I heard Bill Maher on a local radio station yesterday say that he felt in Obama's first term we got the "white" presidency and that his second term we'd get the "black" presidency.
If a conservative had said that, the world would go nuts. Maher was saying it in what he felt was a good way.
i think bill maher is a conservative ... he's just not a neo-con or these faux-conservatives ...
hello ! you can't see he's trying buy votes and support ?....wake up man..he's a politican (kinda) he may not be very good at it but he just suckered a whole page of train members and if he gets re-elected he WILL drop the gay marrige issue like a bad habit and at that point I WILL say I TOLD YOU SO....
Godfather.
you can't be serious!??
who the cuss is going to vote for obama now that he supports same sex marriage that wouldn't have voted for him anyways? ... if anything, he's alienated voters ...
i agree
the majority goes against gay marriage
i voted in north carolina knowing full well the futility of my action
north carolina wasn't even voting for gay marriage, but to clarify the definition of marriage to quell future attempts of gays to marry. . .
no one can enter a civil union or a domestic partnership now
hello ! you can't see he's trying buy votes and support ?....wake up man..he's a politican (kinda) he may not be very good at it but he just suckered a whole page of train members and if he gets re-elected he WILL drop the gay marrige issue like a bad habit and at that point I WILL say I TOLD YOU SO....
Godfather.
you can't be serious!??
who the cuss is going to vote for obama now that he supports same sex marriage that wouldn't have voted for him anyways? ... if anything, he's alienated voters ...
i agree
the majority goes against gay marriage
i voted in north carolina knowing full well the futility of my action
north carolina wasn't even voting for gay marriage, but to clarify the definition of marriage to quell future attempts of gays to marry. . .
no one can enter a civil union or a domestic partnership now
support for gay marriage is the current majority, 50%-45%. It has been increasing by an average of 2% a year for about a decade. In another 20 years it will be a non issue. Glad Obama is on the right side of history on this
While technically the article is correct, and I agree with its premise, its also a load of crap. To discount the significance of this shows a lack of understanding of history in our country. While yes, it would be great if everyone had civil rights from day one (founders botched that one), historically, every single one has had to be fought for, all taking at minimum, decades, some centuries. This current debate has had a much shorter mainstream debate than past instances, and Obama has made the most critical step yet in the fight for equality. So no, it is not perfect, but it is significant, historical, and gutsy, and for that he is due credit.
While technically the article is correct, and I agree with its premise, its also a load of crap. To discount the significance of this shows a lack of understanding of history in our country. While yes, it would be great if everyone had civil rights from day one (founders botched that one), historically, every single one has had to be fought for, all taking at minimum, decades, some centuries. This current debate has had a much shorter mainstream debate than past instances, and Obama has made the most critical step yet in the fight for equality. So no, it is not perfect, but it is significant, historical, and gutsy, and for that he is due credit.
exactly. well stated
nobody has gained civil rights overnight. but this is a step in the right direction. nobody has gotten anything rightswise without a fight.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
support for gay marriage is the current majority, 50%-45%. It has been increasing by an average of 2% a year for about a decade. In another 20 years it will be a non issue. Glad Obama is on the right side of history on this
interesting story related to this ... our senior legal counsel in the company i worked for happened to have dinner by fluke with our ex-prime minister jean chretien ... one of the things they talked about was gay marriage ... he told her that in his time as PM - the single most divisive issue he had to deal with was this ... not the war in iraq or the sponsorship scandal .. it was gay marriage ... and the reason why is because people's prejudiced towards gays are largely hidden ... so, in public - many people will say they support gay rights but in the privacy of their own homes they feel different ... we've come a long way but it isn't as far as we'd like ...
I don't think it was gutsy at all ...
now a Republican doing the same would be.
This he must do for the votes from his party it would have been a real cop out not to
after his campaign support of gays the first go around.
And it is an election year...
he needs the votes after performing in many ways, as far as polls go, perhaps less than
what was hoped for. He is not a sure win.... yet
I am very glad he spoke up and took this stance but it changes nothing, not today.
And it appears the Republican stance is ...
the term marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman,
throughout history and should remain so...
which was also expected.
So we get no where once again because there can be no compromise even when the goal
is equal rights for all.
I don't think it was gutsy at all ...
now a Republican doing the same would be.
This he must do for the votes from his party it would have been a real cop out not to
after his campaign support of gays the first go around.
And it is an election year...
he needs the votes after performing in many ways, as far as polls go, perhaps less than
what was hoped for. He is not a sure win.... yet
I am very glad he spoke up and took this stance but it changes nothing, not today.
And it appears the Republican stance is ...
the term marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman,
throughout history and should remain so...
which was also expected.
So we get no where once again because there can be no compromise even when the goal
is equal rights for all.
A prominent republican has come out in support of it, Dick Cheney. But he did it when he was out of office. This is the first president EVER to do it. It will also alienate some blue dogs. It is gutsy.
His campaign did not support gay marriage the first time around
It is hard to tell how this will play in November, but it is surely not something that will turn a LOT of votes in his favor. It will marginally help (firing up the base) or hurt (alienating moderates) him. Overall, this is not a thing that will win him a lot of votes in November.
Romney's stance is no marriage and no civil unions. And historically marriage is not between a man and woman, but that has been pointed out many times already and you do not want to address it for some reason.
I am pretty sure Obama is not expecting the current Republican party to compromise with him on this. Don't think that was even a consideration.
as a person it gave me a thrill to hear obama vocalise his support of gay marriage. but now he needs to make those words mean something. i wish my prime minister had the cojones to do the same.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
as a person it gave me a thrill to hear obama vocalise his support of gay marriage. but now he needs to make those words mean something. i wish my prime minister had the cojones to do the same.
as a person it gave me a thrill to hear obama vocalise his support of gay marriage. but now he needs to make those words mean something. i wish my prime minister had the cojones to do the same.
what country are you in?
im australian. but im currently visiting the land of guns and cheese.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
as a person it gave me a thrill to hear obama vocalise his support of gay marriage. but now he needs to make those words mean something. i wish my prime minister had the cojones to do the same.
what country are you in?
im australian. but im currently visiting the land of guns and cheese.
AHH. I'll be going back there next week for my brothers wedding Then australia for research in July. Maybe i'll bump into you!
im australian. but im currently visiting the land of guns and cheese.
Your in Wisconsin?
no. but there appears to be cheese on everything no matter where i go in your country. yesterday i ordered a burger and the guy asked me if i wanted cheese on it even though cheese wasnt one of the ingredients listed as being on the burger on the menu(everything else had cheese on it tho). i thought wtf? i def wouldnt want to be lactose intolerant.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
im australian. but im currently visiting the land of guns and cheese.
Your in Wisconsin?
no. but there appears to be cheese on everything no matter where i go in your country. yesterday i ordered a burger and the guy asked me if i wanted cheese on it even though cheese wasnt one of the ingredients listed as being on the burger on the menu(everything else had cheese on it tho). i thought wtf? i def wouldnt want to be lactose intolerant.
Gotta have your lactaid pills wherever you go!
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
While technically the article is correct, and I agree with its premise, its also a load of crap. To discount the significance of this shows a lack of understanding of history in our country. While yes, it would be great if everyone had civil rights from day one (founders botched that one), historically, every single one has had to be fought for, all taking at minimum, decades, some centuries. This current debate has had a much shorter mainstream debate than past instances, and Obama has made the most critical step yet in the fight for equality. So no, it is not perfect, but it is significant, historical, and gutsy, and for that he is due credit.
I disagree completely. To say you personally support it, but would still allow states to deny it, shows a lack of acknowledgement that this is discrimination. A position like that allows for no more practical application than a position that opposes it. People in favor of this should be calling for action, not some politically driven blessing.
im australian. but im currently visiting the land of guns and cheese.
Your in Wisconsin?
no. but there appears to be cheese on everything no matter where i go in your country. yesterday i ordered a burger and the guy asked me if i wanted cheese on it even though cheese wasnt one of the ingredients listed as being on the burger on the menu(everything else had cheese on it tho). i thought wtf? i def wouldnt want to be lactose intolerant.
no. but there appears to be cheese on everything no matter where i go in your country. yesterday i ordered a burger and the guy asked me if i wanted cheese on it even though cheese wasnt one of the ingredients listed as being on the burger on the menu(everything else had cheese on it tho). i thought wtf? i def wouldnt want to be lactose intolerant.
Yeah we have a lot of cows. A lot of cheese.
i dont do cows.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i really don't understand people who try and say Obama saying this is not a big deal. in 50 years when the issue of gay marriage has long been passed the history books will have Obama as being the 1st President to ever support it. even though there is little chance of it passing during his 2nd term Obama has immediately given the cause a kick in the right direction. no one else in the world coming out in support of it could make even a ripple of effect as much as the Potus. It will have a long term effect on the issue, even if the a positive effect on the election is minimal.
and an unsaid benefit of him saying it is that maybe there are others who are in support but fear the reaction. now that that potus has said it makes it easier to support.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,428
Awe, come on. It's un-American not to have high cholesterol.
How did we get from... oh wait, that's right, I forgot, the train entered the Twilight Zone.
(Sorry, sleep deprivation )
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
like I said ...he's a politican... maybe not all that great but still what a move...well played Mr. President you have the bigger part of the gay community eating out of your hands now and you will make a few bucks doing it.
like I said ...he's a politican... maybe not all that great but still what a move...well played Mr. President you have the bigger part of the gay community eating out of your hands now and you will make a few bucks doing it.
i really don't understand people who try and say Obama saying this is not a big deal. in 50 years when the issue of gay marriage has long been passed the history books will have Obama as being the 1st President to ever support it. even though there is little chance of it passing during his 2nd term Obama has immediately given the cause a kick in the right direction. no one else in the world coming out in support of it could make even a ripple of effect as much as the Potus. It will have a long term effect on the issue, even if the a positive effect on the election is minimal.
and an unsaid benefit of him saying it is that maybe there are others who are in support but fear the reaction. now that that potus has said it makes it easier to support.
If in 1915 someone said they believed women should have the right to vote, but was OK with states that disallowed it, you feel that person should be celebrated historically?
Unlike virtually every mainstream media commentator or political talking head I don’t care about Obama embracing gay marriage.
Now I know that a lot of people on the left — disappointed by his banker-friendly, PATRIOT Act-renewing, indefinite-detention-enabling, American-citizen-assassinating regime — are searching for any reason to vote for him, and plausible reason to defend his record. That’s the nature of tribal politics — “anti-war” Democrats will happily protest the Bush war machine, but they seem quiet when Obama is the one using drone strikes to assassinate American citizens without trial. I don’t like Mitt Romney either, but that’s not the point.
Even for those in favour of gay marriage, let’s not forget that Obama is capable of doing absolutely zero to change the law. Want to introduce a law allowing homosexual couples to marry? Good luck getting it through the Republican Congress.
I’m in favour of consenting adults being able to do whatever they like with each other, but the fact that the current push for gay marriage is supported by Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs makes me very suspicious (does he want to sell securitised gay marriage debt?).
It just seems like an easy issue for Obama to posture on, while trampling the Constitution into the dirt.
When it comes to civil liberties, Obama has always talked a good game, and then acted more authoritarian than Bush. He talked about an end to the abuses of the Bush years and an open and transparent government, yet extended the Fourth-Amendment-shredding Patriot Act, empowered the TSA to produce naked body scans and engage in humiliatingly sexual pat-downs, signed indefinite detention of American citizens into law, claimed and exercised the power to assassinate American citizens without trial, and aggressively prosecuted whistleblowers. Under his watch the U.S. army even produced a document planning for the reeducation of political activists in internment camps. Reeducation camps? In America? And some on the left are still crowing that talking about being in favour of gay marriage makes him “pro civil liberties”? Is this a joke?
Here are a few metrics that we should be judging Obama on:
People not in the labour force is spiking:
(Chart)
The public debt keeps soaring and soaring from eyeball-watering multi-trillion dollar deficits:
(Chart)
Meanwhile India, Iran, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Japan have all ditched the dollar for other currencies in new bilateral trade agreements — which lest us forget is America’s biggest export, and the product that keeps goods and oil flowing into America. This is an extremely dangerous time. While we cannot lump Obama with the blame for the entire U.S. economic system — the system we have was accumulated via Bush, and Cheney, and Paulson, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and Carter, and Brzezinski, and Nixon, and Kissinger, and Johnson, and Roosevelt and Wilson and Lincoln and probably most significantly of all the father of central banking Alexander Hamilton — Obama certainly has not improved matters.
And it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that Romney — who claims he would support the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act, that he wants to attack Iran, and has hired many ex-Bush staffers, as well as winning the endorsement of both Jeb and George H.W. Bush, and bizarrely claiming to want to start a trade war with China — is cut from the exact same cloth as Bush and Obama.
This is a dead election. Here’s hoping that Ron Paul — who continues to pick up delegates in the Republican race even while being ignored by the mainstream media who would rather talk about Obama’s posturing on gay rights — can cause some mayhem.
Having thought about this for a day I think my initial reaction was wrong. I thought it was a nifty political stunt, but now that I think about it this isn't really gonna help him win the election.
Therefore I think it was indeed a courageous and gutsy move. We all know it is simply a nudge in the right direction, but that's part of the process. Change doesn't happen overnight.
It was fun to read the bigoted reactions of all the righties.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Having thought about this for a day I think my initial reaction was wrong. I thought it was a nifty political stunt, but now that I think about it this isn't really gonna help him win the election.
Therefore I think it was indeed a courageous and gutsy move. We all know it is simply a nudge in the right direction, but that's part of the process. Change doesn't happen overnight.
It was fun to read the bigoted reactions of all the righties.
Be careful, if you use the word bigot, you'll be accused of being a bigot.
Comments
i think bill maher is a conservative ... he's just not a neo-con or these faux-conservatives ...
i agree
the majority goes against gay marriage
i voted in north carolina knowing full well the futility of my action
north carolina wasn't even voting for gay marriage, but to clarify the definition of marriage to quell future attempts of gays to marry. . .
no one can enter a civil union or a domestic partnership now
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
support for gay marriage is the current majority, 50%-45%. It has been increasing by an average of 2% a year for about a decade. In another 20 years it will be a non issue. Glad Obama is on the right side of history on this
While technically the article is correct, and I agree with its premise, its also a load of crap. To discount the significance of this shows a lack of understanding of history in our country. While yes, it would be great if everyone had civil rights from day one (founders botched that one), historically, every single one has had to be fought for, all taking at minimum, decades, some centuries. This current debate has had a much shorter mainstream debate than past instances, and Obama has made the most critical step yet in the fight for equality. So no, it is not perfect, but it is significant, historical, and gutsy, and for that he is due credit.
nobody has gained civil rights overnight. but this is a step in the right direction. nobody has gotten anything rightswise without a fight.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
interesting story related to this ... our senior legal counsel in the company i worked for happened to have dinner by fluke with our ex-prime minister jean chretien ... one of the things they talked about was gay marriage ... he told her that in his time as PM - the single most divisive issue he had to deal with was this ... not the war in iraq or the sponsorship scandal .. it was gay marriage ... and the reason why is because people's prejudiced towards gays are largely hidden ... so, in public - many people will say they support gay rights but in the privacy of their own homes they feel different ... we've come a long way but it isn't as far as we'd like ...
now a Republican doing the same would be.
This he must do for the votes from his party it would have been a real cop out not to
after his campaign support of gays the first go around.
And it is an election year...
he needs the votes after performing in many ways, as far as polls go, perhaps less than
what was hoped for. He is not a sure win.... yet
I am very glad he spoke up and took this stance but it changes nothing, not today.
And it appears the Republican stance is ...
the term marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman,
throughout history and should remain so...
which was also expected.
So we get no where once again because there can be no compromise even when the goal
is equal rights for all.
A prominent republican has come out in support of it, Dick Cheney. But he did it when he was out of office. This is the first president EVER to do it. It will also alienate some blue dogs. It is gutsy.
His campaign did not support gay marriage the first time around
It is hard to tell how this will play in November, but it is surely not something that will turn a LOT of votes in his favor. It will marginally help (firing up the base) or hurt (alienating moderates) him. Overall, this is not a thing that will win him a lot of votes in November.
Romney's stance is no marriage and no civil unions. And historically marriage is not between a man and woman, but that has been pointed out many times already and you do not want to address it for some reason.
I am pretty sure Obama is not expecting the current Republican party to compromise with him on this. Don't think that was even a consideration.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
what country are you in?
im australian. but im currently visiting the land of guns and cheese.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
AHH. I'll be going back there next week for my brothers wedding
maybe.. ill be the one wearing black.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
no. but there appears to be cheese on everything no matter where i go in your country. yesterday i ordered a burger and the guy asked me if i wanted cheese on it even though cheese wasnt one of the ingredients listed as being on the burger on the menu(everything else had cheese on it tho). i thought wtf? i def wouldnt want to be lactose intolerant.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
I disagree completely. To say you personally support it, but would still allow states to deny it, shows a lack of acknowledgement that this is discrimination. A position like that allows for no more practical application than a position that opposes it. People in favor of this should be calling for action, not some politically driven blessing.
Yeah we have a lot of cows. A lot of cheese.
i dont do cows.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
okay
and an unsaid benefit of him saying it is that maybe there are others who are in support but fear the reaction. now that that potus has said it makes it easier to support.
How did we get from... oh wait, that's right, I forgot, the train entered the Twilight Zone.
(Sorry, sleep deprivation
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
so glad im not american if thats a requirement. :P
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Godfather.
For those that don't like Fox News
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/po ... ff.html?hp
If in 1915 someone said they believed women should have the right to vote, but was OK with states that disallowed it, you feel that person should be celebrated historically?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-pos ... y-marriage
Obama Embraces Gay Marriage
Unlike virtually every mainstream media commentator or political talking head I don’t care about Obama embracing gay marriage.
Now I know that a lot of people on the left — disappointed by his banker-friendly, PATRIOT Act-renewing, indefinite-detention-enabling, American-citizen-assassinating regime — are searching for any reason to vote for him, and plausible reason to defend his record. That’s the nature of tribal politics — “anti-war” Democrats will happily protest the Bush war machine, but they seem quiet when Obama is the one using drone strikes to assassinate American citizens without trial. I don’t like Mitt Romney either, but that’s not the point.
Even for those in favour of gay marriage, let’s not forget that Obama is capable of doing absolutely zero to change the law. Want to introduce a law allowing homosexual couples to marry? Good luck getting it through the Republican Congress.
I’m in favour of consenting adults being able to do whatever they like with each other, but the fact that the current push for gay marriage is supported by Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs makes me very suspicious (does he want to sell securitised gay marriage debt?).
It just seems like an easy issue for Obama to posture on, while trampling the Constitution into the dirt.
When it comes to civil liberties, Obama has always talked a good game, and then acted more authoritarian than Bush. He talked about an end to the abuses of the Bush years and an open and transparent government, yet extended the Fourth-Amendment-shredding Patriot Act, empowered the TSA to produce naked body scans and engage in humiliatingly sexual pat-downs, signed indefinite detention of American citizens into law, claimed and exercised the power to assassinate American citizens without trial, and aggressively prosecuted whistleblowers. Under his watch the U.S. army even produced a document planning for the reeducation of political activists in internment camps. Reeducation camps? In America? And some on the left are still crowing that talking about being in favour of gay marriage makes him “pro civil liberties”? Is this a joke?
Here are a few metrics that we should be judging Obama on:
People not in the labour force is spiking:
(Chart)
The public debt keeps soaring and soaring from eyeball-watering multi-trillion dollar deficits:
(Chart)
Meanwhile India, Iran, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Japan have all ditched the dollar for other currencies in new bilateral trade agreements — which lest us forget is America’s biggest export, and the product that keeps goods and oil flowing into America. This is an extremely dangerous time. While we cannot lump Obama with the blame for the entire U.S. economic system — the system we have was accumulated via Bush, and Cheney, and Paulson, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and Carter, and Brzezinski, and Nixon, and Kissinger, and Johnson, and Roosevelt and Wilson and Lincoln and probably most significantly of all the father of central banking Alexander Hamilton — Obama certainly has not improved matters.
And it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that Romney — who claims he would support the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act, that he wants to attack Iran, and has hired many ex-Bush staffers, as well as winning the endorsement of both Jeb and George H.W. Bush, and bizarrely claiming to want to start a trade war with China — is cut from the exact same cloth as Bush and Obama.
This is a dead election. Here’s hoping that Ron Paul — who continues to pick up delegates in the Republican race even while being ignored by the mainstream media who would rather talk about Obama’s posturing on gay rights — can cause some mayhem.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Therefore I think it was indeed a courageous and gutsy move. We all know it is simply a nudge in the right direction, but that's part of the process. Change doesn't happen overnight.
It was fun to read the bigoted reactions of all the righties.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Be careful, if you use the word bigot, you'll be accused of being a bigot.