Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 126
Like Tree96Likes

Thread: Obama backs gay marriage!!!

  1. #61
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    31,251

    Default

    I think the last 40 years worth of general presidential elections have fit the lesser-of-two-evils format The long-term trend does not look good!
    Sojiita and louiswinthorpe111 like this.

  2. #62
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,514

    Default

    I'm so tired of the 'oh, what are you going to do vote for the other guy' idiocy. That's why they have America by the balls. There are other candidates. And to the whole 'it's a waste to vote for a third party candidate'- if people had always thought so we'd still be voting for Federalists vs. Democratic-Republican.

    And it's ignorant of history to think that SCOTUS judges nominated by Presidents of either side's decisions always line up to that party's platform. They don't.

    He's had 4 years to say something good about gay marriage. He didn't. This wasn't an epiphany like Paul's on the Damascus road, but a calculated, carefully parsed way to try to shore up his base for the coming election. He was really doing poorly with gays, so 'here's a bone guys, now how 'bout some donations'.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  3. #63
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    I'm so tired of the 'oh, what are you going to do vote for the other guy' idiocy. That's why they have America by the balls. There are other candidates. And to the whole 'it's a waste to vote for a third party candidate'- if people had always thought so we'd still be voting for Federalists vs. Democratic-Republican.

    And it's ignorant of history to think that SCOTUS judges nominated by Presidents of either side's decisions always line up to that party's platform. They don't.

    He's had 4 years to say something good about gay marriage. He didn't. This wasn't an epiphany like Paul's on the Damascus road, but a calculated, carefully parsed way to try to shore up his base for the coming election. He was really doing poorly with gays, so 'here's a bone guys, now how 'bout some donations'.
    Then what exactly do you advocate? Romney, Obama, neither, not voting, write in candidate. What? It is easy to bitch about other's 'idiocy'-and wax poetic about other candidates, history, etc. But what about here and now, real life?

    I can say that I will vote for Obama, because guess what?-it is going to either be him or Romney, and there is not one good reason for me to vote for Romney. So I will vote for Obama, with all his imperfections, and hold my damn nose if I have to, and if there were any realistic alternatives I would consider them, but really, for this election, what are they?

    Yes they have us by the balls. And for right now(this election at least) there is not a goddamn thing I can do about.
    louiswinthorpe111 likes this.

  4. #64
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    31,251

    Default

    You'd have to reach back a ways to find a point in history where a SCOTUS appointment flipped. The most recent was David Souter, appointed by Bush, who became one of the more liberal justices. Bush tried to make up for that by appointing Clarence Thomas, and we all know how that worked out.

    Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia, the conservative bete noire of the Supreme Court, who has been the lead scripter for the most hard-right decisions of SCOTUS. And Anthony Kennedy, another conservative justice.

    W. Bush appointed both Roberts and Alito - both at the relatively young age of 50, and they have not disappointed their conservative backers at all. Alito is considered a template for the next conservative SCOTUS appointment.

    Clinton appointed Ginsburg and Breyer. Unfortunately, despite being reliably the most liberal justices, they were both about 5-10 years older than the average age of justices that Republicans appoint. As a result, they are aging out as rapidly, if not more rapidly than George Bush 1's appointees.

    Obama appointed both Kagan and Sotomayor, both leaning liberal, and both young.

    When you combine Obama's appointment record with the fact that Romney has Bork leading his judicial appointment team, the choice is actually very stark.

  5. #65
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,514

    Default

    Scalia has made some quite liberal judgements. Kyllo vs. US, US vs. Gonzalez-Lopez, County of Riverside vs. McLaughlin, numerous ones on free speech, even years ago on flag burning. There are quite a few examples if you look.

    As for voting, there are other parties in the US, and there are other candidates on the ballot. Perhaps one may represent you and and your positions. It is now and it is 'real life'. This 'history' is from my own lifetime. Look at the changes in the democrats and republicans since the 60's. The Dems were the anti-civil rights party, not vice-versa. That was just 40 years ago.

    Or, you could try holding the people you vote for in your party accountable and challenging them in primaries, like the Tea Party does. They move candidates out - like they just did to Luger. Everyone is always saying how stupid they are, but they are changing their party. Too bad the dems don't have their own version for internal change.

    Otherwise accept what we have.
    Last edited by witchcurlgirl; May 10th, 2012 at 10:18 AM.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  6. #66
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    Scalia has made some quite liberal judgements. Kyllo vs. US, US vs. Gonzalez-Lopez, numerous ones on free speech, even years ago on flag burning. There are many examples for many of our conseravtive judges if you look.

    As for voting, there are other parties in the US, and there are other candidates on the ballot. Perhaps one may represent you and and your positions.

    Or, you could try holding the people you vote for in your party accountable and challenging them in primaries, like the Tea Party does. They move candidates out - like they just did to Luger. Everyone is always saying how stupid they are, but they are changing their party. Too bad the dems don't have their own version for internal change.

    Otherwise accept what we have.
    Fortunately, they are changing their party-for the worse.

    This two party entrenched system really does suck though and with winner take all and the two parties so dominating the political scene it makes it hard to veer from the path as it seems like you are just throwing your vote away. It is too bad that it is like that. And I agree in that we should ultimately not be 'just accepting' of the status quo.

  7. #67
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    DADT was repealed under Obama, which is enough proof for me that he's gonna walk the walk, not just talk the talk. And everyone is underestimating how HUGE him just saying this publically in an election year is. Just four years ago, a candidate saying anything like this was considered an electoral death sentence.

    I'm a realist. These are gradual steps I can agree with, because I know he's not going to jump up and lead a gay pride parade. Saying, "That's not good enough, I'm staying home" is stupid, because if you do that then you WILL get Romney (and others) who don't want to make ANY change, but want to turn back the clock. The choice isn't between the lesser of two evils, but between "Someone on my side who is making bigger changes than any other president ever has, but maybe not what I would prefer" vs. "Someone who will actively stop any change and turn back civil rights if he gets the chance."

    If you really want Obama to make big strides for gay rights and work to get DOMA repealed, then RE-ELECT HIM. If he's doing this now, think of what he'll do if he gets a second term where he doesn't have to give a shit about getting re-election.

    BTW, hearing hetero people argue that marriage should be a state's rights issue is hilarious. Because you KNOW that those same people would raise a stink if they married in, say, Virginia and then moved to or made a trip to say, Pennsylvania, and were told that they weren't married there. What if some fundamentalist couple was taking a trip and they couldn't sleep with their spouse because, "Oh, we're not married in this state"? Hmm, what a minute, that could be a benefit! We could trap all those fundamentalists in one state that way! I vote Mississippi.
    Sojiita, ManxMouse and *DIVA! like this.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  8. #68
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    31,251

    Default

    Re: Scalia

    Scalia has argued that there is no constitutional right to abortion

    Scalia has repeatedly called upon his colleagues to strike down Roe v. Wade. Scalia hoped to find five votes to strike down Roe in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, but was not successful in doing so

    Scalia was the lone dissenter in the SCOTUS decision that opened up VMI to women.

    Scalia has generally voted to strike down laws which make distinctions by race, gender, or sexual orientation.

    Scalia is against the Miranda ruling.

    Scalia dissented in Lawrence v Texas (which struck down sodomy laws used to prosecute gay people)

    Scalia dissented in Romer v Evans, which ruled laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation, to be unconstitutional

    In RAV vs. St. Paul, Scalia wrote the SCOTUS opinion striking down a hate speech ordinance that was used to prosecute a cross burning.

    Voted in the majority in Bush v Gore.

    Wrote the majority opinion in Heller v DC, where SCOTUS struck down DC's handgun law

    Believes that it is constitutional to execute a mentally retarded person (Atkins v Virginia), or someone as young as 15, who has committed a capital offense (Roper v Simmons)
    Sojiita likes this.

  9. #69
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Back of Beyond
    Posts
    11,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    I'm so tired of the 'oh, what are you going to do vote for the other guy' idiocy. That's why they have America by the balls. There are other candidates. And to the whole 'it's a waste to vote for a third party candidate'- if people had always thought so we'd still be voting for Federalists vs. Democratic-Republican.

    And it's ignorant of history to think that SCOTUS judges nominated by Presidents of either side's decisions always line up to that party's platform. They don't.

    He's had 4 years to say something good about gay marriage. He didn't. This wasn't an epiphany like Paul's on the Damascus road, but a calculated, carefully parsed way to try to shore up his base for the coming election. He was really doing poorly with gays, so 'here's a bone guys, now how 'bout some donations'.
    Yep, he's cynically yanking liberal chains. It's so easy, like taking candy from a baby. He now NEEDS all those liberals he has consistently, persistently, RELENTLESSLY, betrayed over the course of his term in office. He'll abandon them--AGAIN---the minute he's reelected. Please do not doubt this.

    Anyway, it's just a proclamation of his opinion, not a promise to actually DO anything.

  10. #70
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasha View Post
    Yep, he's cynically yanking liberal chains. It's so easy, like taking candy from a baby. He now NEEDS all those liberals he has consistently, persistently, RELENTLESSLY, betrayed over the course of his term in office. He'll abandon them--AGAIN---the minute he's reelected. Please do not doubt this.

    Anyway, it's just a proclamation of his opinion, not a promise to actually DO anything.
    How absolutely foolish.

    abandon us? Really? Promise to do anything? Well Mittens sure won't abandon us, since he has basically declared himself to be an enemy of gay people. And do anything? I would rather Obama do little than have Mittens actually work hard to actively take away and work against equal rights for gay people.

    with drivel like this, I would doubt just about anything you say at this point.

    edit-ok...getting way too worked up and personal about this...moving away from the computer now...
    louiswinthorpe111 likes this.

  11. #71
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    Re: Scalia

    Scalia has argued that there is no constitutional right to abortion

    Scalia has repeatedly called upon his colleagues to strike down Roe v. Wade. Scalia hoped to find five votes to strike down Roe in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, but was not successful in doing so

    Scalia was the lone dissenter in the SCOTUS decision that opened up VMI to women.

    Scalia has generally voted to strike down laws which make distinctions by race, gender, or sexual orientation.

    Scalia is against the Miranda ruling.

    Scalia dissented in Lawrence v Texas (which struck down sodomy laws used to prosecute gay people)

    Scalia dissented in Romer v Evans, which ruled laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation, to be unconstitutional

    In RAV vs. St. Paul, Scalia wrote the SCOTUS opinion striking down a hate speech ordinance that was used to prosecute a cross burning.

    Voted in the majority in Bush v Gore.

    Wrote the majority opinion in Heller v DC, where SCOTUS struck down DC's handgun law

    Believes that it is constitutional to execute a mentally retarded person (Atkins v Virginia), or someone as young as 15, who has committed a capital offense (Roper v Simmons)

    Yes, and if I was less busy today with nothing to do at work I could come up with just as many as are on your list where he came done on the more liberal side.

    We all know he's conservative, and I said that he's made some liberal decisions. So what is your point?

    But nice work, Mo.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  12. #72
    Elite Member MsDark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northwest MS/Memphis TN
    Posts
    30,160

    Default

    As much as I'd like a viable alternative, I can't sit this one out when the only other option is so clearly batshit insane!

    And NoDay, MS can't handle any more of those fuckers than we already have.
    My Posts Have Won Awards. Can Any Of You Claim The Same? -ur_next_ex

    "I don't have pet peeves. I have major psychotic fucking hatreds, okay". ~George Carlin

  13. #73
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    31,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasha View Post
    Yep, he's cynically yanking liberal chains. It's so easy, like taking candy from a baby. He now NEEDS all those liberals he has consistently, persistently, RELENTLESSLY, betrayed over the course of his term in office. He'll abandon them--AGAIN---the minute he's reelected. Please do not doubt this.
    Obama is taking a lot of heat, which he knew would happen, from the African American Community, for making the statement he did yesterday. And that is a group that voted for him 95% to 5% in the 2008 election. But it's also a group that 7 to 3, supported Prop 8 in California. On CNN, this morning, they interviewed the head of a large African American congregation who said how disappointed and un-Biblical Obama's statement and position was.

    In the final analysis, he may have traded away just as many votes as he gained. And he most likely knew that in advance of his statement.

  14. #74
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,514

    Default

    I cannot fathom African-American support for discrimination at all. I will never be able to grasp the concept. I know it's mostly rooted in religion, but I just don't get it.

    This fight is very much like the interracial marriage fight, which wasn't all that long ago. And how people can't see that simple fact just escapes me.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  15. #75
    Elite Member sluce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Top Secret Spy for Leann Rimes
    Posts
    37,382

    Default

    Valley Doll likes this.
    You don't engage with crazies. Because they're, you know, fucking crazy. - WitchCurlGirl

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Obama backs immunity for Pope against sexual assault lawsuits
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: May 27th, 2010, 03:11 PM
  2. Bill Clinton backs same-sex marriage
    By Fluffy in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: July 15th, 2009, 07:01 PM
  3. Scott McClellan-former Bush Press Secretary, backs Barack Obama
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 25th, 2008, 07:05 PM
  4. Replies: 44
    Last Post: April 29th, 2008, 02:36 AM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 9th, 2008, 12:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •