Chef Jim Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 The issue was whether or not people on the left are sincere about marriage equality, nothing else. And the answer to "what would make me think that" is the fact that we now have 19 states which allow gay marriage and that number is going to hit 50 by the end of the decade. That's incredible progress, breathtaking when you consider it, and it couldn't have happened without earnest supporters. Earnest supporters in the general population but how many supporters in congress and the WH? There are a lot of old (and I mean OLD!!) schoolers on both sides of the aisle that are "for" gay marriage for the votes and the campaign donations. Cynical? Damn !@#$ing right! How long ago was Obama against gay marriage and what do you think prompted his change of heart? What was Hillary's stance on gay marriage in 2000 and what prompted her change of heart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Earnest supporters in the general population but how many supporters in congress and the WH? There are a lot of old (and I mean OLD!!) schoolers on both sides of the aisle that are "for" gay marriage for the votes and the campaign donations. Cynical? Damn !@#$ing right! How long ago was Obama against gay marriage and what do you think prompted his change of heart? What was Hillary's stance on gay marriage in 2000 and what prompted her change of heart? They are politicians reacting to public opinion. So what? Kind of what politicians are suppose to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) They are politicians reacting to public opinion. So what? Kind of what politicians are suppose to do Go look up the word pandering and get back to me. It's not what they do it's why they do it. Mel Brooks is a genius. Edited July 23, 2014 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Earnest supporters in the general population but how many supporters in congress and the WH? There are a lot of old (and I mean OLD!!) schoolers on both sides of the aisle that are "for" gay marriage for the votes and the campaign donations. Cynical? Damn !@#$ing right! How long ago was Obama against gay marriage and what do you think prompted his change of heart? What was Hillary's stance on gay marriage in 2000 and what prompted her change of heart? The OP was directed at more than politicians, which was what I commented on. I'm certain there are plenty of duplicitous fuktards on both sides of aisle and on this issue. Politicians will sell their souls just to get in the game, I get that. But let me ask your question a different way... What changed for Hillary and Obama when they pivoted on gay marriage? Public opinion, right? Suddenly it became politically beneficial to take a pro-gay marriage stance because of the groundswell of earnest support coming from the citizenry. Since we both agree most politicians pander, isn't it possible that both Hillary and Obama were always pro-equality in their hearts but, because the issue was poison politically in the 90s and early 00s, they sold out in order to get elected? Who's to say, really? And in the end, it makes no difference because they were responding to a political opportunity either way. My point is that regardless of the fuktard politicians' motives, the reason we have 19 states and rising allowing gay marriage presently is because the desire for marriage equality is genuine by and large -- and not just on the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 The OP was directed at more than politicians, which was what I commented on. I'm certain there are plenty of duplicitous fuktards on both sides of aisle and on this issue. Politicians will sell their souls just to get in the game, I get that. But let me ask your question a different way... What changed for Hillary and Obama when they pivoted on gay marriage? Public opinion, right? Suddenly it became politically beneficial to take a pro-gay marriage stance because of the groundswell of earnest support coming from the citizenry. Since we both agree most politicians pander, isn't it possible that both Hillary and Obama were always pro-equality in their hearts but, because the issue was poison politically in the 90s and early 00s, they sold out in order to get elected? Who's to say, really? And in the end, it makes no difference because they were responding to a political opportunity either way. My point is that regardless of the fuktard politicians' motives, the reason we have 19 states and rising allowing gay marriage presently is because the desire for marriage equality is genuine by and large -- and not just on the left. I would have a lot more respect for them if they came out and said "my personal beliefs are that marriage is between a man and a woman (which they both have said in the past) however seeing the majority of Americans are for same sex marriage I will support and/or any legislation that too supports it." But they get a lot more votes and cash for saying "I now support same sex marriage." Come on, we're not that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Go look up the word pandering and get back to me. It's not what they do it's why they do it. Mel Brooks is a genius. You are angry at two Democrats for pandering? You know of a politician that doesn't pander? Wow, got a youtube video of that person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 You are angry at two Democrats for pandering? You know of a politician that doesn't pander? Wow, got a youtube video of that person? If you've been following along you'd know I despise pretty much all politicians because they pander. You on the other hand just wipe your chin and say "next". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 If you've been following along you'd know I despise pretty much all politicians because they pander. You on the other hand just wipe your chin and say "next". No, I just don't have a childish view of it. Politics is a messy business. I believe in winning and that means making moral [immoral] decisions at times to win. That's life. And I don't buy you hating all politicians, just politicians on the other side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) Do you wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat screaming, "OBAMA!"? The issue was whether or not people on the left are sincere about marriage equality, nothing else. And the answer to "what would make me think that" is the fact that we now have 19 states which allow gay marriage and that number is going to hit 50 by the end of the decade. That's incredible progress, breathtaking when you consider it, and it couldn't have happened without earnest supporters. You are treating "marriage equality" sincerity from people on the left as if it exists in a vacuum. Don't you think that if those on the left showed a clear lack of sincerity on Fast and Furious, drones, NSA spying, IRS targeting and Gitmo then there is a good chance that they are not sincere regarding marriage equality? My experience with the left is that they tend to feel that the ends justify the means. Their MO is pitting people against each other and forming a coalition of groups vulnerable to their lies and distortions. Edit: see post #288 for an example of the left's immorality. Edited July 24, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 You are treating "marriage equality" sincerity from people on the left as if it exists in a vacuum. Don't you think that if those on the left showed a clear lack of sincerity on Fast and Furious, drones, NSA spying, IRS targeting and Gitmo then there is a good chance that they are not sincere regarding marriage equality? A lot of them voted for DOMA. Of our last three Democratic presidential candidates, Gore was against it and publicly supported DOMA until he changed his mind for the 2006 mid-terms, Kerry was against it and publicly supported DOMA while simultaneously calling it unconstitutional (and did you know he won three Purple Hearts?), and Obama's position "evolving" at the behest of Biden's foot-in-mouth disease is, of course, well known. There's far more than "a chance" they're insincere. The only reason I can think the LGBT community doesn't recognize this is because most LGBT issues are more often than not handled at a local level, not national. But Dick Cheney is more sincere in his support of gay marriage than most Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 A lot of them voted for DOMA. Of our last three Democratic presidential candidates, Gore was against it and publicly supported DOMA until he changed his mind for the 2006 mid-terms, Kerry was against it and publicly supported DOMA while simultaneously calling it unconstitutional (and did you know he won three Purple Hearts?), and Obama's position "evolving" at the behest of Biden's foot-in-mouth disease is, of course, well known. There's far more than "a chance" they're insincere. The only reason I can think the LGBT community doesn't recognize this is because most LGBT issues are more often than not handled at a local level, not national. But Dick Cheney is more sincere in his support of gay marriage than most Democrats. This I believe to be very true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Oh let the fun begin! Obama is a much, much better president than Bush on so many levels. Where to start with this one? All those angry white voters went right to work to make sure the first black president could get as little done as possible. I agree with your first point whole heartedly. Not even close in my book. The second one not so much. I'm sure that's part of it, but by no means the biggest part.. The Repugs hate him, that's for sure. Not because he's black so much, it's because he is a Democrat. I seem to recall our last Dem prez before Obama was treated harshly by the Repugs. They even impeached him. First time that's been done in our nation's history. And he was a good ole white boy from the Bible Belt. If Obama was a Repug, they would love him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 That's all you can come up with for Obama? How about: Trayvon You mean Barack shot Trayvon? All this time I thought it was George Zimmerman, the white hispanic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Go look up the word pandering and get back to me. It's not what they do it's why they do it. Mel Brooks is a genius. "I didn't get a harumph outta that guy." "Give the governor a harumph!" "Harumph!" "You watch your azz." Pure gold. I agree with your first point whole heartedly. Not even close in my book. The second one not so much. I'm sure that's part of it, but by no means the biggest part.. The Repugs hate him, that's for sure. Not because he's black so much, it's because he is a Democrat. I seem to recall our last Dem prez before Obama was treated harshly by the Repugs. They even impeached him. First time that's been done in our nation's history. And he was a good ole white boy from the Bible Belt. If Obama was a Repug, they would love him. Boy, you sure know your American history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Smoke Detector by Richard Fernandez The New York Times notices the smoke collecting on the ceiling of the auditorium of the world and wonders whether there might be something to worry about. Peter Baker in an article titled “Crises Cascade and Converge, Testing Obama” notices that things are falling apart. “Not long after a passenger jet exploded in midair and plummeted to the ground in Ukraine last week, escalating a volatile crisis pitting the United States and Europe against Russia, President Obama’s thoughts turned to Syria.” Baker has a thought. These problems may be linked. Rarely has a president been confronted with so many seemingly disparate foreign policy crises all at once — in Ukraine, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere — but making the current upheaval more complicated for Mr. Obama is the seemingly interlocking nature of them all. Developments in one area, like Ukraine, shape his views and choices in a crisis in another area, like the Middle East. Like Sherlock on the trail, he suggests a common cause links them all. But we are advised not to worry, because the president is hot on the trail of the mystery; trying to identify the factor that connects all these catastrophes. Patience is advised, it is not elementary, my dear Watsons. The world is a complex place which only the the very smartest can understand. {snip} One of the fundamental tests of leadership is an ability to include one’s self in the critique. One of the most disturbing things about Obama’s style of management is his absolute inability to consider he might have something to do with the catastrophe. The Usual Suspects are anyone but his magnificent self. It’s a blind spot. It’s like watching a basketball player refuse to consider there may be anything wrong with his form after missing the last 100 of 100 shots. The world is a complex place but the key to unraveling complexity is knowing where to start looking. It lies in finding the key. But if Obama and his supporters are ruling out the obvious, so too are many of the president’s critics who hope that at some point — perhaps when he misses 500 out of 500 — that he’ll suddenly realize that he’s doing it wrong. They’re hoping for this because the common perception is that the world is stuck with him until 2016. But perhaps he won’t notice he’s missed the last 1,000 shots for the very same reason that caused the blunders already committed. The feedback loop is kaput. That is the key. But no one in Washington seems capable of divining where the smoke on the ceiling is coming from because it’s coming from them. The significance of the dog that did not bark in the night is that nobody in establishment DC is barking. It means things will only come to a head when the theater actually starts to burn. http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/07/23/smoke-detector/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Let me preface this by explaining to the politically intellectual that I do not blame Barry for what happened here. But it sure would help if it didn't happen exclusively so Barry could collect more money. Woman in labor can't cross street to hospital because road blocked off for Barry's motorcade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Boy, you sure know your American history. Are you trying to say what I said is not correct in a sarcastic manner? Did I say something that is not correct Nanker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Did I say something that is not correct Nanker? I'll answer your question. Yes you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) I'll answer your question. Yes you did. Thanks Chef. I was a little off I guess. "Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998. He is the second and only other President in American History to be impeached. In both Presidential impeachments the Articles of impeachment were drawn and a criminal trial in the U.S. Senate proceeded. However, both Johnson and Clinton were acquitted of the charges and were not removed from office. Johnson was spared removal of the high office by only one Senate vote." http://www.american-...mpeachment.html So, instead of Bill Cllnton being the only president impeached in our nations history as I incorrectly stated, he IS (whatever the meaning of that word is) the only president to be impeached in the last 146 years. Bottom line, I think my point is still valid. Edited July 24, 2014 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Bottom line, I think my point is still valid. Which was what? If Obama were a Republican, Republicans would like him? You're quite the rocket surgeon aren't you. And the only conclusion you have as to the reason people on the right (I'm not going to use the word Republicans here because many of us conservatives are not Republicans) is because he's a Democrat and has nothing to do with his ideals and leadership or lack thereof? I think you can find many conservatives that don't think Clinton was a terrible President and few that would accuse him of being a poor leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts