Only very closed minded individuals would hear his lines and think that he feels our military is only protecting him. That's not what he meant and all of you know it.
Anna Molly--quit trying to find something that isnt there. Maybe you are correct on the religious ceremonies but I did hear something on CNN last night suggesting that very thing so not sure if that is a strawman and why you would think that. Give me some credit would you. That is a ridiculous criticism for a small nuanced aspect of this overall issue.
Ok, should I use Keith Olberman--again give me a break. You could say the same thing about Bill O'Reilly but I still put him in the category of entertainer/journalist. You are way too sensitive about any aspect of an issue you personally disagree with. You have an ability to take an issue in which many of us have common ground and turn it into a personal battle because such person doesnt share all your views. Rush is a complete jerk far more than Maddow I agree but so is Bill Maher then. You knew the point I was making.
Actually, AM, it's not a straw man at all.
Couple of years ago, a lesbian couple sued the Methodist church because they would not allow them to use the outdoor "cathedral" they own in a town near mine for their commitment ceremony. Now, as you know, I am for equal rights- and I thought this was dumb, dumb, dumb.
First of all- they opened the door for every yahoo out there to shout about infringing on religious views.
Second, while the Methodist church does not perform such ceremonies, and will not allow them, there are plenty of Episcopal priests, as well as beautiful outdoor areas, where such a ceremony could have been performed without any outrage.
As a result, opposition hardened, the Methodist church rendered their lawsuit moot by denying ALL marriage ceremonies ont the site, and many of the churches announced to their congregations that they would cease performing legally recognized marriage ceremonies were legislation passed to allow equality of marriage rights.
One couple managed to do all that. By the way- leaders of the LGBT community condemned their actions as divisive and counter-productive. So, no, it's not a straw man- but I will be fine if churches, mosques, and synagogues got out of the marriage business. It's a state function, not a religious one.
Looks like that's where we're heading.
Sorry AM, I dont think I am starting to get anything. You just have selective hearing or reading. You always pick out one phrase or sentence out of a post you dont like and pounce on that and take it out of context with the overall subject matter. When did I say I was for smaller government? I remember talking about entitlement reform, I even advocated for tax reform including revenue increases. I am not sure that leaving charity to charities is leaving social welfare to chance. If that were the case we wouldnt have food pantries, homeless shelters, substance abuse centers etc all paid for by charities and clearly just as important as woman's health issues. Are you saying SIDs research, AIDS funding, Autism etc are all less important than the things Planned Parenthood does? Its too bad you dont pay more attention to or grasp subliminally more things that I post.
I can agree with your last comment, NJNB.
It's a state function, for societal concerns. Not a religious one.
At one point, religion and state were inseperable. And each forced people into the other. (England/Church of England, Europe/Catholicism, Middle East/Islam). That is no longer the case.
Marriage is an economic and civil concern.
And no economic or civil privileges should be refused any citizen in good standing. Regardless of sexual, political or ethnic orientation.
And it should be relegated solely to the courts. They 'outsource' to religious organizations. But marriage, itself, is approved and regulated by -the State-. Not by -The Lord-.
Feisty? Feisty?
Where have I seen that name before??? Oh yeah, at the top of nearly every vine post. You're that arrogant broad that gets paid by an extreme left source to plant your fake red hair on all of these posts. I knew I'd seen that name before.
Nice try going back to 1965??? Your savior stated that he didn't remember most of his junior and senior years because he was blotto during them. I chalk that up to "who gives a rats ass?" I hate barack but when people bring that up I say, yeah and what did you do when you were younger?
You bringing up this bull shi$ about Romney who may or may not have liked someones appearance and acted like an ass 47 FRICKIN' YEARS AGO, is like me bringing up when you took on 1/2 the third string football team in 1990 to win their love an attention. It's got NOTHING to do with right now. But you are a consistent broad I'll give you that. I can open a thread and 90% of the time there you are copying someone else's writings and almost always about Romney no matter what the topic, then dropping a couple stupid lines in and off you go to the next story. But maybe our theropy sessions are working...I didn't see any ridiculous names called in that post...hmmm, are you actually paying attention when you claim not to be? Time will tell my little piece of clay.
One more thing Feisty, this is a overwhelmingly liberal site so stop playing the "woe is me" routine when it comes to people collapsing you. I get collapsed all the time so by your statement that means I'm doing something right huh? Thanks for the endorsement. Or has it ever occurred to you that maybe a bunch of people just didn't appreciate what you had to say that particular day? I haven't taken you for a crybaby feisty but now that there seems to be a growing number of people that just don't like your tactics I'm seeing more and more of who you are. Have fun tonight when looking for the next article to post in tomorrows stories.
Not even close BB - Anna Molly ate Snuffy for breakfast & coughed up a hairball of what is left of her!
I heard Obama say he was against gay marriage. Those words came right out of his mouth. What does her say these days again? Something about "evolving" if I remember right. That's the magic word that makes Barry unaccountable, at least with Liberals like you.
Ohh, I love it when you get angry, defensive, and intolerant. My job is done here. It was quite easy to do this time, but you're an easy mark.
Alan, get over yourself. Look at the grammar. If he had said "when WE think..." he could have said "on OUR behalf." He was making a personal statement on his PERSONAL belief, so he said "when I think..." and "on MY behalf."
So....Obama's evolution has put him in line with the progressive stance of Dick Cheney. Bravo! Of course I never heard any swooning over a sitting VP brave support for gay marriage when he did it 12 YEARS AGO!
@ no joe --
Let's see ... One example of gays asking to use a church-owned facility for a commitment ceremony.
If that's all you've got, no joe, it isn't much.
But you're right about one thing. Marriage has always been a contract, and many civil marriages are already performed in this country that are never recognized by any church.
The whole controversy could have been avoided with a simple disclaimer from the church that it doesn't recognize gay marriages, but that it would, out of Christian charity, be happy to provide their beautiful facility so that others might celebrate marriages that conform to their own religious standards.
Is THAT what you think just happened here? LoL
Who but you would ever see it as it their "job" to provoke others?
But if you're looking for "intolerant," look no further than the church that no joe describes in her post.
I highly suspect that Jesus would never have turned that couple away.
Feisty dead head writes
"Not even close BB - Anna Molly ate Snuffy for breakfast & coughed up a hairball of what is left of her!"
Really? How do you figure Feisty? Oh never mind for a split second I forgot it was you and thought someone might actually attempt to prove a point. Now I realize that it's just you and your typical way of dismissing logic and attempting to minimize an opponent.
But for the record Joanna has annihilated most everyone she's gone up against with something that most of you don't understand. Logic. It's a strange concept to a far lefty like you but you should try picking up some skills in it, it might serve you well. The only catch is that if you acquired a more logical thought process you would naturally step away from the dark side and eventually be on the RIGHT side of things. But you'd be a better person for it so it's something you might want to consider, and because it would be better for the country we'd actually welcome you in.
Q22
Good point
Yawn ! Obama is pandering to another political group in hopes of being re-elected with a flip-flop.
That's exactly what happened. You lost your cool babe. Not unusual. Not unexpected.
Well, maybe you, with your personal attacks. Seems to be a trend with you. The wheels have really skipped of the rails for you AM. You used to have something to say, now you're moving into Dumb Fux territory.
Yet another diversion from you.
Lets see that anger hon. Let it loose.
Really. JoAnna annihilated me first by deliberately misrepresenting what I said and then jumping up and down in jubilation at her supposed triumph, which was built solely on that misrepresentation.
Is that what counts as annihilation to you? Explains a lot. Really.
But logic has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Who died and made you hostess?
Sorry to disappoint you, sweetie. It seems your blazing wit has at last rendered me speechless.
I have been consistent in my view that religious institutions should NOT be deputized to perform state functions.
That said, you seem to tread very heavily on the rights of religions to hold to their own beliefs. Strange.
You claim to be a lawyer. Ever read the Constitution? It guarantees the rights of religions to have and hold to their beliefs- with the singular exemption of criminal behavior.
Methodists have as much right to their religious beliefs as any other religion. That couple did nothing but raise an issue better left alone- as it only hardened opposition to equal rights. All sanctimonious twaddle aside, they hurt the cause of equal rights to serve their own selfish purposes.
They gained nothing, and gave opponents a powerful weapon. Nice day's work.
Tying yourself in knots now and making my point. He was explaining his personal decision on how his opinion on gay marriage has evolved. That is fair enough.
When he uses the phrase "fighting on my behalf" it is no longer about him. They are fighting for the country and every previous President, including the almost illiterate George W Bush, phrased it correctly.
Consider the firestorm if George W Bush used the phrase "when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf".
Give me one context GWB could have used that phrase and there wouldn't have been an uproar.
When asked, how Obama's policies were negatively impacting Rigthwinwac's life yesterday he said yesterday,
Akeem,
So far you noted the Health Care Act, as it pertains to your job, if true, that would be valid. The other points you make about health care don't really back your point. The cost of Healthcare is increasing at an extreme rate and to do nothing about it would go against your first point on spending and debt.
With taxes I am for spending cuts, I just do not understand why taxes on the rich cannot be included as well. Obviously, more cuts than taxes are needed.
We both agree Bush spent a large amount of money. If you take away the carry over from spending that began with issues Bush created the spending increase is not as large. Yes, it still exist but a lot of the big costs such as the war, tax breaks and Medicare part D cannot be attributed to President Obama's policies. You could make the argument he could have ended all of these but none of those topics would be popular amongst Americans. Ending the war so abruptly would only prove the spending was a waste. No one wants tax increases especially in a recession. Increases the burden of senior citizens is not a popular issue either. So like I said it is not HIS policies that are causing you ruin. He is not evil, much of what you say against him is exaggeration and that is my point. Obama's policies are not dramatically changing your life stop saying it is. A great majority of your problems can be blamed on politicians in general, or congress as a whole they are bipartisan. When you focus in on Obama and say anyone but him as if your issues would magically disappear it sounds foolish and ignorant.
Yes. And Yes. Show me EXACTLY where that particular thing is written in the Constitution. I must have missed it.
But actually, no joe. I wouldn't have a problem with a church denying its facility for that kind of use.
IF churches kept their noses out of politics, that is.
Call me when they start.
This whole uproar is form over substance, and you know it. It is being used by conservatives as a cheap way of diverting attention from the actual issue, while at the same time, it smacks of desperation to regain some of your lost credibility on national security issues.
Frankly, I'm surprised you would buy into this at all, much less keep beating this horse after it is down and twitching. It's beneath you.
Alan, there very may well have been an uproar...but I would call it just as stupid then as I think of it now. It would be ovbious at least to me that President Bush didnt mean it in the way which the masses tried to manipulate it.
Since we are nitpicking, they are fighting on his behalf. They are fighting on your behalf as well. The government, right up to and including the President, are all no more than American Citizens at the end of the day. I cringe at the false premise that our government is some sort of disconnected alien body, separate and disassociated from the population. "We the people" still stands, and we are the government.
I thank the military for fighting on my behalf as well.
Yes, and that's exactly what I thought he meant when I heard it.
The rest of this is just a tempest in a teapot.
@Akeem
The problem with President Obama is the same as all his predecessors. They claim they will reform Medicare, medicaid and Social Security and not kick the can down the road. However, every leader in Washington is responsible for the fiscal mess we are in. There is no way to pay for Medicare as it is currently structured, Social Security is now a net loss from general revenues, and the ACA is basically a huge new entitlement, that is only paid for through accounting tricks.
My problem is that neither candidates are offering a realistic plan to get out of our mess. Obama maintains that taxing the rich, and a few changes to entitlements will solve the problem. That is unrealistic. On the other hand Romney is at least offering tax reform, which I believe is the way to generate new revenues. He is right on reforming entitlements, but that doesn't mean the Ryan plan is the only answer. However, his policy on defense spending is as unrealistic in these times as Obama's on entitlements.
So to me both candidates have unrealistic plans.
Anna Molly -
It's actually politics that keep intruding on religions. It's the federal government that is forcing religions to pay for abortifacients against their beliefs - but if they speak out against it then they get slammed for entering politics?? Interesting logic.
The funny thing here is he wants this to be a major campaign issue, but also in the same breath said this is a state issue and made it clear he has no plans to address this if re-elected.
If this is not all politics, I don't know what is.
Alan that is completely fair when written that way. However, the message I get with many on the right is this debt problem never existed before Obama, that he is the sole cause of it and that it is his agenda. I have said many times the large deficit is bipartisan. No side can point a finger at the other, but that is precisely what many (not all) Republicans are doing. Blaming it on President Obama and the Democrats. When i see members of their base adopt that strategy and blame Obama and not all of Washington it can be annoying. Obama is not some evil person wishing harm on the American dream and it is very difficult to take anyone's opinion seriously when they speak that way. It is a screaming sign that that person is either misguided, uninformed, ignorant, or a liar.
If Romeny had SERIOUS ideas of tackling our debt I would be listening but it is just more of the same. I do not personally think any form of tax break is a viable solution. Socialy I disagree on him almost across the board. If he is elected president I am not going to drop dead and I understand that, Obama is simply the best candidate for me and my views.
If those on the right could just express their opinions in such a way and not just make so many claims against the president that have been proven false then I would never question one's choice for president.
Symbolically! obama came out and he was symbolic? Are you people mentally competent? obama did......N O T H I N G. He said he believed gays and homosexuals have a right to get married. So what....did he do anything about it, did he improve the economy, did he find you a job, did he even make it a part of his platform?Just what did he do to make life better for A L L Americans? His exclamation on sexuality and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee, period. OMG you people get nothing from you him - and you go out and kiss his a$$ in public for what a great and courageous person he is - it cost him nothing to say it and he only said it because biden outed him on it!
What he said was he'd leave it up to the states.....and 32 states so far have already voted against gay amendments. By obamas math: 57 states - 32 states = 25 states still have to decide on this issue. Well, if he can get another 25 states to allow gay amendments then he should claim SOME kind of recognition!
In my eyes and most every seriously minded intelligent people his symbolic act did absolutely nothing. And talk about fip flops obama stated in 1998 and several years there after that he was against gay marriages and that the sacred vows of marriage were for a man and a woman! So you think you can have it both ways?........Hypocrites.
Oh happy day. Obama has finished evolving!!! Does that mean he will stop acting like an ape and quit thumping his chest about his "tough decision" (rotflmao!) to have the SEALS kill Osama?!
Coming in late and a very busy day. Just a shout out to Feisty, Backhouse and David Walker for outstanding posts.
President Obama, as usual, takes the high road and does the right thing. I believe he did wrestle with this decision but came to the right conclusion. I have yet to understand how anyone thinks the rights of married couples will be damaged by allowing same-sex marriage. That makes no sense.
Obama/Biden 2012
There is no doubt about that. Too many 'Go along to get along' Washington insiders on both sides of the aisle have caused the problem. The GOP just got rid of one of them, Lugar from Indiana. Two thirds of the debt existed before Obama took office. He increased the rate of deficit spending by about 4x to try and stimulate the economy. Sadly, the money was misspent on "saving" government jobs for a year or so, the money ran out, and the economy was not stimulated. Obama has done some other gimmicks, like extend the Bush (now Obama) tax cuts, the payroll tax cut, and unemployment benefits, none of them have brought the economy back, but it has increased the debt by over $5 trillion dollars. Debt existed before Obama, but he's super-sized it in his 3.5 years in office, and with no end to the debt in sight. He talks about reducing the deficit, but he really hasn't evolved to any plan to do so.
Obama's dream is much different than the American dream. Obama believes in equal results. The American dream believes in equal opportunity. Not quite the 'Change you can believe in'.
You have to hand it to the Dems and their willing lap dogs in the media, desperateley trying,everyday, to divert attention and change the subject from the miserable failure this administration has been, by drumming up make believe controversies (contraceptives,student loans,gay marriage, really? What about trillions of dollars in new debt,millions of people completely giving up on looking for employment, and hundreds of thousands who have lost their homes? shhhhhhh!!!!! NEVER mention those things!!!! the President might actually have to explain himself!!!!!) and then purposely USING the most easily provoked, and emotionally vulnerable members of their party, as props to accomplish those cynical diversions, without really giving them anything, what a party.
Akeem,
You asked for something that directly affects me. I gave it to you. You guys crack me up (not really) when you don't know what's in the health care bill but you spout off that I'm exaggerating or that it needed to be done or that 30 million people will now have healthcare. No, yes, and no. Things need to be done a few at a time. That way we can test and figure out what works. The chest thumping matter that he did it was wrong. I'm not exaggerating anything about the health bill. If it gets tossed out a couple of good things will go with it. If it stays you will look back and say, "yeah, I remember someone warning of this disaster".
Everyone on here speaks from a subjective and opinionated view more often than not. This is not one of those times. I know what I know and there is no exaggeration when I'm speaking of the health bill. Again, if it were going to be so wonderful why do over 1,000 large companies get waivers to not participate? I've asked that a dozen times on the vine and I've yet to have a single person answer me. So I'm not even sure why this is coming back. You asked me about something and unlike soooo many morons (feisty) on the vine I actually gave you a response consisting of content. Then you say, "your exaggerating". Get someone to teach you the bill or read it yourself and then get someone to decipher it for you. Don't look to maddows or mathews or hannity or rush to teach you. Do it yourself so you know the truth. Then tell me how I'm exaggerating.
When it comes to spending I don't care what policies were put in place. Everything he believes is that we have to take more money from people with money, dump it into a system and distribute it to some of the most stupid programs out there. Look up where a huge portion of the "stimulus" bill went. Hell there were millions spent just on the signs to let us know that it was "his" money that was being spent. Really? You approve of that? His marketers are brilliant but no matter how you slice it the government doesn't have money. It's taxpayer money and he's irresponsible with it.
As I stated he doesn't repent or even address the issue except when blaming the rich. He probably would have been able to sneak a couple of point bump in capital gains taxes near the beginning of his term if he wouldn't have been such a divide and conquer ass hole. If he'd shut his stupid trap and stop trying to pin the poor against the rich he may have made some progress in getting a little more out of them. But he demonizes the rich in this country for doing nothing illegal at all.
The government has to operate on a balanced budget...he hasn't had one yet. You can point back all you want but no matter how you slice it his belief is to spend our way out of debt and it doesn't work. Political policies always affect the next political administration. So to that I say yes Bush's spending and the liberals fair housing act put us in a negative position when he took office. But his spending which is out of control and the diversion from actually doing something with it will cause us to all suffer massively down the road. If we the people want this country to get out of debt how are we going to do it? This isn't a $5,000 credit card payoff we're talking about? Raising taxes on the rich? Okay what else? Under barack the only answer is that the government (taxpayers) dump more stimulus.
Rebut if you'd like and I'll read it but I gave you what you asked for so I'm done with this one.
It was an incredibly tough decision, that took brass balls the likes of which most of us will never have. Did you look at the 4 options presented to strike Bin Laden's compound (this was NOT the "easiest" choice by a long shot), or considered the impact of a failure, had something gone awry? (think Carter's helicopter fiasco during the iran hostage crisis)
Right wing what on earth are you talking about? I do not agree with everything you said on the HCA I never once claimed it was an exaggeration. I was replying to your original post where you claimed he was "tearing down your house" and went on about how his philosophies with debt will destroy America as we know it. You say Obama does not believe in spending cuts, did he not offer a plan that included them that was rejected by Republicans do to a refusal to accept any tax increases?
Joanna, I am not sure what you mean by equal oppurtunity we clearly have different definitions.
Claiming that Obama wants Equal results is another exaggeration. Taxing ONLY the income one makes in excess of another at a higher rate does not leave them with the same income. You are taking one philosophy and giving it a misleading title.
This is exactly my point, both of your responses. Your personal ideas in some of the instances you described has taken front seat to what has actually happened. Joanna you say the stimulus failed and rightwing implies it. Yet we are in a better situation than countries of similar circumstance who went the route of austerity. You can argue the great cost of this meager growth but whether or not that investment paid of is still unaswered. There are not many Republican ideas regarding the economy that would have imporved the same numbers and statistics that many rally against the President for.
So we don't suck as bad as other countries, but hey, lets keep doing what they're doing (.i.e, more government entitlement programs and more deficit spending). Yeah, that's the American dream. Buy a clue Akeem.
Sorry, that is exactly the essence a populist like Obama preaches every day. That is exactly his mantra.
The stimulus has failed Akeem. Do you see a robust economy? Is anyone talking about 5-7% GDP growth anytime soon? Any one talking about 4% unemployment? No, they aren't. What is seen on the immediate horizon is a lot of tax breaks expiring at the end of the year, and the fees for Obamacare starting to come due (unless the SC bounces it). That's going to be a big hit to the economy Akeem.
Wrong. We see what more regulation has gotten us. Less jobs. We see what the threat of higher taxes has gotten us. Less jobs. We see what the stimulus has gotten us. A poor economy. Sorry Akeem, you don't have a leg to stand on. Obama has failed, it's time to try someone new.
"Obama's careful line on same sex marraiges"- Not walking a straight line, is he? Face it, Obama is a politician to the core. The only reason he cares about gay marraige is that opinions are about 50% for and 50% against. Thus, if he goes for gay marraige he may be locking some more votes for his re-election. The same can be said for his run for women's votes a few weeks ago, the youth vote buy (excusing student loans), and his upcoming run at the minority vote.
Back to the topic at hand- Having a close gay relative I can give you a pretty leveled idea of how to deal with the topic. Firstly, marriage is a religious institution first. My take is that gay "marriage" is out. I also understand the practical realities of living here and that if you don't have a family relationship that you are exluded from many of the decisions and legal conversations we all face, so I AM for a means to provide civil legal status for those other than your relatives. An example, a gay couple should be able to legally authorize their loved one to manage their estate, healthcare decisions, etc. as desired because it should be the individual's choice- not the government's. Therefore it should be possible to create a legal means to provide those representative measures and not call them "marriage". I would be ok with "union" per se, just keep it out of my church and not called "marriage". Yep, I'm old fashioned on terminology and influence peddling. The benefit to the gay community of not having "marriage" specifically is that they would not have to deal with loosing a massive amount of their estate to lawyers through the divorse process. If "unions" were set up legally as limited ventures there could be some controls about distributions if the relationships break up.
Just my 2 cents.
Above all else it is comforting to know that we have a President who can actually speak honestly, can be truthfull and doesn't have to flip flop around like the wanna be clown.
The nit wits will have romneys back then they can live in the fantasy world together
Where is 5-7 GDP growth happening Joanna? The world avg for 2011 was 3.7 we came in 159th at 1.5, you will find few countries above us on that list however who have anywhere near our standard of living. It is easier to move a small number % wise than a big one, don't throw around economic ideas you do not understand to try and school me about the economy. Look at total GDP than multiply it by the appropriate % and the nominal amount our GDP rose is much larger than the countries you are comparing us to.
(latest_year)
(nominal)
You list what I said up there but don't actually address it. Each rebut to my point is backed by an opinion. A number like GDP growth in a global economy means nothing if it is not compared to the rest of the world. Among developed nations we are not as bad.
There are not less jobs. Yes, there are less jobs than before the recession but each month we see a net increase not a decrease. Sorry there was no BOOM but can you provide me with the Republican idea that would have caused one?
sorry I cant post links but I had included my sources, its very easy information to obtain, the EU has 17,577,691 million total GDP next is USA with 15,094,025 and China comes in 3rd with 7,298,147. The drop is steep and gets steeper...
Unfortunately, the GOP is not about to blunt their criticism on any issue, especially one like gay rights. They don't believe in civil rights for anyone but themselves.
Prepare for an onslaught of negativity that is sure to come pouring out of the mouths of these so-called "Christians".
They will do their best to paint bigotry, intolerance and hatred as holiness.
uaw-779887
You don't know what you're talking about....as far back as 1998 obama has stated he did not believe in gay marriages and that marriage was between a man and a woman. Where have you been living or are you just suffering from selective memory. obama is like any other politician out there - dem or repub - pandering for votes. Flip flop is not endemic to one political ideology so please don't delude yourself with obamas so-called honesty and truthfulness. He has mastered the magicians art of manipulation - he shows you the hand he wants you to see but he's just smoke and mirrors. But I will give him this - he is good at it...he's fooled you and others that are as gullible as you.
Once again, Dick Cheney announced the exact same position on gay marriage 12 years ago as a sitting VP. Why is Obama considered a courageous civil rights hero and Cheney referred to as "Darth Vader"?
Akeem, New Jersey
How many were government jobs?
Perhaps if Obama would just come out of the closet, after his years of being on the down low we could all clasp hands and sing Kum Ba Ya.
txmom32 - that's a disgusting post - even for you. But, of course one of you little mental midgets was sure to make it. Proud of yourself? I really pity your children if this is the best leadership they have.
rjj1208-
Wow you really are a koolaide drinker now aren't you. Any idiot could and would have made that decision....well now that I think about it......an idiot did make the decision...so maybe for our mental midget president it really was tough to think it through.
Zathrose - sorry charlies but the mental midgets are the right wingers. Our President has been very good and will do even better during his 2nd term. (How sad you need to steal someone else's words! But that isn't surprising!)
And if it was so easy -why hasn't your mental midget Romney made the right decision? Oh thats right - mental midget would be an improvement for him!
Hugo Chávez says Obama is 'a clown and an embarrassment'
Venezuelan president makes comments after US leader criticises his links with Iran and Cuba in a newspaper interview
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/20/hugo-chavez-barack-obama-clown
On the eve of his first official overseas trip since being diagnosed with cancer, Hugo Chávez has launched a blistering attack on Barack Obama, describing the US president as a "clown" and an "embarrassment".
"Focus on governing your country, which you've turned into a disaster," the Venezuelan president told state TV on Monday. Chávez touched down in the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo, on Tuesday for a summit of Mercosur, South America's leading trade bloc.
So... now you're looking to Hugo Chavez for political commentary???
WHO is the Socialist?
I'd consider it an honor to be criticized by the likes of Chavez.
..why a 'thin line'
The president should have taken a 'fine line' first, then a 'thin line' ONLY after reelection.
Seeking Sanity....why is that a disgusting post to speculate that the President is or has been in his life bisexual. Perez Hilton would certainly be joyful about that coming out. There is no shame in being gay or bisexual and I for one would have a bit more respect for Obama if he were actually honest about something in his life. At least that is what I teach my kids, to accept others for who they are based on their character. Obviously, you must think that disclosing ones sexuality is taboo. I don' agree. I am openly hetro and have no problem saying so.
There has been enough written about this President being bisexual if he indeed is then coming out of the closet would certainly further the acceptability and agenda of the GLBT community, what stronger endorsement could the GBLT community have then the leader of the free world. If he is and he comes out of the closet then maybe you homophobes, that support him, would have to face a few of you own foibles in character. I see nothing disgusting about that...do you dislike gay or bisexual people? It is about being honest and transparent. It is about embracing who one truly is in their lifetime. Obama had no problem coming out about his personal drug use why not continue the trend and come out about sexual preference? Again there is no shame in being gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered we are all created of the same tissue and fluids.
So dummies, are you going to vote against President Obama ??? Tell me... in what way does this, impact your life and your family ??? IT IS A SOCIAL ISSUE AND IS NONE OF OUR DAMN BUSINESS !!! If people want to get married what ever sex they are, WHO CARES ??? not me !
You better focus on other important issues and there are plenty !!! How about all the poisons you put into your mouth, like meat saturated with hormones and antibiotics, vegetables and fruits full of pesticides.. dont you think this is a much more important issue ????
President Obama has kept your country safe and he got Osama ben laden when the right wing could not even stop 9/11 from happening and were uncapable or did not want to catch ben laden... Sorry guys, but the choice for me is clear ! I want a president that is intelligent, capable, and fit to run this country !
I will post my vote for Obama when the time come !
txmom32
ahhhhh, I've gotten two chuckles in the same day and both at the expense of Seeking Sanity. She made me $60 earlier with her predictability and now this.
I just can't imagine the confusing look on her face as she reads your post. I wish she was on camera because it would be priceless. Kind of like Scooby Doo trying to figure out why it was old man Cruthers from the amusement park.
Your post may have gone without much notice but I certainly took heed. That was brilliant. You could start an online game test for libs. "So you think you're not a hypocrite". Thanks for that.
Alan NJ: Relax! You are sparring with idiots. Your points are good and well founded but, there are those, who insist that the world is flat and if you try to tell them that it's round they will brand you as a heretic.
"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,"
"It's interesting, some of this is also generational," the president continued. "You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same sex equality or, you know, believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we're talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently. It doesn't make sense to them and frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective."
http://gma.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html
A careful Evolved statement given with some introspection into the life and times of many folks. May not be the Politically Expedient thing to do but it is the Right thing to do
'So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, 'Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,' you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed.'
'Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist.
'Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male.'
Harris also has parental advice for girls who like sports: 'And when your daughter starts acting to Butch you reign her in.
'And you say, Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God.
'But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138285/Pastor-Sean-Harris-rant-Preacher-tells-parents-beat-homosexuality-pre-school-children.html
Doubt if this Yahoo is capable of evolving much past getting down from a tree and walking up right. Heaven forbid that you ask him to chew gum at the same time.
Finally an evolved statement from the folks that aren't conducting that war on women that you'll Yahoo's say ain't happening.
"I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote. We should've never turned this over to women. And these women are voting in the wrong people. They're voting in people who are evil who agrees with them who're gonna take us down this pathway of destruction."
"And this probably was the reason they didn't allow women to vote when men were men. Because men in the good old days understood the nature of the woman," he adds. "They were not afraid to deal with it. And they understood that, you let them take over, this is what would happen.""I think that one of the greatest mistakes America http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/07/fox-news-contributor-laments-mistake-of-letting-women-vote/ Fox-News-contributor-laments-%e2%80%98mistake%e2%80%99-of-letting-women-vote&p=71789ttp://forums.rimoftheworld.net/showthread.php
Apparently this feller evolved all right he just don't want to acknowledge his Mother's part in the whole process
Great Societies Evolve.
Backward Societies devolve into Creationism. That's why you find them hopelessly stuck in the 18th or 19th century.
Mr. Romney you don't Evolve with the shake of an Etch-a-Sketch
That would be Pandering and is Creative if not outright Creationism.
Next thing you know you will be telling us that God consulted you when He created the Earth 6500 years ago.
Ahhhh, liberal Democrat identity politics at it's finest...Ha!
Yall think Obama spent all last night throwing darts at a picture of Joe Biden tacked up on the wall? I do.
Obama and all his aides and confidants gathered in the Oval Office, pacing the floor. Sweating. Cursing.
"""What the %$@# do we do now? Well, at least it sews up the "gay vote" for us!" IDIOT! We already have the gay vote sewn up! Uhhh, oh yeah." "Well what about the "Black vote?"...They're not gonna like this, remember how they voted in California and North Carolina?" I know. Dammit! "We'll have to ramp up the "Republicans wanna go back to Jim Crow rhetoric!" Yes! "We probably won't lose too many of them...the only thing that'll keep THEM from voting for me is if they found out I have a White baby-mama stashed away somewhere...."WHAT????!!! CALM DOWN, I WAS JUST TALKING OUTTA MY BUTT! "What about the Hispanic vote"? "S**t! They're all Catholics!""" Who's that flaming Bolivian that does Michelle's hair? Ramon' somebody??? Make him disappear! Fast! What about the unions? "Civil Unions? We're way past that! "Noooo...the TRADE unions!!!. "Ehhhh, uh uh uh uh ..I dunno! "Is there a Gay Teamsters Of America sub-union somewhere? "Could be!!!" How will this play with the illegal alien voters???? DAMN YOU JOE BIDEN!!!! I knew we should never have let him out of the basement!!!! Somebody go commission a poll to see how Gay Marriage plays with the Handicapped Black Illegal Alien Hispanic Muslims!
You know what the best part is? This whole thing is gonna be shoved right back at Obama and the Dems EVERY time they try to call Romney a "flip-flopper". I love it.
You Barack will now feel liberated enough to ditch Michelle, move to Massachusetts and marry Reggie Love?
damage Why the hate?
Ironically, among the twenty-somethings I know, the President's position illicited a shrug. They already think of marriage equality as a "done deal." That's evolution, my friends.
Terrific post IR and in reading it, I was reminded of an incident involving my now seven year old grandson, who was at a 5th birthday party. His parents were away so I got to take him. He had a good time and as we were leaving, I sent him to say his thank yous, he tried to give a hug to the father of the little boy and was pushed away, and told boys don't hug, they shake hands! I couldn't believe it. Some people have such difficulty with their emotions and and really never evolve, remaining emotional cripples. Real men hug!!!
What hate, Smitty? I am maerely ridiculing the huge clusterf**k the Dems often create for themselves when they base their positions on IDENTITY POLITICS and they way they always have to twist themselves into pretzels to accomodate their various grievance groups. Who wouldn't find that funny?
Also, we need to thank Da Prez for taking the issue of "flip-flopping" OUT of the upcoming election. Thanks Hussien!
damage You answered the question with more hate. Why?
No matter what President Obama does, there are these unhappy and sad people who hate him. They go through life bitching about everything this Great President, and the people like him who stand up for what is right.
IR, terrific, glad you posted that preacher's words. When church pastors preach intolerance--which is contrary to the Bible's teachings--there is something wrong with the preaching and definitely wrong with the preacher.
Gingerbread Mamma, I can't imagine a father telling a 5-year old boy, don't hug, shake hands.
Smitty----some people have nothing to offer except hate. Sad for them.
President Obama did the right thing and the GOP cant stand it . They are trying to get everyone to not see that they are fighting for the rich and they have a whole bunch of Lemmings that think they are fighting for freedom. lololol Whats the opposite of Evolving? Conservative lololololololol Teabagg in 3....................2........................1.................go .
Smitty- Your definition of "hate" obviously only applies to Republicans. You have a completely different definition for your fellow lefties. That's typical and no big surprise.
This will not have much affect on the way people are going to vote in November. Pretty much everybody knew that Obama supported gay marriage secretly all along. BFD.
Where it WILL make a difference is that now the Dems accusations of "flip-flopping" against Romney will look hypocritical and stupid. But then again, LIBERALS are hypocritical and stupid so they may just use that strategy anyway.
Steeler Fan Its time to ask for all of us to ask the right why they have so much HATE. I think its a good question for the right. Why so much hate? Its in almost every right wing post. Why is hate so important to the right?
It's what fuels them...
Smitty:
You may have noticed that very few people respond to damaged. He is a classic venom-filled troll. While he mocks identity politics, you will note with the reflexive projection of these low-intellect right-wingers, he is himself an icon of identity politics.
Last week, he attacked a poster for not taking the Democratic Party line he demands they take. Really, he's not quite packing a full sea bag. It's best to ignore him.
damage Can't you say anything without being hateful?
Smitty:
Good question and excellent job drawing out that neanderthal, who is hateful. I have been greatly amused watching him tap dance, trying not to give a direct answer to a reasonable question.
Perhaps many on the right can't stand the fact that the Nations first Black President has done more good and achieved more than many past Presidents put together. This bigoted hate can run very deep.
Smitty--the other day a long-time poster let us all know of some (serious) health issues she was facing. A lot of us on the left wished her well, sent prayers, gave encouragement. One person from the right did. Tells me something.
Who?
He has been a member of the exclusive Feisty Redhead ignore author club for months...
My time is far too precious to waste on reading this piece of human excrement's garbage!
David Walker Yes I know he is a hateful troll. But its a good exercise in seeing just hateful the right wing is. It also shows that they can't answer the hate question.
To: Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Who said:
Girlfriend, didn't you know they get 30 miles to the hate? Please stop the hate and race cards.
All humans are capable of hate, including the Left. I think we can all agree that all the Polls are seeing this as a close race. Keep in mind that both Mitt and the President agree that the State should control weather or not they want to have Gay Marriage.
Feisty and unless you're looking for comic relief I've added ur favorite NJ trolls...nojo..jas(a)1...bob ###s...and a few others as well....wonderful that IGNORE AUTHOR button!
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
It's what fuels them...
You.Of.All.People.Have.Got.To.Be.Kidding.
Atta boy Paul. Shut down Dissenting Opinion.
You really don't get the idea of this site, do you?
So says the moron who begs people to put him on ignore...
Can't keep your stories straight... eh?
I see my stalker is back.
Pretty sure Walker is the only person I have ever told to put me on Ignore. That was for his own health.
It seemed I was really getting to him and I was worried he might do something rash.
It's a shame that some can post and post and post here without ever once having to back up their hateful rhetoric.
But, as I said, if that bothers some, they don't get the whole idea of this site.
Nah, WCA: we get you completely. You have nothing to say.
Hate - as if the left is immune from it. Here's a typical left wing response to a statement from the right.
Statement: Obama is damaging the country through his economic policies.
Left Wing Response: How come you hate Obama? You are a friggen right wing idiot that only pays attention to Faux News and that's the reason you have so much hate in you... Your opinions mean absolutely nothing here because we are liberals and we rule the roost... so take that hate and shove it up your butt!
Meanwhile, the responder doesn't have a clue that what he just said was a prime example of Alynski's rules for radicals. The left wing person first minimized the right wing poster, then the left wing person distorted the meaning, isolated the person and didn't even address the original remark.
This is so typical of the liberal responses on this board it isn't even funny.
The hatred we see on this site DAILY is usually directed at Boehner, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Santorum, Mitt and Ann Romney, some people named Koch, Paul Ryan, and the list goes on and on... The pissers and moaners above whining about "hate" our usually the ones spewing it. The fact that they are too stupid to see the rank hypocrisy that goes along with their whining speaks volumes about them and the lefties in general.
I'll take you people's complaining about "hate" seriously when you stop your "hate". Deal? Never gonna happen folks. Ya know why? Again, because you simpletons are either too stupid or too arrogant to even realize how hypocritical you are. And stop pretending you got me on "ignore." You people could no more put me on ignore that you could ever stop giving your daily Cyber Lewinskis to the Flip Flopper In Chief.
Alan, get over yourself. Look at the grammar. If he had said "when WE think..." he could have said "on OUR behalf." He was making a personal statement on his PERSONAL belief, so he said "when I think..." and "on MY behalf."
Felden said: He was making a personal statement on his PERSONAL belief, so he said "when I think..." and "on MY behalf."
I disagree. Obama is a narcissist and if you know anything about that personality disorder you would see that anything Obama deems good is all "I." Anything he deems bad, it all "we." This is something that escapes the Obama supporters. They don't understand, or want to believe Obama is a narcissist.
Now call me a hater Felden... Because I recognize something in Obama that you don't.
Independent R, OMG!
This Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has no sisters, daughters, mother, grandmother, woman friend/co-worker?
IR's link blows the mind ----http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/07/fox-news-contributor-laments-mistake-of-letting-women-vote/ Fox-News-contributor-laments-%e2%80%98mistake%e2%80%99-of-letting-women-vote&p=71789ttp://forums.rimoftheworld.net/showthread.php
Wow, it is not just a question of which century with a guy like that. Calls himself a pastor, but where, oh where is the Love?
Damage123
That was pretty funny and probably pretty accurate. No hate...don't you liberals understand satire? Hmmm I thought the liberals come out in force when it comes to approval of satire. Don't they defend everything on SNL or Bill Maher and say the right doesn't have a satirical sense of humor? Oh yeah, I almost forgot...hypocrites.
Keep giving 'em hell Damage.
Feisty!!!
OH MY GOD do you disappoint. Here I just commended you and had so much hope for change on your name calling but there it is just one little post later and the real you once again rears her ugly head.
I'm jumping in the sand box...Feisty dead-head you are a nincompoop! Apparently Fiesty has an imaginary little, what she calls exclusive ignore list. Hey doofus...if it's your list then it's "exclusive" by definition...quit trying to make it sound important. But then again with your ego you think everything about you is important.
Ladies and gentleman I give you the quintessential feisty dead head. The tactics displayed are in perfect order for how she reacts to anything and everything opposing her opinion because she has no information stored in her overly died purple head to pose a logical argument. So she claims to not have time to respond or read somebody at the same time she's responding to someone else about how she doesn't respond to someone in the first place because she doesn't....????? HUH? Then she claims that someone who gets deep under her skin is on her "exclusive ignore" list like it's some really important document.
Bottom line is that you, Feisty, can't hold an argument with anyone so you choose to ignore them because they don't say things you like (pacifiers are in the baby section at Target). If you want fake love sweetheart go back to your high school days where I'm sure you received plenty of fake love. Maybe that's your problem, maybe you expect everyone to love your far left ass because so many people pretended to in the past.
You can hate on me, Damage, White Collar, mygirl or joanna or dozens of others all you want feisty because I see people calling me and all of them out all the time and it appears we all practice what we preach, we give 'em an argument whether they think it's good bad or indifferent. I've got legitimate beliefs and principals but your bought and paid for beliefs are being exposed, and you can't seem to handle it. I want to be around when you lose it because that could be one entertaining site. It might actually come about 11:59 PM on November 6th 2012. Maybe, maybe not but it will be fun if it does.
Call for attention feisty and you shall receive attention.
Is there a full moon out somewhere?
Brian, whatever.
You see what you want to see.
Steeler Fan,
Smitty--the other day a long-time poster let us all know of some (serious) health issues she was facing. A lot of us on the left wished her well, sent prayers, gave encouragement. One person from the right did. Tells me something.
If you're talking about Phine, you might recall she provided her email address. It may surprise you, but some of us would rather contact her privately.
It is the residuals from the SUPER Moon! lol
Obama put his endorse behind Gay marriage ,which just shows he is looking for a more favourable voting base due to the fact that the econmy and job outlook is in the Crapper,but who is he kidding the Gay marriage will come down to a State by State legislation,remember all Obama did is endorse he didn't change anything but make all Gays happier ......La Chaim, thats what politicians due when they are lagging in their respective polls,.....La Chaim ....
Smitty, Some of the Independents also wished her well. I was one of them.
Fiesty,
I, as Rightwingwac, know the real you. I have watched your posts and even entered into debate with you once - in which you claimed victory but the fact was that several other posters called you on that lie so you just slithered off into the dark. You add nothing of any substance to any of these posts and when confronted you sink to the lowest deaths of ridicule and spite. Unlike Rightwingwac I am not as diplomatic. I seriously think you are beneath contempt, despicable, low cast and crass. Your vocabulary and posts offer no sign of personal intelligence or dignity. As far as this goes I believe that if obama knew what kind of thing you are even he'd tell you to just go away.
So from now on you just don't exist......just as you said to another poster he's just human excrement - typical fiesty remark, you are one nasty nobody!
wtfjes66...
don't be too hard on Fiesty. She is a lonely, old woman desperately waiting for her phone to ring.
Something that really bothers me in the posts that I'm reading is that some posters seem to think that the idea of LGBTs getting married would be carried out by religious services. No, that's not the question here.
These people deserve the legal rights that heterosexual couples enjoy including but not limited to being able to know what is happening to your loved one when they have been in an accident and are in the ER. You have to be a family member or married (aka civil union etc) to fill out the paper work required for the hospital and many other institutions.
If their loved one dies and they have no legally binding status like marriage they have no say over any of their partner's legal issues like who handles the estate etc. It's not right and it WILL change one of these days.
Feel better now?
I sure hope so... lol
Remind me again why I give a @!$%# what YOU or the little whacker think?
Don't like what I have to say - don't read it. See how simple that is?
I've been called far worse by those much better then you junior! lol
Feisty
It's not what you say because you are just a trivial nincompoop....it's what you are, and I'll bet you've been called far worse by most everybody in your miserable, nasty and ignorant life! Live long and be laughed at often. LMAO at how pathetic you are.
@wtfjes66
I think she wears a black leather hood with the zipper mouth regularly. She's basically a masochist. She'll tell you that you don't matter, that you can't compete, that you're not worthy of her acknowledgment but them she'll pop up and spout off something ignorant just enough to get another verbal beat down. She attempted to take me on a while ago and did exactly as you described. Claimed some sort of superior victory while doing nothing but throwing elementary insults and calling really lame names.
The evidence is abundant that she's on the take from some left wing group and since she puts herself out there with a big old donkey's ass target on her head I can't resist to call her out to play. She's a toy and I think she enjoys the abuse...might go back to those high school days when she put herself out for so much fake love. Anyway, I appreciate the "diplomatic" remark but when it comes to her and a couple of other 3rd grade mentality posters I find it entertaining to wallow in the mud with them and be anything but diplomatic.
It's really hard to ignore rusty dead-head because she's got an inside track to be first or second on so many stories. So I just take it to her becuase as you've observed and articulated there's no way she can give it back. It's kind of like the age old good vs. evil story. Whether I agree with them or not there are some liberals on the vine that will post well stated arguments and even though I disagree and will go against them I've got to respect their views. But she commands such disrespect that I absolutely have to oblige, besides, someone has to shut that zipper before she hurts herself. I said it before, it's like a really bad gory accident. You don't want to look but you just have to.
Her ego is so out of control that she thinks the attention is about her, but the smart people realize it's about using her like a dishrag and spotlighting her own stupidity for what it is; meaningless, worthless rhetoric.
Keep the faith...in the end the dark side will lose.
See you round the vine.
Evolution. Per Merriam-Webster, evolution is a process of change in a certain direction. Evolution of personal beliefs is something each of us should be able to understand because each of us has views which have evolved over time whether those views pertained to faith, women's rights, inter-racial marriage or minority civil rights. Our country as a whole has evolved over its 200 plus years. Our Constitution has evolved to include rights for former slaves and voting rights for women. Despite the often heard conservative suggestion that the Constitution is written in stone, it is a living, breathing document which must change and evolve as society changes or this democracy remains stuck in tradition and ultimately decays.
Yesterday, President Obama embraced "gay marriage". He made history; he is the first American President to say that gays and lesbians are part of the written words that "all men are created equal". It took courage to do the right thing knowing that 47% of the American people will take issue; it took courage to do the right thing in an election year when one knows such an endorsement will fire up the opponent's evangelical base, will send conservatives to the polls who might otherwise have stayed home. The right mocks, calls it a flip flop, and laughs at President Obama's "evolving" position on same sex marriage but they are wrong. Changing with society's changes is never a flip flop. It was the brave thing and the right thing to do. Civil rights trumps political expediency.
There comes a time in each of our lives when we reach that moment of total evolution on a view. Generally something triggers the response or several somethings together awakens us to suddenly find our view no longer on shifting sands but on solid ground. While Vice President Biden's words Sunday may have sparked President Obama's decision to speak up now rather than later, it is probable a series of somethings, including the polls in North Carolina and the subsequent NC passing of an amendment denying civil rights to one group of Americans, lit the fire and President Obama discovered he had been on solid ground for sometime. His previous actions regarding rights for the LGBT community had proved it; he just needed a nudge from traditional thinking about the word "marriage".
Whatever the reason for President Obama's decision to announce he supports gay marriage, he deserves applause for standing up for the rights of LGBT people as human beings; rights which transcend religious views, rights which transcend tradition, rights which transcend prejudice and fear of other. America is evolving, we as a people are evolving to be more inclusive and more tolerant but most importantly, evolving to reflect those words "that all men are created equal".
"While small men squabble about ways to deny liberty, great men seek ways to grant it." Charles M. Blow
Great post, Jody. Yesterday I read a quote from the Republican Senatorial candidate from Indiana, Mr. Mourdock, who said compromise is when the Democrats agree with the Republicans. It seems to me that the inability of the people on the right to consider compromise on any issue is also driving the President here. The NC amendment not only refused to sanction gay marriage but it also stops civil unions. This was a compromise that allowed gay people to have marriage rights while respecting that some people have strong beliefs about the definition of marriage. By rejecting this sort of compromise, the right makes it clear that we can't meet on some middle ground. They have no one to blame for what happens next other than themselves.
It took courage to do the right thing knowing that 47% of the American people will take issue; it took courage to do the right thing in an election year when one knows such an endorsement will fire up the opponent's evangelical base, will send conservatives to the polls who might otherwise have stayed home.
In my opinion you couldn't be more on the money Jody.
I believe that President Obama has not only done the right thing, he has done so knowing that it could be detrimental to his re-election. But because of his noble gesture to try to help those he serves, he has shown that every politician should be doing the same. We elect people to not only represent us, but to help everyone. This issue is about the rights of people across the country who want to share in the same rights that our country should have already been providing them.
While there is a long way to go for them through state legislation, it is a monumental step in the right direction.
Thanks, Steeler Fan and Brian for adding great points to my thoughts.
Uh, he hasn't DONE anything. He said something.
If he wants to DO something, he'll sign that EO, and ban discrimination against LGBT employees by government contractors.
Get back to me when that happens.
Until then, in my opinion this is just a distraction from the real issue of the campaign- the economy.
Jody, thanks for your eloquent post.
We need truly equal rights. A constitutional amendment that provides equality for all genders and sexualities.
See, no jo: here's the thing. Your President couldn't please you no matter what he did, since you have NEVER forgiven him for beating your crush Mrs. Clinton in the primaries.
Let's see how honest you can be: I expect you to call out Romney for allowing the fringe right wing run off a gay man that had been hired by his campaign.
But that would require honesty, fairness and truthfulness, so I won't hold my breath waiting.
On the other hand you could be a spineless Republican that hides behind the Bible when its convenient or if your runnuing for a political office
No Jo, how sad that your hate will not let you see the good in ANYthing...
Jody, Iowa:
What a splendid post. How fortunate we are to be outside the world of elected officials, where we can make a decision that need not be based on the possibility that some citizens might suffer cramium implosions over something that's none of their business in the first place.
Also, kudos for your Friday wrap. Got to it late and didn't get a chance to say thanks. Good stuff!
Jody, Iowa
"Civil rights trumps political expediency."
In this case, I believe it is for political capital.
Oh, those crazy liberals, I'm still laughing from reading this:
Man tries to stop wife from voting; she hits him with SUV
By Isolde Raftery, msnbc.com
A Wisconsin man was hospitalized Tuesday after he leaped in front of his estranged wife’s Dodge Durango in an attempt to prevent her from voting for a candidate other than Gov. Scott Walker.
Although it is unclear who the wife, Amanda Radle, 30, wanted to vote for in the gubernatorial primary, her brother-in-law told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that she supports the effort to recall Walker. The governor has infuriated the state’s unions with his initiatives to cut benefits and limit collective bargaining. Walker would be the third governor in U.S. history to be recalled.
Around noon on Tuesday, Amanda Radle and her husband, Jeffrey Radle, 36, were arguing outside a home in Chippewa Falls, Wisc., about her vote, according to a statement released by police. When she tried to leave, Jeffrey Radle stood in front of her car, which was parked in a dead-end alley.
She nudged him with her car several times, but each time, he bounced back to block her, according to a statement released by the Chippewa Falls Police Department. At one point he climbed onto the hood.
When she tried to drive around him, finally getting an opening, he reportedly lunged in front of the car and was hit, the police statement said. Amanda Radle then reported the incident to police.
Jeffrey Radle was transported to Mayo Clinic Health Systems in Eau Claire, Wisc. Mike Radle, Jeffrey Radle’s brother, told the Journal-Sentinel Tuesday that his brother suffered serious injuries and would stay at the hospital overnight.
He and his brother are staunch supporters of Walker, Mike Radle told the Journal-Sentinel, and his brother did not approve of his wife’s choice. Police Chief Wendy Stelter told the Journal Sentinel she believe the two are separated.
"These crazy liberal nuts are always pulling this crap," Mike Radle said. He said that Amanda Radle wanted to vote for “one of the women candidates,” according to the Journal-Sentinel.
Both Amanda and Jeffrey Radle are being referred to the District Attorney’s office for domestic-violence related charges, according to a statement released by Chippewa Falls police.
Police have responded several times to the home before, Stelter told the Journal Sentinel.
Whether either Radle voted in the election is unknown, and neither returned phone calls from msnbc.com. Regardless, Tuesday’s election produced Walker and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett as the primary winners. The recall vote is June 5.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Good Morning Gingerbread Mamma,
I read that this morning & fell of my chair laughing!
Thanks for sharing!
Girl Power! lol
Good Morning Feisty, I am still chuckling when I think about it. I told my daughter who laughed too, saying I hope they don't charge her, me too. maybe one of our Wisconsin friends will update us.
Girl Power indeed.!
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
Kind of self-explanatory as to why this couple is estranged, isn't it?!
GBM, it's sad but so funny at the same time; real life really is more interesting than fiction.
Ha! This is great! I would have hit him with my car too. Imagine, trying to stop her from voting because he disagreed with her choice!! Are you kidding me? What a pig!
Let's see, a woman hit her husband with an SUV; the husband sustained serious injuries-
And you Laughed About it?!?!?!?
Liberals are strange. They see humor in tragedy. That explains so much.
Comedy = Tragedy + Timing
Even you had to find that funny on a certain level.
nojo, c'mon, that's funny! I mean, the man was trying to keep her from exercising her rights as a citizen. I thought you were all about rights and freedom. He was blocking her CAR with his BODY, if he didn't realize that he could/would get injured having a fight with an angry person behind the wheel then it was a costly learning experience that I doubt he'll forget. He didn't die (and probably won't) but if he had it might have just been a case of natural selection.
***NEWSFLASH JUST IN***
It turns out that the the man was a liberal and was trying to prevent the woman from committing the horrible atrocity of going to the polls and voting Republican. That's why she ran him over. Is the story still funny?
Still funny, and it would be funnier if it were you in front of the car, now that would be hysterical.
MGates - I'm still trying to figure out why she even told him who she was voting for? And, why would anyone be married to someone who would try to keep them from exercising their rights?
They said he had serious injuries and would be in the hospital "overnight." If only overnight the injuries aren't THAT serious!
Sanity...My thoughts too. From all accounts this bullying was an ongoing problem.
What amused me ( a still does) was the comment from the brother-in-law, "these crazy liberal nuts", all the while his brother is throwing himself in front of her vehicle numerous times. Some people just take life all too seriously.
However, as a liberal, I think it shows how seriously and to what lengths the right will go to get what they want...and therein is a lesson for us in thi election.
SeekingSanity:
That is exactly what I was thinking. I went to painstaking lengths to weed out the controlling, stupid, irresponsible etc etc etc men out there and it will always amaze me when I find out that women I really like (or maybe not really like but are nice enough) are with these men that treat them much like this. I was not going to marry someone that didn't respect me and every position I have on every issue. I'm not unreasonable (as I think most women aren't in many situations) so I don't expect ANYONE to agree with me all the time. I just want respect. And really isn't that what we all want?
I wish to back-track on my statements yesterday about North Carolina's new amendment regarding marriage. As the new amendment bans civil unions for all it is actually a step towards equality.
Now heterosexual couples will be able to not enjoy the same rights that homosexual couples already do not enjoy.
I'd bet those North Carolina voters had no idea they banned civil unions for heterosexual couples, too. That's how the right operates, focus on the anti-gay red meat but forget to mention the rest of it.
It was that component that really had me believing Amendment One would not pass, Noid. I thought that knowing that children born out of wedlock would be ineligible for child support, or cohabiting couples would be exempt from the protection of domestic violence laws, would have weakened support for the amendment.
There has been some argument among the law's opponents that there was not enough education about that- but there were, in fact, numerous ads and mailers addressing those very issues. It seems that 60% of North Carolina voters did not care about that at all- as long as gays were deprived of a legally sanctioned union in that state.
By the way- it seems that Ohio passed virtually the same law in 2004- and defense attorneys have argued, successfully, that their clients who were accused of domestic violence could not be tried, as domestic violence laws only applied to married persons.
Strange, is it not?
Chalk up another one for The Law of Unintended Consequences.
There's an even stranger element-
The Republican party pushed to have this amendment on the May ballot- figuring fewer democrats would be voting since Obama was running unopposed. Then, Gov. Perdue figured out that she had no chance of being. Re elected, so she announced that she would not seek office a second time.
This, of course, led to a hotly contested democratic primary, which, in turn, boosted democratic participation to record levels. As primary interest rose, the amendment's opponents began to believe that they could, in fact, defeat it. Turns out, fully 40% of the democrats at the polls voted to approve the amendment.
Even stranger? It passed, overwhelmingly, in the counties that voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Those counties tend to be more African American/evangelical. Opponents outweighed supporters in Chapel Hill and Charlotte- which tends to be a younger, (read college age) electorate.
I have to wonder if Obama had spoken out earlier, if opponents would have had a better chance. It's all speculation, though- it might not have made any difference at all.
It's still pretty sad.
Agreed nojo, sad is the word for this legislation. I too think it's pretty strange that voters (even evangelicals and African Americans) would support something that bans civil unions for straight people. Jody might be right in saying that they didn't educate themselves on the effects of the law or perhaps they were so adament about denying LG-bisexual-transgender (for Damage) their rights they didn't care if it changed things for "people like them" from the way it's been for quite some time now.
Obama's mindset hasn't changed toward same sex marriage. His mind also has not evolved on trying to bs his ardent followers either. If he was so much for gay marriage, why would he add that the state's had the right to ban gay marriage? This man is taking you for an idiot, when you don't even question his words.
The Republican Party has some pretty odd values, in my book. First, conservatives championed Bristol Palin, "teen activist for abstinence", who got pregnant and never married the father, yet they become all righteous about denying gay couples the right to formalize their relationships. Call me old fashioned, but I am very distressed by the huge number of unwed mothers in this country. I think a baby should have two, committed parents.
This is not my father's Republican Party.
Plumbing, Amy, plumbing is the difference.
Our economy is in shambles and this is what our Marxist in chief feels deeply about????? Really????
bea Its your party that brings this issue up before every election. Its another way the right wants non issues like this to distract the people from the real issues. Now PLEASE go ask your party the reason they bring this up?
I don't know how to react when someone calls President Obama a socialist/communist/marxist.
Do I laugh because it's clearly another person buying in to the ridiculous attack or should I be concerned because it means that there's another person who wouldnot recognize a true socialist/communist/marxist if one were to actually come along?
Yes, Bea.
Foreign policy and beating the terroists are not the only things our President accomplishes - he is improving our domestic policies from what we got between 2001 and 2009 too.
Here is the situation, directly from the President:
Now I personally do NOT advocate same sex marriges; I believe that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God.
However, I also believe that we Americans should "practice what we preach" to the rest of the world concerning freedom, equality, and human rights.
If this nation is turly founded upon the self-evident truth that..."...all...are created equal.." and endowed with certain inalienable rights, them we must practice in reality what we give lip service to.
Do I personally agree with the President? Not entirely; but I do believe he is correct in the matter of law. No matter how much the TEA/Republicans would prefer otherwise, the fact remains that you simply can NOT legislate morality. It MUST be an individual choice.
In this instance we must apply similar principals as we do with the abortion question, alcohol consumption, even body art/getting tattoos. Individual choice MUST govern these decisions if America truly is the "Land of the FREE" and if we truly practice equality for all. (Which is not so say the government can not or should not enforce some basic regulations or restrictions e.g. hygiene in tattoo parlors, age limits on alcohol use, etc.)
Hope the RWNJ's can wrap their heads around this without having them explode, but they are just going to have to give up their inheirent desire to control others and be "in charge" forcing other people to conform to their will and their beliefs.
Where where you when the W in chief was putting our economy into shambles. You people are nothing more than class A cry babies that don't know what you are talking about.
It’s just one more example of the bigoted morons who care for nothing other than their own ideas.
I know. It's makes you realize just how stupid these people are.
Bea, to further Job1's comments where were on Jan 19, 2009, when Bush left Obama a $1.3 trillion budget deficit and that wasn't the first time W and his GOPers had a huge budget deficit? They'd been spending in the red since those first tax cuts were enacted. So where were you and the tea-publicans during that time? Where was Paul Ryan's views on the budget deficits, his slashes to programs which help people, his slashes to education while he proudly voted for all the unfunded tax cuts, the unfunded wars, the unfunded Rx Medicare plan just to name the big ones? How dare republicans even utter the words fiscal responsibility let alone cry "foul" over the deficits inherited by President Obama and the deficits necessary to dig us how of the Bush/GOP economic collapse. The GOP hasn't been fisally responsible since Reagan was elected and Mitt Romney won't be either.
Da Noid - the best way to react when the "socialist, communist, marxist" words are thrown out is to ignore them and pity their ignorance.
As expected, Rush Limbaugh was quick to criticize the President for his statements yesterday regarding gay marriage.
"Obama is leading a war on traditional marriage!"
In a shocking twist, Mr. Limbaugh's first, second, third and fourth wives were unavailable for comment.
that is hilarious noid!
GO Obaaahhhhhma 2012!
If anyone is waging a war on marriage, it is Rush Limbaugh---one marriage at a time.
Always struck me as funny that Rush paid Elton John a reported $1 million to sing at his 4th wedding.
Since I'm borrowing today..."Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot".
Has anyone gotten Newt Gingrich's statement yet today about the "sanctity of marriage"?
Are Newts's First and Second wives available for comment on his view of the sanctity of marriage?
Limbaugh and Newt married people with different plumbing, which is why the human race is alive still today. What about you? Backdooring does not create humans.
Why all the hate, people?
damage LOL! The man with the most hate filled posts asks that question. Self-reflection will answer your question.
I think at this point we have quite enough humans.
Besides, gay couples certainly do not prevent heterosexual couples from having children. In fact, they quite frequently foster or adopt children that heterosexual couples have given up or abused. They make absolutely awesome aunts and uncles, too.
I agree with you, Wilson. Isn't it about time you made room for a new human? You brought it up, so you go first.
Dasvet - ridiculous post - as usual. Marriage - whether heterosexual or homosexual is not only to create human beings. What about those who are widowed; divorced, etc., who already have all the children they intend to have? Can't they get married? What about older people - I guess no marriage there - according to you. What about those who for some reason CAN'T have children - shouldn't be allowed to marry according to you, right? What about those who just don't want children - again - I guess your answer would be no marriage. See how this works????
Still haven't spotted sanity, I see. You didn't even address the silly statement"we have enough human beings".
"But the president, always with the middle in mind, was very careful to be sensitive to the issues of states’ rights and religion. That blunted a lot of the potential criticism from the GOP that might have come on federal overreach, etc."
More White House spin...where does First Read get these non-credible talking points?
Absurd to say Obama supporting gay marriage is moderate because he didnt say the federal governemnt will mandate it!!! First Read takes the left wing view, clearly.
Give the President credit, he made it clear what his position is on gay marriage. He will gain some votes and lose some votes. But that spin about moderate positioning is pure horsecrap and Obama reelection spin.
This decision was a political one and not much more than that. If it was one of conviction, Pres. Obama would have had enough of a pair to say so years ago, but didn't. I have my personal opinions on the matter, but the government should not be dictating this beyond "civil unions" for tax purposes--that applies to all citizens.
BTW: will the time come when religious organizations are forced to comply with non discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Will that view of morality be forced on them? Ironic that the left appears to be heading in the direction of doing to the so-called religious right what they accuse the "religious right" of doing to them--forcing their morality on them.
Oh Bob, Bob, Bob:
Your knee-jerk TEA/RNC response that this is spin is simply inaccurate, as usual.
The President e-mailed this to me yesterday as soon as he made his position public.
Fact is, he is correct concerning the law and equality.
I know you have trouble with this, but truth is truth!
Why did you reply to Bob beneath my post? Your aim is one post off. I claim pseudo-Alzheimers when that happens...one of the few benefits of being old I guess.
To: OldSchoolLatinTeacher;
Great short and simple Post. Both Mitt and Obama backed up that the States are responsible and not the Federal.
Took 3 years of Latin myself, Dominus Vobiscom. I hope I spelled it correctly teach.
I hope your Latin is better than your English..
CC: close: it's "vobiscum"
FR: I suppose you have never made a grammatical mistake in your life... That comment was rather petty.
To: OldSchoolLatinTeacher who wrote and corrected me. "I thank you and stand corrected and say "Et cum spiritutuo."
CC: close: it's "vobiscum" FR: I suppose you have never made a grammatical mistake in your life... That comment was rather petty"
Teacher, I know class when I see it, but I'm sure Beisty Feisty R. has no idea how racist she is. I can find errors on her posts but since she is my Girlfriend I won't say anything.
Whatever your belief about gay marriage , be careful about using the Bible as a basis for your belief.
In the past The Bible has been used to justify everything from slavery to opposition to woman's right to vote
And , for example, although no Christians are left today that believe women should NOT vote, Christians 100 years ago firmly believed that it was against scripture for a woman to be allowed to vote . She was, after all, property of her husband and was not allowed to have a separate opinion on political matters.
Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
Collosians 3:18: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord
1 Corinthians 11:7-12 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
I Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
2 Timothy 3:1-7 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands....
Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
1 Timothy 2:11-14 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
I Corinthians 11:3,4,7-9 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. ... he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Thank you for that thorough reminder of what a pile of garbage the bible really is.
written by men
I grew up in a Baptist church. As an African American with such deep roots in Christian Baptist and Pentecost congregations, it’s hardly a secret that there is a good deal of homophobia among black people regarding the LGBT community. As a sacred rite, homosexuality is frowned upon, and that’s putting it mildly.
I’m actually surprised at my own position on the subject, given my belief in Christianity.
From what I’ve gathered from the Bible myself on God’s perspective (a perspective I take from Jesus Christ), what God may or may not have intended for interpersonal relationships between men and women would never be fully followed by human beings, anyway…given the fact that people aren’t perfect and all.
God himself only gave Moses ten commandments. The nation of Israel added the hundreds of other tractates and addendums to that “original” template (not unlike how our own Constitution has grown, in a strange way), but the premise should be apparent―an attempt to legislate morality (if homosexuality is indeed a moral, rather than biological, question).
To wit: when Jesus was asked about divorce (seems wanting to get out of a heterosexual marriage for any reason isn’t as new-fangled a phenomenon as I’ve been told), he stated that men and women were created and betrothed by God from the very beginning for the very purpose of marriage, despite what any anecdotal references to Mosaic law may have stipulated (Matthew, Ch19., v 1-11).
In a way, if you read Jesus’ particular statement about marriage (or more precisely, the sanctity of it) at verses 4-6, the argument could be made that Jesus implicity indicted homosexuality (or at least, homesexual and lesbian relationships and unions).
“Flip-flopping” on this issue isn’t new either, apparently.
In fact, all of the most pointed Christian indictments of homosexuality are from the apostle Paul. He’s been called the “New Testament Moses” on more than one occasion.
But what makes me a Christian is that I have always sought, as best as I am able, to follow the example and pattern of behavior in public circumstances that Jesus embodied in his life. If Jesus’ sole purpose, for example, was to fulfill an ancient prophecy and endure ritual slaughter and death to win salvation for me, there really wasn’t any reason for him to take 30 of 40 years running around on Earth to do that. I mean, personally, I’d want to get that over with as quick as I could.
The example Jesus set was undeniably consistent in virtually every encounter he had―he first sought to fix whatever was wrong, before he passed any judgment on anybody or flung around any condemnation. He always chose compassion over dogma or ideology or even nationality.
If anybody has a reason to be a hard-line right-winger regarding homosexuality, I guess it would be God or Jesus. I’ve heard Pastor John Hagee preach.
I commend the President for clarifying his position as an elected government official (and the one holding the Executive office). As much as it is pandered on both sides as being equally important/no-so-important at this time of the election cycle, it has always been a fairly obvious land mine to avoid. I don’t believe, on balance, that the President’s declaration on this issue is any more politically self-serving than anything else. Part of being clear about one’s positions will inevitably draw lines and set one at odds with another. You’re not going to make everybody happy with whatever your perspective on something happens to be. We all tend to look for exactly what it is we wish to find.
At the end, for me, the separation of church and state in our society is proven again, by our “Christian” founding fathers, to be more than prescient.
I believe that homosexuality is a choice. A lot of that is ingrained in me from my religious upbringing. And because it is not a widely accepted choice, it is left on the fringes of society to wither and die, because to demonize the choice is to also demonize the one who made the choice. But I’ve lived and worked around enough of all kinds of people to know for certain that I prefer honesty and integrity in my acquaintances, to arguments about sexual proclivities. I know that human beings are not simply physically created (relegating our behaviors to simple instinct and subsequent unaccountability), but have emotional and psychological components to our beings as well. Too many factors enter into a person’s development in this life to compartmentalize behavior or sexual orientation, to me.
But as a nation, we can discern a person’s nature much more clearly by the way he regards his fellows, then by whether or not they may be missing a chromosome.
Any day not talking about the economy is a good day for the president.
Sad! ain't it! All that so he does not have to face the truth about the way we are becoming a second class country.
sandiego & Harold:
BULL HOCKEY!
Our President is finally getting us out of the mess dumbya/cheney created between 2001 and 2009, and returning us to the balance and surplus we had under President Clinton (instead of the high deficit, fiscally irresponsible Republican policies.) The Dow is setting new records, price of gasoline is coming down; the illegal/immoral war in Iraq is over; We are starting to return to the peace and prosperity we knew under President Clinton before dubya came along.
Glad to talk about it anytime if the RNC-TEA would quit bringing up these inconsequential "non-issues" to divert attenion away from President Obama's successes.
Wow! do you work? or on welfare? I live in a pure Dem. state. Gas is coming down for the election coming up and and the country is not balanced plus the only surplus we have is on welfare. There i not enough people working to pay the welfare. If you think this is balance you have to be on the receivingend of the down economy.
Sandie....there is really no pleasing you guys. When he talks about the economy, you complain he is pandering or looking for votes. Now he has made a historical pronouncement on marriage, the right accuses him of pandering and the media is ginning it up by bringing on everyone and anyone from the right to talk about it and.... you blame him.
Like it or not, he is our President and his actions make news. Again, thank you Mr. President.
Harold-3265105
Come on Harold...
are you saying You think we had balance between 2001 and 2009?
What exactly IS your point, other than you don't like having a black Democrat in the White House?
I showed that we are making progress in cleaning up the mess created by the W. Bush administration; are you upset this nation is making progress? Does it bother you that things ARE improving under President Obama? Do you not like for America to have successes and improvements while Obama is President?
Don't beat around the bush - give us some specifics along with authorities (not just your opinion or the TEA=RNC spin, talking points and excuses.)
Facts are facts, and truth is truth!
p.s.
Veracity Stew
Other sources besides the CBO have been reporting signs of strong and sustained economic growth. Unfortunately, these reports have been drowned out by the strident voices of the Republican candidates with their relentless anti-Obama rhetoric. While one may argue that it’s their job to bash the economy, it is our civic duty to bring the hard facts to light.
?p=35170
Budget Surplus! A $58 Billion Fluke? | Veracity Stew
veracitystew.com
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced a $58 billion budget surplus for the month of April, the first surplus since August 2008. What does this mean? Is the American economy finally back on track?
Just hate such good news don't you Harold....
HE LOST MY VOTE and many others that I have talked with. This comes from a Dem. State of PA.
try dragging your knuckles and sorry @ss self into the next century harold...what are you afraid of?
GO Obaaaahhhhhma 2012!
Yes Harold, I can tell by your posts in 11.1 & 11.3 that President Obama HAD YOUR VOTE until he made his announcement yesterday.
Harold-3265105 - and for every vote he lost he picked up 2! Your point?
Harold-3265105
Harold-3265105
So Harold-3265105: YOU claim Pennsylvania is a "pure Dem. state" and that YOU are a Democrat????
TOLL!!!
Sort of told on yourself there didn't you... Republican/Teabagger troll.
How much does the RNC/TEA pay you to troll these discussion boards?
"Any day with a lot of stories in the news and headlines about the lack of centrists is NOT a good day for the GOP as it tries to re-appeal to suburbia. And there would have been yesterday, and it would have had (and still has) the potential to be a real issue for swing voters. It’s why you see the Obama campaign try to tie Romney to anything the GOP and outside groups do and say"
What a shame, the gay marriage issue didnt allow First Read to headline a half dozen stories spinning the David Axelrod talking points, and no doubt touting the latest liberal hero, 80 year old Dick Lugar...of course, the lack of Democrat centrists never seems to bother First Read...
Hey, Bob, do you go to the FOX News blogs to complain about spreading Karl Rove talking points or do you just honor us by complaining about a network as a party mouthpiece?
The Federal Government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.
The GOP begs to differ.
Noid: so does the DNC
Well the, OldSchoolLatinTeacher, perhaps you'd like to take a stab at the question I keep asking but to which I can't seek to get an answer:
The GOP says we need to protect and defend traditional marriage. From what are we protecting and defending it?
Da Noid,
The GOP does not differ. We believe it is the state's that should decide. Wish obama felt this way, not just when it suits him. When his re-eletion is on the line he panders to both sides in one sentence.
Hmm...so does this mean that if a couple moves from one state to another they could be declared legally married in one state but not in another?
Da Noid: Can't speak for the GOP as I am libertarian, but for what it's worth, here's my answer: From extinction. One can't stop people from making choices that they do, and on a secular-governmental level if those choices do not specifically harm or endanger others, those making the choices should bear the consequences of their own actions. That's why I'm a civil union proponent for all citizens. On the other hand, the impact of marital breakdowns (divorce, single-parenting--which can work but is far tougher--and lousy parenting) is devastating especially in impoverished areas. These can't be remedied by government--whether controlled by the left or the right.
Here's my question: Why should government be the one telling me what marriage is or is not?
"We believe it is the state's that should decide."
Hmmm....like the states used to decide about inter-racial marriage until the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia as recently as 1967?
"Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1(1967), was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
The plaintiffs, Mildred Loving (née Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, July 22, 1939 – May 2, 2008) and Richard Perry Loving (a white man, October 29, 1933 – June 1975), were residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were found sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Mrs. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom; rather than defending them, it became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge, because it proved they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified "miscegenation" as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Is this really the way you think the gay marriage issue should play out too?
JoAnne, Trying to equate "same sex marriages" with "interracial marriages" is like comparing apples and oranges. BTW, there was only 4 or 5 states, if I remember right, that had laws against interracial marriages. (When I married, in 1964 to an Asian lady, I had to sign an acknowledgment that our marriage would not be recognized in certain states.)
Further the African American communities feel that the "gay movement" is hijacking the civil rights movement that they fought hard for and people died for.
DaNoid,
If one state say's you are married, then you to one that say's you not. Its best you stay in the state that say's you are. I have a concealed handgun license that is not legal in all states. I follow the law's the states set forth and respect them. If the state I live in decided and voted to give gay marriage it's own title, then I would have to respect it. Does not mean I agree, but that's what the state has decided. That should not be trumped by the Federal Government. This is not slavery. State sovereignty has to be honored.
MRWSR, then if one state allows slavery and the next does not best stay in the one that does not right. Some rights extend beyond state rule, while we are a nation of states we are still a nation and this nation declares everyone to be equal, that goes beyond the states.
See, then I could just argue that Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution applies.
See, so if I get married legally in South Carolina then North Carolina must recognize that marriage.
There we agree...no government should be decided what marriage is or is not. If something is a right then we have no need to legislate it.
Correction, the government is not trying to be in the marriage business, they are in the equality business.
MRWSR, denying rights to one group of people IS a form of slavery. And it is not what America is supposed to stand for.
How, then, do you explain the ammendment just passed in North Carolina?
If you don't like government defining marriage, how can you support Romney whose intent it is to propose a constitutional ammendment prohibiting same sex marriage?
Fielden: Not sure why you asked me that question. I have already said that government (left or right is part of that package) should not be telling me or anyone else what its view of marriage is.
There is no way to compare this to slavery or the nature of the country to the way it was then. You want it to be that way. If we allow gay marriage, then allow polygamy. Allow sex with animals, allow prostitution in all states. Please tell me where will it end.
The answer is, only when a the progressive left happy. Damn anyone who thinks otherwise. You can post on this page and sing to the choir, but as you can see, the majority of people in this country do not believe what you do.
MRWSR - Really? The sex with animals stupidity? Marriage is of two people who are consenting adults and of age to enter into a contract.
This is about equality - nothing more - nothing less.
Seeking sanity - NO this is a federal tax and federal benefits issue, beyond that its a society issue. The laws of the govt should be written in such a way to say for example, regarding taxes, " A couple who shares a financial burden within the home is due for this credit and that credit, number of children under 18 being supported financially by said couple shall receive such and such credit for each child. Tax papers should not list spouses as some people do not believe in 'marriage" homo or hetero. Two adults only, to make the anti-polygamist happy, shall be given all faith and credit as is appropriate for sharing financial burdens. a piece of paper gives me the ability to list myself as a spouse but the fact is my rights were given to me by my partner and his rights to me were given by me to him. No paper changed the fact we wanted to share our lives together and have a family together. In fact were we wedded in what most might term a civil union by a medicine man who was basically a J.O.P. I signed, hubby signed, witnesses signed and our Medicine man signed. My in laws were wedded by the local J.O.P. I lived with my intended for 4 year before we got married, but to follow the letter of the tax code we didnt file as a married couple, this should be changed and then all responsibility of accepting gay or even inter-racial couples falls on society. 300 years ago if a girl ran off with a man not approved by her daddy, HE did not acknowledge their union and most of the family would follow his suit. Eventually families started to deny the dad this ability and now here we are!!! Evolving!!!
Christianity is a personal religious belief designed to help YOU become a better person. It is not a cudgel to be wielded in an attempt to impose YOUR choices on someone else.
This is why the Bible says in Matthew chapter 7:
It is not right for anyone of any religion to use the government to impose their personal beliefs on other people's lives.
President Obama made the right choice, and it is long past time for us to stop wasting time trying to regulate other people's genitals and reproductive organs. There can be no more basic freedom than these.
The folks on the right are always talking about freedom and getting government out of our lives. However, these same people like VP Bob in Virginia and the North Carolina vote to not recognize a Civil Union is just one more example of the mean spirited approach to legislation and government.
So much freedom and getting government out of our lives.
Hey, now thats not fair, I am a conservative 80% of the time but have no doubt that certain things should be left out of the govt and some things the church needs to step back and realize WE AREN'T ALL CHRISTIAN. and therefore our lives should not be held to the whim of a book written by control freaks, but even demos like to control. So dont go throwing all conservatives to the sheeple!! What we as a NATION must decide is how must federal control is enough and how much is going over board in interfering with the evolution of society. Gays are cool with me and their unions are great with me and their child adopting or having is cool with me and since they would have the same FINANCIAL burdens associated with this life as my spouse and I do they should get credit where credit is due!!!Obama and Mittens can have THEIR OPINIONS but society is evolving to say "butt out and stop sexualizing law lingo and make it human being or even man-kind has such and such rights" One my companies paper work I took out Mom and dad and listed Contact person 1 and contact person 2. I did that, not some govt regulation!!! And since then have noticed more people doing the same!!
The govt does need to get out of our lives and the church, well people choose to have the church in their lives, whereas I was born here and am under direct control by the govt and have no choice as to that, so yes limiting the control would be great. I like that about Ron Paul but pretty much only that. he is a strange duck but he does say STATES should outlaw gay marriage, therefore we still have some control over our state govt and THAT choice!!! He may not in so many words want to repeal workforce protection but I could maybe get behind my state making such regulations. Maybe!! But the second someone tells me I have to hire a minority to be fair, and there are other more qualified non-minority candidates to choose from, I am gonna be PO'd. I am a qualified applicant employer not a racially or gender specific employer. If I get a well qualified black and an un-qualified white, I am picking the black and vice versa. If the govt came in and told me I had to start hiring people with little or no training, I would have to flip out on them, It can take years to train someone with NO experience in my field and by that time they could serious damage to my business. But for the most part at this time I hire anyone who walks in the door and wants to learn and is good with children. We increase pay with classes taken, classes we pay for and most of our employees are under 18, so we can help the young struggling babes get a head start on work ethics and people skills. And in all honesty I leave my political views at home and dont talk to the employees about my beliefs, I want them to form their own opinions the same way I did. If they have questions I will answer them as best I can without getting testy, but I will usually tell them to avoid college until they are sure of what they want to do. I have seen too many waste govt money on a college education that left them jobless once they graduated. And too many get into year 3 with no IDEA what they want to do the rest of their lives and some never worked a day in their life. I steer most of them into medicine or computers, even agriculture if they like certain things. Business degrees ( which my hubbs has 2 of) are not such a good thing in our economy. But like I said only when I am asked will I give opinions and usually I stay middle of the road.
My issue is not with same sex marriage because I believe the government has no right to tell anyone who to love or marry as long as they are consenting adults. I don't think the government has a right to force any church to perform the marriage ceremonies but if a church is willing then I don't see an issue. Also, civil union options should be available in any state.
My problem with Obama is the timing and what I feel is his "say anything to get elected policy". From what I can tell he is willing to make a stand prior to the election to distract from his failed policies and try to get votes but he believes that the states should make their own decisions regarding this issue. So essentially we have the "great one" saying anything to get elected but it is doubtful that this will have any real impact.
If I had to say who I thought really believed in same sex marriage and would actually be supportive, I would say between Obama and Cheney it would be Cheney which is a scary thought. The only marriage I think Obama would really be for is same self marriage so he could marry the most important person and true love of his life.
holy $hit summer...you do know that cheney isn't in the next election, don't you? and I had to stop myself from falling out of my chair laughing that you think the one that will "say anything to get elected" is the President. pleeaaaassssseee
etch a sketch, flip flop, to the left of Ted Kennedy, severely republican Governor, corporations are people my friends, it's my turn....any of that sound familiar to you ?
GO Obaaaahhhhma 2012!
Actually it was a play on the whole Obama is better than Bush rhetoric. Which is setting a bar lower than any I would like to see again. In this case Obama is not better than Cheney.
Actually, I think Obama will say and do anything to get elected. He is an egotist and incompetent to boot. Do I like Romney - not really. I am an Independent voter and it appears we have no candidate this election. Of the two I will be voting for Romney.
My take on your sig..... Go AWAY Obaaaahhhma 2012!
Summer,
I agree. It would have looked a lot better for him if he didn't wait for polls to show the majority 53% are now in favor of same sex unity. Making a public statement at this point looks like a political move for votes and makes it look like he didn't have the balls to make the statement when the issue was less popular. If that is the case then votes trump morals which is the whole problem with our government.
I guess I'm glad you posted this, Summer. When I hear people say they voted against the best candidate for office, I often wonder "what were you thinking?"
Now I guess I know: not much!
You claim you favor marriage equality, but you won't vote for Obama because he came out in support of it. You'd prefer to support a candidate who advocates a position denying the freedom to marry for gay people, because you find him less irritating, personally, than Barack Obama.
@ Amy B. Portland, ME
I am not supporting Obama because I think he came out in support of it as lip service to try to get in office. I don't think he will "do anything" to support this cause once he gets back into office if he wins. Also, I think he is using it as an "issue" to distract from his lack of follow through for all the items he promised in 2008.
So basically whether you have Romney saying what he thinks or Obama saying what he thinks is expedient it will be the same result (except more irritating if you actually think Obama will put his support where his mouth is).
The best candidate for office would have been Hillary. I gave Obama 3 1/2 years and had high hopes but his focus on celebrity (parties, photo ops, vacations) without follow through I see as an issue. Yes, he is better than Bush, however, my cat would have been better than both Bush and Obama as president.
So to reiterate I favor marriage equality and it will come. I don't favor a politician trying to use the issue to gain votes at the last minute (he could have done something in 3 1/2 years) when I think he has no intention of "doing" anything to truly support it. I see this as a near lie (personally I think it is a total lie but in his heart he could have changed his mind but I doubt it) . Obama said he thinks the states should make their own decisions which basically washes his hands of it.
after all that summer....you basically had nothing at all to say; good grief what a waste of time
Chris, I don't have any more to say at least right now and the only waste of time has been Obama's time in office. I only wish it had been Hillary/Bill in 2008. I actually wrote her and in a nice way asked her to kick him [Obama] to the curb and run in 2012.
I only wish it had been Hillary/Bill in 2008--buyer's remorse sucks... I wouldn't have supported Hillary either, BUT she definitely has more of a pair than Pres. Obama and with her husband's history of working with a republican congress, maybe, just maybe some good could have been done.
Summer, it wasn't Obama who forced this issue. It was the press. In the preface to his statement, Obama said "I was asked a direct question. I gave a direct answer."
(he could have done something in 3 1/2 years)
President Obama signed the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which means gay people, serving in the military, no longer have to hide their orientation, or be expelled. Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell took courage and persistence, and would not have happened had McCain been President. Why do Independents always think justice will just "happen" without Democratic activists pushing to make it so?
Legalizing marriage for gay people can not be accomplished by executive order. President Obama couldn't "do something" about marriage equality during his presidency, but he has made it possible for gay people to serve openly in the military. That is a huge accomplishment.
It baffles me, how folks can claim they would have preferred Hillary Clinton as President, while not giving President Obama credit for appointing her to Secretary of State, and not giving Hillary credit for the phenomenol successes she has achieved in that role.
All in all, something else is at work here, I'm afraid. You don't "like" President Obama as a person, and so, you are willing to throw gay people under the bus by electing Romney? Very strange.
summer....meet j.merle....j.merle....meet summer
nuff said
I see it now, Chris. Why do I waste my breath?
@ Chris, I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to J. Merle but I guess you and Amy can be buds in your thoughts together. I will have to see if I can look up J. Merle. I doubt we have the same opinions. I am an Independent voter that has voted primarily Democrat.
I don't care for the far right any more than I do for the far left. As to liking Obama, I did in 2008 (compared to McCain/Palin) and I would have in 2012 if I felt he had done a decent job as president.
@ Amy don't waste your breath. I have seen too much over the last 3 1/2 years for my opinion to be swayed unless Romney totally makes a muck up of it during the race. My goal in 2016 is for a viable third party choice so we can get off the route of Loser 1 and Loser 2. Also, I do give Hillary credit for her success and wish she would have been President in 2008 and would have run in 2012.
@ Chris I don't even see J. Merle so far in the list. The person that I agree the most with so far is JoAnnaSmith1.
don't fret Amy...they have learned how to hide pretty well over the years...sadly...some of them don't even realize how far gone they are...frightening!
you just made my point summer
do you always react like this when you don't get your way? if you think anyone other than President Obama is going to looking out for your best interest, maybe I could show you, js1 and j.merle a bridge to nowhere we have for sale
@ Chris I am not looking to get my own way. My first, second, third, or forth choice for president are not an option (and did not even run) so it is basically figuring out between Loser 1 and Loser 2. I think few of our politicians are looking out for our best interests and I don't think Obama cares about anyone but Obama. We cannot afford 4 more years of his misguided economic policies.
Maybe my hopes were to high in 2008. I expected him [Obama] to be different. I was not nearly as disappointed in Bush (not that I voted for him; he stole the election from Gore). I had absolutely no expectations regarding Bush and there was nothing Bush could do to make me think worse of him. However, Obama I thought was going to make a positive difference. Frankly I would rather be sitting on the bridge with JoAnna (no clue about J. Merle) then attending a banquet with you, Amy, and Obama.
your loss summer...maybe the 3 of you can see russia from your bridge
I would love to attend a banquet with Amy and President Obama...maybe Feisty can set that up for us ;)
summerlight - you're right - you're just like JAS and that is no compliment. You don't post anything relating to sense and you hate the President for no reason. You and JAS will be very happy together. We'll be happy to have you and JAS sitting on a bridge. It's the perfect place for you!
Chris - you can't fix stupid!
@ SeekingSanity
Total agreement about fixing stupid. It is especially difficult when it is combined with unthinking idolatry. It is amazing how people can be so self righteous and think they are totally brilliant when actually they are pretty much clueless.
Oh, I know you will say but that is you not us. It is all a matter of point of view. Personally I think you are blinded by the cult of personality and dogma to actually step back and see things for what they are.
I am not saying that I am totally free from my opinions and thus am totally objective because I don't believe anyone can claim that status. I do think as an Independent voter who reads as much as possible all points of view that I don't have the issues of following party lines or Conservative/Liberal when I work toward my conclusions.
Also, I try to keep an opinion mind and I admit when I am wrong. I wanted Hillary for 2008 but was more than willing to give Obama a chance and I wanted him to succeed. I just do not see in his 3 1/2 year record the results that would qualify him for 4 more years. In addition I see troubling personal flaws of a self centered ego, uncontrolled spending, public disconnect, and a willingness it say anything to get what he wants. Maybe those are traits shared by all politicians but Obama had said he was going to be different and that is what I expected.
"This isn’t 2004 -- the political impact of all this"
While I tend to agree this issue is less critical than in 2004, remember this: the liberal media during the 2004 Presidential campaign also claimed the gay marriage issue was unimportant , that opinions were changing in favor of gay marriage, and focused on the fact Dick Cheney has a gay daughter.
Only after the 2004 election came the realization that the gay marriage issue was on the ballot in many swing states, and ramped up conservative voter turnout in these critical states, and may have swung the election.
Gay marriage may win Obama some votes in California, but lose him votes in states like NC, VA, Ohio, Iowa.
Bob in Virginia - for every vote this costs Obama he will get 2 more. This is a win-win for him and it took great courage to take this stand.
The conservative nonsense is already galvanizing many Independents and moderate Republicans who will vote AGAINST Romney.
The President should not use the word "Evolving" that is one word a conservative might not know or understand!
Hail to the Chief!!!!! Those words he spoke yesterday were welcome and he now definitely has my vote in November. I bet he has won over a huge number of young voters also and will win the election unless the Republicans can pull off another illegal election like the one Geroge Jr. supposedly won.
Here Here!!
Lets see whats the next beliefs come about to comment.
GO Obaaaahhhhma 2012!
Now if Obama would just "evolve" aka flip flop his position and repeal Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, The auto Bail out, Stimulus I, His war against states rights on illegal Immigrants, Figure out a way to recall his 2 justices, etc, etc, etc. I was really encouraged to see that after 2 years of Obama policies the country spoke loudly in 2010 against them. I expect those votes to be just as loud in 2012. VOTE FORE CHANGE IN 2012!
Obamacare was originally modeled after Mitt Romney health care initiatives in Massachusettes. HMMMM. When are we going to stop this crap. Love Obama, will vote for both of him (white and black)
Obama loves the color of money. Flying out to California for a 40K dinner plate dinner fundraiser with the 1%. Do you think he gives a dam$ about the 99%? How much is this little Air Force 1 jog costing the taxpaper?
The best president in the world! He will win Ohio, North Carolina and my home state of Virginia! Do not get West Virginia confused with Virginia!!
If you look back at his promises from the election, he promised CHANGE and he's CHANGED his mind again. He sounds more and more like John Kerry now too, you never knew what he would say in any given place on any given day if he thought he would help in his election. This is the same thing allover again. He is saying what any group what's to hear if it will get him re-elected. He'll be all from something else next week too.....I wonder what it will be. It will be something to get more votes I can guarantee that. Watch and you will see!!!! It's all about the vote.......
Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann...who? And what was the name of that pizza guy?