The Obama Thread (Merged x6) [Archive] - Page 43

moraldeficiency

06-16-2008, 12:41 PM

Yep.

And you know what else?

Almost every category of "people" have a corresponding "Issue" section.

Except for the GLBT community.

As I said before... people who want to know where he stands on the issues won't find any mention of GLBT issues under the "Issues" tab. Most people will not sift through every tab to find how he plans to interact with certain people and communities. They will go straight to the issues.

You'll notice that "People of Faith" have their own "People" page. They also have their own "Issues" page. Why is that? Because 'religious' folks who come to his website searching for his stance on faith will go straight to the issues tab and nowhere else.

It's Campaigning 101: People will spend only a few minutes on a candidate's website, searching for a particular issue. And if they can't find it in a set period of time, they'll give up on that candidate. Apparently, people of faith are more important than the GLBT community.

GLBT issues are a matter of civil rights. They should be under the "Civil Rights" section, at the very least. Not solely confined to a PDF under the "LBGT" link under the "People" tab.

Your original premise was that GLBT's we not addressed at all on his site. That was wrong. Then that it was hidden. Again wrong. Now it's that there's not enough there. How many times will your argument change?

You're upset because he's not giving you're group enough love or what you would define as appropriate, but any group could say the same thing. There's absolutely nothing on Irish issues or european immigrants, should I assume that's a slight against me cause at least your group got on the website? I can say that both issues are also about civil rights and be equally as valid.

And your time argument is laughable. You're critizing obama for not dumbing down things to the point of having a popup banner tell you everything you need to know about gay people in less than a minute because anything less means you hate gays. It took me less than 60 seconds to find this nonexistant (later hidden) section and I already stated I'm crappy at computer searches. 60 seconds and I had it up. It wasn't hidden, it wasn't difficult to figure out, it was all laid out in a comprehensive format. Now maybe you don't think that was enough, but remember not 30 minutes ago you were arguing that it didn't even exist, so either you're far lazier with less of an attention span than I am (and I've fought very hard to gain that honor here) or you just didn't really look at the website, used a preformulated opinion and are now defending it by continuing to reach farther and farther down the rabbit hole to find an argument that will stick.

The Senator

06-16-2008, 12:42 PM

Lastly, is there a church that would marry you?

Yeah, actually, there are.

The United Church of Christ, Lutheran, and Unitarian Universalist churches have been performing gay weddings for quite some time. Last I knew, Episcopalians were thinking about joining the fray as well.

jaguarr

06-16-2008, 12:44 PM

Gays are people

But gay rights are issues.

For example:

Gay marriage is not a person. It is an issue.

Ending DADT is not a person. It is an issue.

Ending discriminatory practices towards gays, transgendereds, the gender queer-- those practices are not people. They are issues.

So, then you agree, that EITHER the "Issues" or "People" sections would be appropriate places to list LGBT on his website, since they are all interconnected topics that are both issues as well as people. Especially when you consider how his website is organized and there are other categories of people listed under the "People" section that also carry a ton if related issues that don't have a repeated listing under his "Issues" section (you're aware that Obama probably didn't design and code his own website, yes?). If you're going to bash the guy for his stance on LGBT issues, great, but bashing him simply because you don't like the way his website is laid out just comes off like you're working real hard to make a mountain out of a molehill so that there's an issue where an issue didn't exist before. Maybe we should ask him to put it under "People" on his website.

jag

tdeverea

06-16-2008, 12:46 PM

Your original premise was that GLBT's we not addressed at all on his site. That was wrong. Then that it was hidden. Again wrong. Now it's that there's not enough there. How many times will your argument change?

You're upset because he's not giving you're group enough love or what you would define as appropriate, but any group could say the same thing. There's absolutely nothing on Irish issues or european immigrants, should I assume that's a slight against me cause at least your group got on the website? I can say that both issues are also about civil rights and be equally as valid.

And your time argument is laughable. You're critizing obama for not dumbing down things to the point of having a popup banner tell you everything you need to know about gay people in less than a minute because anything less means you hate gays. It took me less than 60 seconds to find this nonexistant (later hidden) section and I already stated I'm crappy at computer searches. 60 seconds and I had it up. It wasn't hidden, it wasn't difficult to figure out, it was all laid out in a comprehensive format. Now maybe you don't think that was enough, but remember not 30 minutes ago you were arguing that it didn't even exist, so either you're far lazier with less of an attention span than I am (and I've fought very hard to gain that honor here) or you just didn't really look at the website, used a preformulated opinion and are now defending it by continuing to reach farther and farther down the rabbit hole to find an argument that will stick.

and with that brilliant response: continue shooting more holes in his argument i must....

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf

The Senator

06-16-2008, 12:48 PM

You're original premise was that GLBT's we not addressed at all on his site. That was wrong. Then that it was hidden. Again wrong. Now it's that there's not enough there. How many times will your argument change?

You're upset because he's not giving you're group enough love or what you would define as appropriate, but any group could say the same thing. There's absolutely nothing on Irish issues or european immigrants, should I assume that's a slight against me cause at least your group got on the website? I can say that both issues are also about civil rights and be equally as valid.

And you're time argument is laughable. You're critizing obama for not dumbing down things to the point of having a popup banner tell you everything you need to know about gay people in less than a minute because anything less means you hate gays. It took me less than 60 seconds to find this nonexistant (later hidden) section and I already stated I'm crappy at computer searches. 60 seconds and I had it up. It wasn't hidden, it wasn't difficult to figure out, it was all laid out in a comprehensive format. Now maybe you don't think that was enough, but remember not 30 minutes ago you were arguing that it didn't even exist, so either you're far lazier with less of an attention span than I am (and I've fought very hard to gain that honor here) or you just didn't really look at the website, used a preformulated opinion and are now defending it by continuing to reach farther and farther down the rabbit hole to find an argument that will stick.

I didn't say that Obama hates gays.

I'm saying that he's not making GLBT issues a top priority.

And he isn't. His campaign refuses to make GLBT issues a true "issue" he wants to tackle in his presidency. He can make many fancy, pretty speeches about race, religion, and fatherhood, but he can't take time out of his schedule to discuss ending discrimination towards the GLBT community.

I find that laughable. I also find that it represents the true demeanor of a natural born politician-- which Obama claims he's not.

He doesn't consider GLBT issues a major "Issue," he tries to have it both ways on gay marriage, he says he'll end DADT but he's considering making the number one proponent of that policy his running mate... Obama is incredibly flimsy on gay issues, and he's definitely not straightfoward with the general public on where he stands on said issues...

BlackLantern

06-16-2008, 12:49 PM

Because when Dana Perino kisses them they become real people?
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0710/wdana_1029.jpg

She might be the White House mouthpiece....but I would ravage her and maybe even cuddle afterwards....maybe

ForestAflame

06-16-2008, 12:51 PM

The Senator

06-16-2008, 12:57 PM

So, then you agree, that EITHER the "Issues" or "People" sections would be appropriate places to list LGBT on his website, since they are all interconnected topics that are both issues as well as people. Especially when you consider how his website is organized and there are other categories of people listed under the "People" section that also carry a ton if related issues that don't have a repeated listing under his "Issues" section (you're aware that Obama probably didn't design and code his own website, yes?). If you're going to bash the guy for his stance on LGBT issues, great, but bashing him simply because you don't like the way his website is laid out just comes off like you're working real hard to make a mountain out of a molehill so that there's an issue where an issue didn't exist before. Maybe we should ask him to put it under "People" on his website.

jag

I believe GLBT issues should be solely under the "Issues" section, yes.

If he wants to keep the "People" page, fine. But there should be an "Issues" page under the "Issues" tab addressing gay issues.

And I am criticizing the way his website is laid out. Because if he tells someone to go to his website and look at where he stands on the issues, they are going to pay more attention to the "Issues" section and less to all the other tabs (considering the other tabs are seemingly worthless, why would they consider looking under "People" to find where he stands on an issue :huh:).

His campaign is quite crafty. As I've said, you'll notice that there is a page dedicated to faith, another to fatherhood, and another to sportsmen. Why? Why would it be so hard to dedicate a paragraph or two in the "Issues" section to the GLBT community?

It's because his campaign knows that certain voters will be turned off by his stance on GLBT issues. That's why they're covered under a tab in between two incredibly worthless tabs on his website, which your average person wouldn't click on at all.

I've learned this, I've studied this... this is how campaigns operate. Everything on his website is politically motivated, from the color of his logo to the name of his presidential campaign.

And yes, I'm aware that he didn't design his website. Don't treat me like a tard.

jaguarr

06-16-2008, 01:06 PM

I believe GLBT issues should be solely under the "Issues" section, yes.

If he wants to keep the "People" page, fine. But there should be an "Issues" page under the "Issues" tab addressing gay issues.

And I am criticizing the way his website is laid out. Because if he tells someone to go to his website and look at where he stands on the issues, they are going to pay more attention to the "Issues" section and less to all the other tabs (considering the other tabs are seemingly worthless, why would they consider looking under "People" to find where he stands on an issue :huh:).

His campaign is quite crafty. As I've said, you'll notice that there is a page dedicated to faith, another to fatherhood, and another to sportsmen. Why? Why would it be so hard to dedicate a paragraph or two in the "Issues" section to the GLBT community?

It's because his campaign knows that certain voters will be turned off by his stance on GLBT issues. That's why they're covered under a tab in between two incredibly worthless tabs on his website, which your average person wouldn't click on at all.

I've learned this, I've studied this... this is how campaigns operate. Everything on his website is politically motivated, from the color of his logo to the name of his presidential campaign.

And yes, I'm aware that he didn't design his website. Don't treat me like a tard.

And why doesn't he have a section for the mentally retarded on his website? And would that go under "People" or "Issues"?

jag

moraldeficiency

06-16-2008, 01:09 PM

I didn't say that Obama hates gays.

No but you implied a lack of caring based on website accessability.

I'm saying that he's not making GLBT issues a top priority.

So what? They aren't a top priority, they shouldn't be. We've got a war, an energy crisis, houses are impossible to afford, genocide going on in other countries but really what we need to focus on is two dudes getting married? Sorry, while I agree that there's a valid point there in terms of importance it's just not close to the top twenty things I give a **** about and won't be in the near future. If gays were getting lynched left and right then it would be different but come on, it's just not that important considering the world we're currently in.

And he isn't. His campaign refuses to make GLBT issues a true "issue" he wants to tackle in his presidency. He can make many fancy, pretty speeches about race, religion, and fatherhood, but he can't take time out of his schedule to discuss ending discrimination towards the GLBT community.

I would think the interviews he gave are him taking time out of his scheadule.

I find that laughable. I also find that it represents the true demeanor of a natural born politician-- which Obama claims he's not.

I'm not sure a website designed and made up by someone else is the truest sign of inner character, I guess we just differ in that.

He doesn't consider GLBT issues a major "Issue," he tries to have it both ways on gay marriage, he says he'll end DADT but he's considering making the number one proponent of that policy his running mate... Obama is incredibly flimsy on gay issues, and he's definitely not straightfoward with the general public on where he stands on said issues...

So he's saying he's for something but is also capable of taking on a vice president that might disagree with him on some issues instead of a yes man that parrot's him? Someone that might actually challenge him and make him think? That son of a *****!!!! And everyone running is pretty flimsy on gay issues, maybe that's because there's more important things going on, maybe it's just the current state of politics, but there you go.

The Senator

06-16-2008, 01:12 PM

sPyQQ5pridg

So, gay issues are a "bull ****" issue? :huh:

It's interesting how some of the posters on these boards, who are willing to point fingers and call posters racist because they don't support Obama or believe he has the wrong stance on some of the issues, are more narrow-minded than the people they protest against.

Of course, I already know how you'll respond to this:

ForestAflame
You're being racist! All gays are racist! :cmad:

So let's jump a few posts ahead of the argument.

To a time where I must remind everyone of your own bigotry, when you said that I couldn't win the Hype Presidential election because I was gay.

And that doesn't even get into your decision to call all blue collar voters 'racist.'

So, whatever point you're trying to make with that video... it isn't flying, considering you lost all your credibility with me way before this...

The Senator

06-16-2008, 01:24 PM

So what? They aren't a top priority, they shouldn't be.

They are a top priority for myself and other members of the GLBT community who have been discriminated against, and will continue to face outright, legislative discrimination regardless of who becomes president.

We've got a war, an energy crisis, houses are impossible to afford, genocide going on in other countries but really what we need to focus on is two dudes getting married? Sorry, while I agree that there's a valid point there in terms of importance it's just not close to the top twenty things I give a **** about and won't be in the near future. If gays were getting lynched left and right then it would be different but come on, it's just not that important considering the world we're currently in.

Everyone has a different opinion on the issues. While Iraq, energy, and the economy rank among my top three issues, civil rights rank within my top five. Obviously, it's easier to rank certain issues as top priorities when you've lived them, and faced discrimination as a result of some of the current laws.

I would think the interviews he gave are him taking time out of his scheadule.

Interviews which few people have seen? Interviews which have yet to receive widespread attention from all the major news networks? Everyone can cite Obama's race speech as one of his fancier speeches this election cycle, but virtually no one can cite that great speech about GLBT issues he gave.

(Hint: Because he didn't give such a speech)

I'm not sure a website designed and made up by someone else is the truest sign of inner character, I guess we just differ in that.

:whatever:

As I've said before, I know he doesn't design his website.

But he decides which issues he wants to address, does he not? He decides which issues are 'important,' does he not?

Obviously, gay issues aren't important to him. Issues regarding sportsmen are, though. Gotta love those sportsmen (who he implied were bitter and clinged to guns way back in April. Sounds like he's being more apologetic than sincere to that demographic).

So he's saying he's for something but is also capable of taking on a vice president that might disagree with him on some issues instead of a yes man that parrot's him? Someone that might actually challenge him and make him think? That son of a *****!!!! And everyone running is pretty flimsy on gay issues, maybe that's because there's more important things going on, maybe it's just the current state of politics, but there you go.

Sam Nunn was the foremost proponent of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He went so far as to imply that homosexuals, if allowed to serve openly in the military, will rape their fellow soldiers. If that slimeball becomes Obama's running mate, I will not vote for him. Considering Obama is pretty lax on gay issues already, his decision to choose someone who is against GLBT civil rights as his running mate will speak volumes the gay community-- who has been pretty hesitant to support him in the first place.

The Senator

06-16-2008, 01:25 PM

Double Post.

WTF is going on with the Hype today? It's slower than heck, and now I'm posting double.

Did WB release a new pic of Heath Ledger eating cereal on the set of "The Dark Knight" or something? :huh:

moraldeficiency

06-16-2008, 01:48 PM

They are a top priority for myself and other members of the GLBT community who have been discriminated against, and will continue to face outright, legislative discrimination regardless of who becomes president.

Right, but you do realize that you're being as myopic as I would be insisting that Irish issues be a priority when there's so many more serious problems that need immediate attention? I get sticking up for your own, but it seems like you want to do that at the detriment to the nation and that's where I start drawing the line. I want there to be better immigration programs and such but I realize there are more important issues that need attention so I put aside my personal wants for the betterment of the country. That's what good leaders do.

Everyone has a different opinion on the issues. While Iraq, energy, and the economy rank among my top three issues, civil rights rank within my top five. Obviously, it's easier to rank certain issues as top priorities when you've lived them, and faced discrimination as a result of some of the current laws.

Please, if people are actively dying their issues are more important than people that just can't get married. That's just common sense. I care more about my friends getting shot at in Iraq than I do for your ability to marry some dude, because you can always marry him latter but a bullet to the head lasts forever.

Interviews which few people have seen? Interviews which have yet to receive widespread attention from all the major news networks? Everyone can cite Obama's race speech as one of his fancier speeches this election cycle, but virtually no one can cite that great speech about GLBT issues he gave.

Is it Obama's job to forcebly make people look at all his views? Hell you didn't even know his website had this stuff but you were quick to critize him for not having it. Lack of actually looking at the information presented to you is YOUR OWN FAULT and you should just take responsibility for not taking a minute to actually look something up on your own. If the race issues are more polarizing it isn't barack you're upset at it's the media, the US citizens and you're own activist groups for not doing enough.

(Hint: Because he didn't give such a speech)

:whatever:

As I've said before, I know he doesn't design his website.

But he decides which issues he wants to address, does he not? He decides which issues are 'important,' does he not?

Yes, and as mentioned before gay issues just aren't as important as issues effecting everyone in the US equally like the economy or power. Sorry you're not being catered to enough but as mentioned there are groups that get no attention at all so come ***** to me when everyone is getting their 15 minutes cause until then I have to say your issues get much more attention and care then mine.

Obviously, gay issues aren't important to him. Issues regarding sportsmen are, though. Gotta love those sportsmen (who he implied were bitter and clinged to guns way back in April. Sounds like he's being more apologetic than sincere to that demographic).

Oh come on, the sports thing again? That's in the issues section but not the persons section. Should we wait for pissed off fishers that are upset cause they don't count as "people" to barack? Someone else made this, gay issues are addressed (even though you somehow couldn't find them [so clever hiding them in plain site, no one would suspect gays to be considered people and not just a talking point issue]) with the man's thoughts and statements. You admit he didn't even make this, but somehow you get to critize him after lying (or overlooking) about the site initially.

Sam Nunn was the foremost proponent of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He went so far as to imply that homosexuals, if allowed to serve openly in the military, will rape their fellow soldiers. If that slimeball becomes Obama's running mate, I will not vote for him. Considering Obama is pretty lax on gay issues already, his decision to choose someone who is against GLBT civil rights as his running mate will speak volumes the gay community-- who has been pretty hesitant to support him in the first place.

Rape does happen in the service. It's not the finest point but it does occur. I'm not agreeing with nunn but I'm not sure he's going to be stringing gay men up on trees either, you're being overly sensative (you've IMPLIED yourself that if a webpage doesn't have a special section for gays then the person the site's about is a homophobe) and blind because you're feeling protective, and I get that, but you when you have a minute to think this all over I think you'll see that you're strictly being reactive and not actually considering you're argument or lack thereoff. You're better than that.

The Senator

06-16-2008, 02:13 PM

Right, but you do realize that you're being as myopic as I would be insisting that Irish issues be a priority when there's so many more serious problems that need immediate attention? I get sticking up for your own, but it seems like you want to do that at the detriment to the nation and that's where I start drawing the line. I want there to be better immigration programs and such but I realize there are more important issues that need attention so I put aside my personal wants for the betterment of the country. That's what good leaders do.

Wrong. Good leaders avoid the same kind of politics which have smothered our political system for the fourteen years. Good leaders avoid speaking in double talk so it appears they are appealing to both sides of an issue, good leaders recognize all struggles and issues in our country and do their best to address those issues-- especially when a group of people are suffering because of something which most of them have no control over. Barack Obama is a true, blue-blooded politician. There's nothing which separated him from most of his Democratic opponents, except his race and inexperience.

Please, if people are actively dying their issues are more important than people that just can't get married. That's just common sense. I care more about my friends getting shot at in Iraq than I do for your ability to marry some dude, because you can always marry him latter but a bullet to the head lasts forever.

So, basically, the GLBT community should go the rest of their lives with discriminatory policies in action? They should be fired for being gay, be forbidden from serving in the military because of their sexuality, and be unable to marry the person they love for the same reasons?

That's what you're saying?

I've been discriminated against solely because of my sexuality. I know what it's like. And so do thousands of other individuals-- far more than the number of people who died in Iraq.

(not that this diminishes the importance of ending the war in Iraq, or means that the deaths of those in Iraq are not important)

Is it Obama's job to forcebly make people look at all his views? Hell you didn't even know his website had this stuff but you were quick to critize him for not having it. Lack of actually looking at the information presented to you is YOUR OWN FAULT and you should just take responsibility for not taking a minute to actually look something up on your own. If the race issues are more polarizing it isn't barack you're upset at it's the media, the US citizens and you're own activist groups for not doing enough.

So, it's my fault that Obama's campaign didn't list GLBT issues under the "Issues" section of his website?

Yes, and as mentioned before gay issues just aren't as important as issues effecting everyone in the US equally like the economy or power. Sorry you're not being catered to enough but as mentioned there are groups that get no attention at all so come ***** to me when everyone is getting their 15 minutes cause until then I have to say your issues get much more attention and care then mine.

Yeah, but are those groups being discriminated against on a national level?

When someone here gets mocked by their boss for being straight, let me know, and I'll be more than willing to reconsider my argument.

Oh come on, the sports thing again? That's in the issues section but not the persons section. Should we wait for pissed off fishers that are upset cause they don't count as "people" to barack? Someone else made this, gay issues are addressed (even though you somehow couldn't find them [so clever hiding them in plain site, no one would suspect gays to be considered people and not just a talking point issue]) with the man's thoughts and statements. You admit he didn't even make this, but somehow you get to critize him after lying (or overlooking) about the site initially.

I do criticize him for his website, even though he didn't create it.

Why?

Because it represents what he stands for. It's a site designed for his campaign.

Not some guy sitting in front of a computer screen in Chicago.

Rape does happen in the service. It's not the finest point but it does occur.

Yeah, it happens to everyone.

Women are raped by SEE, I FIXED IT ------>MALE <--------- SEE, I FIXED ITsoldiers. Male soldiers are raped by other male soldiers.

Rape isn't confined solely to homosexuals. And it isn't something which all homosexuals partake in, either. So I don't see why it's a valid argument that gay soldiers, if allowed to serve openly, will rape their colleagues. Which is what Nunn did when he went into a submarine in the 1990s, to show reporters how "close" the quarters are there, and why serving with openly gay soldiers would be "problematic."

I'm not agreeing with nunn but I'm not sure he's going to be stringing gay men up on trees either, you're being overly sensative (you've IMPLIED yourself that if a webpage doesn't have a special section for gays then the person the site's about is a homophobe) and blind because you're feeling protective, and I get that, but you when you have a minute to think this all over I think you'll see that you're strictly being reactive and not actually considering you're argument or lack thereoff. You're better than that.

:huh:

I never implied that Obama was a homophobe.

I said he's lacking compassion for GLBT issues, and that they are not a top priority for him. That nowhere near implies that he exhibits any sort of homophobic behavior.

When he says that homosexuals are advancing a gay agenda to convert innocent children into gender-bending queers, or says that gays should be imprisoned for their acts, then I'll consider him a homophobe.

And it is important what Sam Nunn thinks, because if he becomes Vice President he is next in line to become President. If Obama dies or is unable to serve his term in office, then Nunn will take over. And Nunn will have complete control over the policy agenda. If he continues to promote the same sort of policies he promoted when he was a Senator, that could mean that gay issues will not only be put on the backburner-- but they'll be treated as second-class citizens.

moraldeficiency

06-16-2008, 02:45 PM

Wrong. Good leaders avoid the same kind of politics which have smothered our political system for the fourteen years. Good leaders avoid speaking in double talk so it appears they are appealing to both sides of an issue, good leaders recognize all struggles and issues in our country and do their best to address those issues-- especially when a group of people are suffering because of something which most of them have no control over. Barack Obama is a true, blue-blooded politician. There's nothing which separated him from most of his Democratic opponents, except his race and inexperience.

Glad you're willing to try and see two sides of an issue rather than just categorically dismiss what other people think or care about. We shall agree to disagree.

So, basically, the GLBT community should go the rest of their lives with discriminatory policies in action? They should be fired for being gay, be forbidden from serving in the military because of their sexuality, and be unable to marry the person they love for the same reasons?

That's what you're saying?

No, but they shouldn't assume that their issues are a priority to everyone else. That's selfcentered to the extreme. Believe it or not gays don't have the monopoly on being discriminated against nor do they have or deserve to have their issues take priority over all others, despite what you'd personally like to see happen.

I've been discriminated against solely because of my sexuality. I know what it's like. And so do thousands of other individuals-- far more than the number of people who died in Iraq.

O heavens you've faced discrimination? Big deal, so have I. I've been in many fights over it, I've bled and bled others because of it. Are you really comparing not getting a job to ****ing dying? Unless you've been like attacked and beaten then maybe you can take a step back and say discrimination is pretty ****ed up, but there are issues which take presidence over what small problems you've personally dealt with.

So, it's my fault that Obama's campaign didn't list GLBT issues under the "Issues" section of his website?

It's your fault for critizing a site without actually looking at it. Some web designer didn't do things to your specification's and you're critizing the politican because of it. I hope someday you see how silly that is.

Yeah, but are those groups being discriminated against on a national level?

When someone here gets mocked by their boss for being straight, let me know, and I'll be more than willing to reconsider my argument.

Are immigrants discriminated against on a national level? Let me think, yes, yes we are. Not for being straight, we get mocked for all sorts of other stupid reasons, but unlike you the issues we face come's down to how big of a fence should the US use to keep us out. When that happens to gays, I'll rethink my views.

I do criticize him for his website, even though he didn't create it.

Why?

Because it represents what he stands for. It's a site designed for his campaign.

Not some guy sitting in front of a computer screen in Chicago.

Right, and his views on GLBT are there even though not too long ago you were saying they didn't exist, so is it possible it's you that's being overly dramatic for the sake of drama here?

Yeah, it happens to everyone.

Women are raped by heterosexual soldiers. Male soldiers are raped by other male soldiers.

Rape isn't confined solely to homosexuals. And it isn't something which all homosexuals partake in, either. So I don't see why it's a valid argument that gay soldiers, if allowed to serve openly, will rape their colleagues.

I like how women are raped by heterosexual soldiers but male soldiers are raped by other male soldiers. You do mean by homosexual soldiers, right? The argument was that you were upset by what someone else implied and I said you were overreacting and that you imply some pretty crazy **** too.

:huh:

I never implied that Obama was a homophobe.

I said he's lacking compassion for GLBT issues, and that they are not a top priority for him. That nowhere near implies that he exhibits any sort of homophobic behavior.

Sure you did, by alikening him to Nunn that's exactely what came across.

And it is important what Sam Nunn thinks, because if he becomes Vice President he is next in line to become President. If Obama dies or is unable to serve his term in office, then Nunn will take over. And Nunn will have complete control over the policy agenda. If he continues to promote the same sort of policies he promoted when he was a Senator, that could mean that gay issues will not only be put on the backburner-- but they'll be treated as second-class citizens.

So you know what he thinks? What am I thinking right now?

You're so far ahead of yourself assuming things you're kicking your own ass whenever you try and take a step forward.

Mr Sparkle

06-16-2008, 02:51 PM

I still say "GLBT" sounds like a sandwich.

moraldeficiency

06-16-2008, 02:51 PM

I still say "GLBT" sounds like a sandwich.

waits for forthcoming jokes....

The Senator

06-16-2008, 03:10 PM

No, but they shouldn't assume that their issues are a priority to everyone else. That's selfcentered to the extreme. Believe it or not gays don't have the monopoly on being discriminated against nor do they have or deserve to have their issues take priority over all others, despite what you'd personally like to see happen.

Gays certainly don't have the monopoly on being discriminated against.

I didn't think that needed any written reinforcement.

It's like if I said "My car gets 15 miles per gallon! It sucks!" and my friend said "well, my Hummer gets 10 miles per gallon! You don't have a monopoly on shoddy gas mileage!"

Some things go without saying.

As for whether GLBT rights are the concern of everyone else: Of course they're not! That's why the GLBT community is a minority. Minority issues are rarely at the top of the majority's list of issues.

O heavens you've faced discrimination? Big deal, so have I. I've been in many fights over it, I've bled and bled others because of it. Are you really comparing not getting a job to ****ing dying? Unless you've been like attacked and beaten then maybe you can take a step back and say discrimination is pretty ****ed up, but there are issues which take presidence over what small problems you've personally dealt with.

:huh:

Again, I never said that issues involving death, dying, or bleeding are any less important than my issues. Now you're just acting silly.

It's your fault for critizing a site without actually looking at it. Some web designer didn't do things to your specification's and you're critizing the politican because of it. I hope someday you see how silly that is.

:whatever:

My specifications? Gay marriage is an issue. ENDA, DADT, adoption rights-- those are issues. Those within the GLBT community are people; the trials and tribulations they face are issues.

I thought common sense would support my claim that "issues" would fall under the "Issues" section.

Are immigrants discriminated against on a national level? Let me think, yes, yes we are. Not for being straight, we get mocked for all sorts of other stupid reasons, but unlike you the issues we face come's down to how big of a fence should the US use to keep us out. When that happens to gays, I'll rethink my views.

Some people believe that gays should be imprisoned for their behavior. Others have actually beaten and murdered people for being members of the GLBT community.

And again, I never said that the struggles gays face on a daily basis are greater than other discriminatory practices which occur in this country.

Next time I write a post, I'll be sure to explore every single tangent of every single topic being explored, so you know where it is I stand on topics which are not related to the topics I'm discussing :whatever:

Right, and his views on GLBT are there even though not too long ago you were saying they didn't exist, so is it possible it's you that's being overly dramatic for the sake of drama here?

Not really.

I'm making a valid point. As I've said, I've studied campaigns, I've worked on campaigns, and I know how they organize certain aspects of their promotional materials, be it a website, brochure, or television ad. They use carefully plotted language, make sure certain issues are worded in such a way that both sides are addressed without being offended, and they use "shadow" techniques to disguise certain issues from those who are 'technologically challenged.'

Again, if you tell a supporter to go to your issues page to see where you stand on a particular issue, they aren't going to look for "GLBT issues" under "people." That's like saying "If you want to know how I feel about racism in the South, look under the 'states' tab at the top of my web page."

I like how women are raped by heterosexual soldiers but male soldiers are raped by other male soldiers. You do mean by homosexual soldiers, right? The argument was that you were upset by what someone else implied and I said you were overreacting and that you imply some pretty crazy **** too.

That was a simply mistype.

I think I put heterosexual soldiers, then homosexual soldiers, then changed 'homosexual' to male but never changed 'heterosexual' to male.

Now you're making an issue out of a grammatical error, accusing me of some sort of 'bigoted malice' when in fact there was none to begin with.

Sure you did, by alikening him to Nunn that's exactely what came across.

:huh:

I didn't aliken Obama to Nunn.

I questioned why he would consider putting Nunn on his ticket as a running mate, when he has conservative views on issues such as GLBT rights and abortion. I said that I couldn't support Obama if he put Nunn on his ticket, because Obama has such inadequate views on gay marriage and Nunn has far worse views.

Obama-Nunn would not be a progressive ticket, in terms of gay rights. I never said that Obama holds the same views as Nunn, and that Obama-Nunn would be a homophobic ticket.

Now you're making outrageous claims for the sake of arguing.

So you know what he thinks? What am I thinking right now?

You're so far ahead of yourself assuming things you're kicking your own ass whenever you try and take a step forward.

:huh:

I've been accused of not doing my own research, and I will admit that I didn't do my best with this.

But all it takes is a Google search of Sam Nunn and you'll be able to find numerous articles discussing his stance on gay issues.

He was the number one advocate behind DADT, he opposes gay marriage and adoption... I said he COULD continue his support for such policies as Vice President and possibly President. I never said he WILL continue his support for those policies.

Big difference.

I would find it very likely that a politician who holds certain views will continue to hold those views while running for office. Granted, Nunn has been out of office for a decade and has called for a "re-evaluation" of the DADT policy. While that could be a step in the right direction, I strongly doubt that he will "radically" change his mind-- unless, of course, Obama considers him as a running mate. In which case, it's politics as usual in America.

You say that I'm kicking my ass... but you're making such outlandish assumptions and claims, your arguments can't even sustain themselves.

The Senator

06-16-2008, 03:25 PM

I still say "GLBT" sounds like a sandwich.

That's why we tried to replace the acronym with the word "queer."

But then people on both sides apparently had a problem with that word, for whatever reason, so it remains abbreviated with anywhere from three to six letters in numerous random orders, making it sound like anything from a sandwich to a light rail system.

rdh007

06-16-2008, 03:56 PM

Yeah, actually, there are.

The United Church of Christ, Lutheran, and Unitarian Universalist churches have been performing gay weddings for quite some time. Last I knew, Episcopalians were thinking about joining the fray as well.

My wife and her stupid Catholicism...we're both pretty socially liberal types but she'd never (and I mean DaVinci Code comes true type never) leave the fold.

souvlaki

06-16-2008, 06:09 PM

I didn't say that Obama hates gays.

I'm saying that he's not making GLBT issues a top priority.

And he isn't. His campaign refuses to make GLBT issues a true "issue" he wants to tackle in his presidency. He can make many fancy, pretty speeches about race, religion, and fatherhood, but he can't take time out of his schedule to discuss ending discrimination towards the GLBT community.

I find that laughable. I also find that it represents the true demeanor of a natural born politician-- which Obama claims he's not.

He doesn't consider GLBT issues a major "Issue," he tries to have it both ways on gay marriage, he says he'll end DADT but he's considering making the number one proponent of that policy his running mate... Obama is incredibly flimsy on gay issues, and he's definitely not straightfoward with the general public on where he stands on said issues...

JMan, I know how sensitive of an issue this is for you, but try and think about this from a logical point of view, instead of letting your emotions get in the way. What is the biggest McCain's biggest problem as of now? What is the one thing preventing McCain from overtaking Obama in the polls? His lack of support from the religious right. What issue would motivate the religious right to come out in November and vote for McCain in droves? Gay marriage and civil unions. I'd go so far as to say it's probably an even more sensitive issue for the religious right than abortion is. Obama would be committing political suicide at this point if he were to come out strongly in favor of gay marriage or civil unions. I would love to see gay people given the same rights as straight people in this country, but this is not the type of issue that will do Obama any favors during the general election. If four years of an Obama presidency go by without a peep about gay marriage, than yes, I will agree that he's being wishy washy on the subject. But right now he'd be nuts to come out in complete support of gay marriage, and I suspect Clinton, or any other candidate despite their support of gay rights would be ignoring the subject during the general election as well.

The Senator

06-16-2008, 06:22 PM

JMan, I know how sensitive of an issue this is for you, but try and think about this from a logical point of view, instead of letting your emotions get in the way. What is the biggest McCain's biggest problem as of now? What is the one thing preventing McCain from overtaking Obama in the polls? His lack of support from the religious right. What issue would motivate the religious right to come out in November and vote for McCain in droves? Gay marriage and civil unions. I'd go so far as to say it's probably an even more sensitive issue for the religious right than abortion is. Obama would be committing political suicide at this point if he were to come out strongly in favor of gay marriage or civil unions. I would love to see gay people given the same rights as straight people in this country, but this is not the type of issue that will do Obama any favors during the general election. If four years of an Obama presidency go by without a peep about gay marriage, than yes, I will agree that he's being wishy washy on the subject. But right now he'd be nuts to come out in complete support of gay marriage, and I suspect Clinton, or any other candidate despite their support of gay rights would be ignoring the subject during the general election as well.

A man of Obama's stature would probably generate enough support to defeat the amendment banning gay marriage in California, while generating enough national support to pave the way for a widespread 'legalization' of gay marriage someday. Obama is suppose to represent "new" politics, but his hesitance in addressing this issue only proves that he's the same as everybody else.

Kerry, Clinton and Edwards tried to have it both ways on the issue as well. Looks like Obama can be tossed into the fray now.

This is why we need someone like Sherrod Brown to run for President. Someone who is blunt and honest and won't play politics like that. If he can win a statewide election in Ohio by doing the same, he could win nationwide.

souvlaki

06-16-2008, 06:23 PM

btw, I'm too lazy to sift through the last few pages of posts, but has anyone mentioned yet that Gore will be endorsing Obama tonight? Not that that should be a surprise to anyone or anything...

Lightning Strykez!

06-16-2008, 06:27 PM

Why isn't this on his website? Why doesn't he want to make his stance publicly known?

Um...it already is? I've always known he's been favorable towards gay rights. I mean...look at his logo for crying out loud...it's a fricking RAINBOW. :confused:

What's your beef?

souvlaki

06-16-2008, 06:29 PM

A man of Obama's stature would probably generate enough support to defeat the amendment banning gay marriage in California, while generating enough national support to pave the way for a widespread 'legalization' of gay marriage someday. Obama is suppose to represent "new" politics, but his hesitance in addressing this issue only proves that he's the same as everybody else.

Kerry, Clinton and Edwards tried to have it both ways on the issue as well. Looks like Obama can be tossed into the fray now.

This is why we need someone like Sherrod Brown to run for President. Someone who is blunt and honest and won't play politics like that. If he can win a statewide election in Ohio by doing the same, he could win nationwide.

Well, I guess it comes down to how you want to interpret Obama's "new politics". It's gotten to the point that any time Obama does something to benefit him politically it's seen as him going against his "new kind of politics" message. The reality is he's still a politician, and the Democratic Party is depending on this guy to win in November. If he were to announce his support of gay marriage McCain would win in a landslide.

Lightning Strykez!

06-16-2008, 06:31 PM

btw, I'm too lazy to sift through the last few pages of posts, but has anyone mentioned yet that Gore will be endorsing Obama tonight? Not that that should be a surprise to anyone or anything...

I sifted through the last 3 pages and no one was mentioning it. But yes, it's official. I think the timing of him coming out in MI is right on.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Gore_gets_involved.html

souvlaki

06-16-2008, 06:34 PM

Um...it already is? I've always known he's been favorable towards gay rights. I mean...look at his logo for crying out loud...it's a fricking RAINBOW. :confused:

What's your beef?

Yeah, I knew that as well. Just because the guy doesn't want to commit political suicide in a general election where McCain's support amongst the religious right (the base of the current Republican Party) is dwindling by the day doesn't mean Obama hasn't been favorable towards gay rights in the past. He's been pretty upfront in the past over where he stands on the issue. He supports civil unions, and I believe wants to leave gay marriage up to the state. That's certainly more progressive than McCain's stance on the issue.

The Senator

06-16-2008, 06:35 PM

Well, I guess it comes down to how you want to interpret Obama's "new politics". It's gotten to the point that any time Obama does something to benefit him politically it's seen as him going against his "new kind of politics" message. The reality is he's still a politician, and the Democratic Party is depending on this guy to win in November. If he were to announce his support of gay marriage McCain would win in a landslide.

I don't think that's true.

There was a poll out a while ago which said that 52% of Americans support gay marriage.

I think Obama's support for gay marriage would resonate in progressive states in the mountain west, as well as Iowa. I also do not think it will hurt his support among independent and black voters, meaning he'll still have a good shot of carrying swing states Virginia and North Carolina.

I don't really see what McCain would benefit from this. He won't win California regardless of what Obama thinks, he won't win any of the Kerry states, while the demographics which will swing certain states won't be affected at all by Obama's stance on the issue.

StorminNorman

06-16-2008, 06:35 PM

Does Gore think that anyone that bothers going to AlGore.com hasn't already contributed to the Obama campaign?

Lightning Strykez!

06-16-2008, 06:38 PM

Does Gore think that anyone that bothers going to AlGore.com hasn't already contributed to the Obama campaign?

LOL Good point.

Is it even remotely plausible that Gore would be considered for Obama's VP as a slam dunk shot? No...never mind. :whatever:

The Senator

06-16-2008, 06:39 PM

Yeah, I knew that as well. Just because the guy doesn't want to commit political suicide in a general election where McCain's support amongst the religious right (the base of the current Republican Party) is dwindling by the day doesn't mean Obama hasn't been favorable towards gay rights in the past. He's been pretty upfront in the past over where he stands on the issue. He supports civil unions, and I believe wants to leave gay marriage up to the state. That's certainly more progressive than McCain's stance on the issue.

While I believe he wouldn't lose by a landslide at all to McCain if he came out in support of gay marriage ... I would rather have Obama lose the election because he took an unpopular stance on an issue than have him turn out like the hypocritical politicians he claims he's against...

BlackLantern

06-16-2008, 06:41 PM

I don't think he is willing to lose because of a principle.....

souvlaki

06-16-2008, 06:43 PM

LOL Good point.

Is it even remotely plausible that Gore would be considered for Obama's VP as a slam dunk shot? No...never mind. :whatever:

He'd be my first choice, but I wouldn't place any bets on it happening. Nonetheless, Obama would probably win in a landslide if Gore were his running mate. I'd say he'd probably get more people to vote for Obama if he were a running mate than any other VP choice.

The Senator

06-16-2008, 06:43 PM

LOL Good point.

Is it even remotely plausible that Gore would be considered for Obama's VP as a slam dunk shot? No...never mind. :whatever:

While I support an Obama/ Gore ticket wholeheartedly... I feel that many pundits will look at the ticket and think that it should be the other way around. (Frankly, it should be Gore/ Obama, and I could see why such a ticket could be considered insulting). I think this would be torn to shreds by pundits, while generating a lot of controversy.

BlackLantern

06-16-2008, 06:43 PM

why would Gore take the backseat.....again? He can get more done as an activist and speaker than he can as VP

Lightning Strykez!

06-16-2008, 06:46 PM

All I'm saying is they're both visionaries. And he would tremendously knock the argument that the Obama Administration is "inexperienced"--he'd bring more of that experience to the ticket than ANYONE--even Hillary.

souvlaki

06-16-2008, 06:47 PM

souvlaki

06-16-2008, 06:52 PM

Frankly, it should be Gore/ Obama

Agreed, but I don't think it would generate the controversy you are suggesting. Obama needs a VP with experience and clout, Gore supplies that more than any other choice. I would love to see a Gore/Obama ticket, but I'd happily take an Obama/Gore ticket. Yes, it'd be a gimmick, but at least Gore has the experience to make the gimmick worthwhile.

The Senator

06-16-2008, 06:52 PM

Yeah, and then where would that leave your cause? If you want things to change in this country in the near future, McCain is not the President you want in the White House. You've always struck me as a fairly rational person, JMan, but on this particular subject I really think you are letting your emotions cloud your judgment. This is the type of subject to completely sway a lot of purple states toward McCain.

Then this all ties back to my original point.

Maybe it's in the best interest of the gay community for Obama to lose the election. Then in four years, someone with a progressive stance on gay rights, such as Sherrod Brown, Mark Warner or Russ Fengold, will become the Democratic nominee and win the presidency in 2012.

If Obama plays politics with the gay community, it will be at least another eight years before we can have true progressive in the White House. And depending on a number of factors, including Obama's VP and a possible defeat in 2012, it could be much longer than that.

Lightning Strykez!

06-16-2008, 06:59 PM

Then this all ties back to my original point.

Maybe it's in the best interest of the gay community for Obama to lose the election. Then in four years, someone with a progressive stance on gay rights, such as Sherrod Brown, Mark Warner or Russ Fengold, will become the Democratic nominee and win the presidency in 2012.

So...you'd rather set back a movement that would benefit MANY other walks of life just because the gay community is not expressedly outlined on his website? How is that rational?

The interest of the gay community is not the ONLY one riding on this man's shoulders. And Sherrod Brown and whoever else will not be able to reach as many people and cultures as Obama can now.

The Senator

06-16-2008, 07:04 PM

And Sherrod Brown and whoever else will not be able to reach as many people and cultures as Obama can now.

Which is why Obama can afford to be as vocal on the issues now, instead of refusing to address them. Of course, as I mentioned, he simply wants to play politics, which should make the gay community wonder whether Obama can be the true progressive they need in a President.

Lightning Strykez!

06-16-2008, 07:13 PM

Which is why Obama can afford to be as vocal on the issues now, instead of refusing to address them. Of course, as I mentioned, he simply wants to play politics, which should make the gay community wonder whether Obama can be the true progressive they need in a President.

He HAS addressed them. And his statements are available for public consumption.

The Senator

06-16-2008, 07:21 PM

He HAS addressed them. And his statements are available for public consumption.

When has he made a prominent speech about GLBT issues which was covered extensively by the media :huh:

Just because it's on his website, that doesn't mean he's paying enough attention to the issue. Obama briefly mentions sportsmen on his website, but when has he put their priorities at the forefront of his campaign? All he's done is offend sportsmen by saying the demographics which make up most sportsmen cling to guns and religion. Same can be said about the GLBT community, by refusing to support full marriage rights and for refusing to take a hard stand on GLBT issues.

Lightning Strykez!

06-16-2008, 07:39 PM

When has he made a prominent speech about GLBT issues which was covered extensively by the media :huh:

Just because it's on his website, that doesn't mean he's paying enough attention to the issue. Obama briefly mentions sportsmen on his website, but when has he put their priorities at the forefront of his campaign? All he's done is offend sportsmen by saying the demographics which make up most sportsmen cling to guns and religion. Same can be said about the GLBT community, by refusing to support full marriage rights and for refusing to take a hard stand on GLBT issues.

I :heart: your passion man so please don't take offense at this but: I seriously think you're stretching here and making up something out of nothing.

For several months Obama refused to drum up his "Kenyan" roots--he wouldn't run his platform as "the Black Candidate". As a result, many African Americans didn't think he was "black" enough and felt he needed to Reverend-Sharpe-it-up more. But he didn't. He didn't give that race speech until he HAD to, but by then he already had garnered their support and respect. In other words, he realized that he has to appeal to EVERYONE and I believe he will include all the minorities in time. He is not ignoring gays, but he has obviously a LOT to process.

And there is plenty of that by the way: time, that is. :cool:

Matt

06-16-2008, 11:02 PM

So...you'd rather set back a movement that would benefit MANY other walks of life just because the gay community is not expressedly outlined on his website? How is that rational?

The interest of the gay community is not the ONLY one riding on this man's shoulders. And Sherrod Brown and whoever else will not be able to reach as many people and cultures as Obama can now.

As we have discussed in private, LS!, Obama winning could be disastrous for the black community than an Obama loss.

I've decided how I am going to play my cards this election. I will vote McCain or write in uncommitted (I'm waiting on McCain's running mate to decide). Obama should not be president of these United States, not yet. Plain and simple. His policies concern me and I do fear he will be the next Jimmy Carter and destroy the party (the party has only recently as in 2006, recovered from Carter's damage). However, I will also do something I do not like the notion of doing. I will vote for Jason Altmire in my Congressional election. I originally intended to write in uncommitted, but if the Democrats should lose this election, it is crucial that the Congress has the ability to override a Presidential veto...if not in 2008 than by 2010. So while I will either vote McCain or not vote Obama, I will do what I can (including donations to various congressional campaigns) to see to it that McCain's presidency is limited in power.

Spider-Bite

06-16-2008, 11:43 PM

While I believe he wouldn't lose by a landslide at all to McCain if he came out in support of gay marriage ... I would rather have Obama lose the election because he took an unpopular stance on an issue than have him turn out like the hypocritical politicians he claims he's against...

If he were to take that position now, he'd have to explain why he's been saying he's against it throughout the campaign. Had he supported it from the beginning, I think it wouldn't really be hurting him now, just because it would fit with the overall message of his campaign.

I would not want him to suddenly take that position. What would be the point? He'd lose. Thousands of troops would die in Iraq that would otherwise not die.

There is no point in letting thousands die, just for the symbolism of supporting it, becuase whether he supports it or opposes it wont have any effect really on whether or not gay people can marry.

Now a few years down the road, he might be able to get away with changing his position.

I belive that if a gay couple wants to buy a house with a white picket fence, get a family dog, adopt a child out of a foster home, and yes, get married, than I say they have strong family values.

that is how I would advise him to talk about supporting it, and as for his reason for flip flopping, he'd basically have to say something along the lines of "Americans are increasingly supportive of it, and the time has now come to start allowing gays to marry." That doesn't address why he opposed it originally. but there really isn't any truthful explanation he could give other than "I wanted to get elected."

Tag279

06-16-2008, 11:46 PM

I know I am late on this but I am going to post it anyway.

Why do so many of you hate Obama? It is absolutely unbelivable. I understand Matt was offended by bitter gate but my gosh do you have to see everything through your wounded lense?

Matt you already had your mind made up and nothing he does or says will make you stop regarding him as an un-deserving rock star.

Some posters on this forum have talked about the problems present in the black community and how absent fathers have contributed to it. And when Obama talks to the black community about manning up and being active in their children's lives and setting a positive example he gets dogged for it. Rediculous. :whatever:

Obama actually fills sand bags and uses his team of supporters to offer assistance in the emergency and he gets dogged for it. This is rediculous also.

John Kerry lost in 2004 because the gay marriage ISSUE became a lightning rod. This issue mobilized the religious right and coupled with being swift-boated Kerry lost. Obama addresses gay rights in his platform and it's not enough? What the hell do you think McCain is going to do?

If Obama gets out there and waves a rainbow flag the religious right that McCain is having trouble with likely to stay home this November will come out of the woodwork again, and in greater numbers. They will be like water bugs in an old tree stump after a heavy rain. And you will end up with a President that could give a flying flip about gay rights.

Every American citizen that is registered to vote has the right to vote for who they wish. It is just distressing for me to see people so willing to tear down someone so readily based on guilt by association and because a candidate is "exoctic" as Pat Buchanan so elequently put it.

Spider-Bite

06-16-2008, 11:51 PM

He HAS addressed them. And his statements are available for public consumption.

He actually proposes a federal law that forces all 50 states to recognize gay civil unions, with rights equal to that of marriage in every aspect, including adoption, the right to leave behind your belongings to them, hospital visits, equal tax benefits, everything, except the word marriage.

But of course they can still call it whatever they want. They can have a wedding, say they are married and everything. The only difference is the word civil union on the legal documents.

he also supports ending the don't ask don't tell policy, as well as the hate crime bill aimed at protecting gays, which was vetoed by President Bush.

That's a lot farther than most democrats go on gay rights. I'm not positive, but I don't ever recall hearing Hillary voice support for a federal law that protects gay civil unions. There are many states that have outlawed them, including my own. A gay couple could have been together for 30 years, and if one is on his or her death bed, the other wont be able to say good bye. Obama's proposal is a huge step in the right direction for gay rights.

McCain has said that if too many states allow gay marriage he will support a constiutional ammendmant. He opposes allowing gays to serve openly in the military. He is opposed to a federal law protecting civil unions for gays.

On gay rights Obama is much better than McCain.

Spider-Bite

06-16-2008, 11:53 PM

If Obama gets out there and waves a rainbow flag the religious right that McCain is having trouble with likely to stay home this November will come out of the woodwork again, and in greater numbers. They will be like water bugs in an old tree stump after a heavy rain. And you will end up with a President that could give a flying flip about gay rights.

.
The gay issue does not hold the same weight as it did in 2004.

The Senator

06-17-2008, 12:00 AM

If he were to take that position now, he'd have to explain why he's been saying he's against it throughout the campaign. Had he supported it from the beginning, I think it wouldn't really be hurting him now, just because it would fit with the overall message of his campaign.

Well, that's part of the problem Obama has with many GLBT voters. He is not a proponent of gay marriage, he never was and he quite likely never will be. That's why many gay voters I know are thinking about either voting for McCain or a third party candidate, or not voting at all come November. Not to mention, his lack of attention to gay issues is not looked highly upon by many within the GLBT community.

I would not want him to suddenly take that position. What would be the point? He'd lose. Thousands of troops would die in Iraq that would otherwise not die.

You have no way of guaranteeing that Obama will magically fix all of the problems in Iraq, and you cannot guarantee that thousands will die under a McCain presidency.

There is no point in letting thousands die, just for the symbolism of supporting it, becuase whether he supports it or opposes it wont have any effect really on whether or not gay people can marry.

I believe that a popular, well-spoken candidate such as himself would cause Californians to vote against a marriage ban this fall, while also defeating a similar measure in Florida.

Now a few years down the road, he might be able to get away with changing his position.

We don't have a few years to wait. And if Obama selects Sam Nunn as his running mate, we may have to wait longer than 'just a few years.'

I belive that if a gay couple wants to buy a house with a white picket fence, get a family dog, adopt a child out of a foster home, and yes, get married, than I say they have strong family values.

that is how I would advise him to talk about supporting it, and as for his reason for flip flopping, he'd basically have to say something along the lines of "Americans are increasingly supportive of it, and the time has now come to start allowing gays to marry." That doesn't address why he opposed it originally. but there really isn't any truthful explanation he could give other than "I wanted to get elected."

Sigh.

But doesn't that prove that he's your typical politician, who is not willing to go beyond "politics as usual" in order to win? How does he represent "change" if he takes traditional, flimsy positions on some of the more controversial issues?

His whole "I'm against marriage, but I support civil unions" is the same rhetoric we've heard from other politicians. We heard it from Kerry, briefly heard it from Gore (before he came out in full support of marriage rights last year), and we heard it from pretty much all of the major Democratic presidential candidates this year. This isn't an example of the politics of change. It's an example of "the politics of platitudes," the "politics of having it both ways," and "politics without a backbone."

Matt

06-17-2008, 12:04 AM

I notice you changed your sig, jman...change of heart?

The Senator

06-17-2008, 12:10 AM

He actually proposes a federal law that forces all 50 states to recognize gay civil unions, with rights equal to that of marriage in every aspect, including adoption, the right to leave behind your belongings to them, hospital visits, equal tax benefits, everything, except the word marriage.

But of course they can still call it whatever they want. They can have a wedding, say they are married and everything. The only difference is the word civil union on the legal documents.

So, when it comes to gay marriage, Obama supports a "separate but equal" policy?

When my mother and father were "joined in matrimony," they had a civil union performed by a justice of the peace. But their "civil union license" reads exactly like a marriage license, and claims that my parents were married. All the accompanying documents use the terms "married" or "marriage," according to my father.

Basically, Obama is saying that gays should have the same rights as everyone else, except they should be treated differently than everyone else. Instead of being able to marry, they will have "civil unions" performed by the state. Each state will hand out licenses celebrating their "civil unions" with "different language" in the legal documents.

And the GLBT community will still be treated different than everybody else.

This is a fight for equality, not "settling for whatever we can get."

he also supports ending the don't ask don't tell policy, as well as the hate crime bill aimed at protecting gays, which was vetoed by President Bush.

Well, we'll see what happens.

Bill Clinton promised to end the military's discrimination practices against gays and lesbians in the military, and all we got out of it was a policy just as oppressive and restrictive as the one before it.

Obama's foreign policy connections-- from Sam Nunn to Tony Zinni-- suggests that repealing DADT will be a secondary concern when it comes to the military's policy towards GLBT individuals.

That's a lot farther than most democrats go on gay rights. I'm not positive, but I don't ever recall hearing Hillary voice support for a federal law that protects gay civil unions.

Well, we're not talking about what other candidates planned to do. As I mentioned, no one was progressive enough on this issue. But other prominent politicians, such as Sherrod Brown, Mark Warner, Al Gore and Russ Feingold, are. Which is another reason why this election got on my nerves. Gore, Feingold, and Warner did not run because Obama decided to run. Had Obama not entered the race, I believe that one of those three individuals would be in his position now-- or at least in a very significant position of power within the party.

There are many states that have outlawed them, including my own. A gay couple could have been together for 30 years, and if one is on his or her death bed, the other wont be able to say good bye.

Link please. I never came across such a policy in my own research on this topic. That doesn't mean I don't believe you, but I just want to read up on this policy.

Spider-Bite

06-17-2008, 12:11 AM

Well, that's part of the problem Obama has with many GLBT voters. He is not a proponent of gay marriage, he never was and he quite likely never will be.

Neither is Hillary or McCain or anybody else really. However on gay rights, Obama is VERY strong! He will take gay rights in new directions.

That's why many gay voters I know are thinking about either voting for McCain or a third party candidate,
Whether you know them or not, they will make up a very small percentage of the gay electorate. Probably between five and ten percent.

or not voting at all come November. Not to mention, his lack of attention to gay issues is not looked highly upon by many within the GLBT community.

I highly doubt that. You can point to the ones you know, and I can point to the ones I know, but in the end Obama will win the gay vote in a landslide just as Kerry did.

You have no way of guaranteeing that Obama will magically fix all of the problems in Iraq,

Actually I gurantee HE WONT. He said himself, "I wont pretend there are any good options left for Iraq"

and you cannot guarantee that thousands will die under a McCain presidency.

There are almost never any gurantees in life, just maybe's and probablys. I can't even gurantee he wont bring the troops home a year or two into his presidency just to satisfy the voters and up aproval ratings.

I believe that a popular, well-spoken candidate such as himself would cause Californians to vote against a marriage ban this fall, while also defeating a similar measure in Florida.

He might still do that, just by opposing the ammendmant, and increasing voter turn out among liberals.

We don't have a few years to wait. And if Obama selects Sam Nunn as his running mate, we may have to wait longer than 'just a few years.'

i don't know who Sam Nunn is. I will read up on that person, just to know.

Sigh.

But doesn't that prove that he's your typical politician, who is not willing to go beyond "politics as usual" in order to win? How does he represent "change" if he takes traditional, flimsy positions on some of the more controversial issues?

In some ways he's different, and in other ways he's not.

His whole "I'm against marriage, but I support civil unions" is the same rhetoric we've heard from other politicians. We heard it from Kerry, briefly heard it from Gore (before he came out in full support of marriage rights last year), and we heard it from pretty much all of the major Democratic presidential candidates this year. This isn't an example of the politics of change. It's an example of "the politics of platitudes," the "politics of having it both ways," and "politics without a backbone."
[/QUOTE]

It is very different because unlike some of those mentioned, he supports a federal law to grant civil union rights in all 50 states instead of just leaving that up to the states.

I also think you have to remember, Obama will bring change from the Bush administration policies, but this is still politics. You can yell at a rock all day to quit being a rock, but it will always be a rock.

The Senator

06-17-2008, 12:13 AM

I notice you changed your sig, jman...change of heart?

Well, I've been meaning to change that line to coincide with the Hype election for some time.

Obama will get my vote in November. Rest assured, as much as it will bother me, I will vote for him, as I feel the country will be in a better place as a whole with Obama at the reigns. However, I refuse to give him a free pass when it comes to some of the issues I hold near and dear to my heart. I am not afraid to rip into him when necessary. And I will not submit to some of the lunatic philosophies of his closest, most blind supporters. Not at all.

Marx

06-17-2008, 12:17 AM

Neither is Hillary or McCain or anybody else really. However on gay rights, Obama is VERY strong! He will take gay rights in new directions.

Do you actually have any proof of this? Or are you just taking Obama's word for it? I haven't seen anything from Obama to make me believe that he would be so much better on the issue than anyone else has been. (And that's not saying a whole lot.)

Matt

06-17-2008, 12:19 AM

Well, I've been meaning to change that line to coincide with the Hype election for some time.

Obama will get my vote in November. Rest assured, as much as it will bother me, I will vote for him, as I feel the country will be in a better place as a whole with Obama at the reigns. However, I refuse to give him a free pass when it comes to some of the issues I hold near and dear to my heart. I am not afraid to rip into him when necessary. And I will not submit to some of the lunatic philosophies of his closest, most blind supporters. Not at all.

I'm telling you my friend, 4 years of McCain is better than the long term effects of an Obama presidency. I doubt McCain can do that much damage with a Democratic congress who has a strong control.

Spider-Bite

06-17-2008, 12:20 AM

[quote=jmanspice;15046119]So, when it comes to gay marriage, Obama supports a "separate but equal" policy?

When my mother and father were "joined in matrimony," they had a civil union performed by a justice of the peace. But their "civil union license" reads exactly like a marriage license, and claims that my parents were married. All the accompanying documents use the terms "married" or "marriage," according to my father.

Basically, Obama is saying that gays should have the same rights as everyone else, except they should be treated differently than everyone else. Instead of being able to marry, they will have "civil unions" performed by the state. Each state will hand out licenses celebrating their "civil unions" with "different language" in the legal documents.

And the GLBT community will still be treated different than everybody else.

This is a fight for equality, not "settling for whatever we can get."

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's an improvement and a huge step in the right direction. You can't assume they will be equal overnight, and if you do aim for that, you'll fail. Better to succeed in steps, than to fail and lose the whole battle. Lincoln advocated a seperate but equal for blacks to end slavery. It wasn't 100% equal but it still was good enough to make him one of our best presidents in history and improve the lives of blacks in the south.

Bill Clinton promised to end the military's discrimination practices against gays and lesbians in the military, and all we got out of it was a policy just as oppressive and restrictive as the one before it.

Obama's foreign policy connections-- from Sam Nunn to Tony Zinni-- suggests that repealing DADT will be a secondary concern when it comes to the military's policy towards GLBT individuals.

second to what? I do believe it will not be as important to him as ending the Iraq war.

Well, we're not talking about what other candidates planned to do. As I mentioned, no one was progressive enough on this issue. But other prominent politicians, such as Sherrod Brown, Mark Warner, Al Gore and Russ Feingold, are. Which is another reason why this election got on my nerves. Gore, Feingold, and Warner did not run because Obama decided to run. Had Obama not entered the race, I believe that one of those three individuals would be in his position now-- or at least in a very significant position of power within the party.

I honestly believe if Obama hadn't run, Hillary would be in his position. Without such a enegized black vote, Obama would not have won.

Link please. I never came across such a policy in my own research on this topic. That doesn't mean I don't believe you, but I just want to read up on this policy.
I'll try to provide one for you tomorrow. I wont have time tonight, but it should be pretty easy. I don't know how you haven't heard of it. When your on your death bed, nobody except relatives have the right to visit you, and if your not legally joined, your not conisdred a relative. Its a key point in selling the civil union, gay marriage argument. It's talked about in the media quite often.

Spider-Bite

06-17-2008, 12:26 AM

I'm telling you my friend, 4 years of McCain is better than the long term effects of an Obama presidency. I doubt McCain can do that much damage with a Democratic congress who has a strong control.

he promises to keep the troops in Iraq. That is a hell of a lot of damage. what exactly do think McCain is going to do that is so much better than Obama?

McCain might be a good guy, but he gives off the impression that he doesn't quite know what's going on around him.

McCain will appoint pro life judges to the bench. How is that for longterm? McCain will veto timetables for withdrawl. He will veto ending the don't ask don't tell policy.

McCain will not be good for this country.

The Senator

06-17-2008, 12:26 AM

Neither is Hillary or McCain or anybody else really. However on gay rights, Obama is VERY strong! He will take gay rights in new directions.

Yawn.

Bill Clinton was "very strong" on gay rights when he ran for president in 1992, then he abandoned the needs of the GLBT community by signing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and Defense of Marriage Act into law during his presidency.

And, as I've mentioned before, I recognize that few candidates in this election had any sort of positive record on gay rights. That doesn't excuse Obama's positions on some of the issues, however.

Whether you know them or not, they will make up a very small percentage of the gay electorate. Probably between five and ten percent.

Considering 20% of the GLBT community voted for Bush in 2004, according to Morris P. Fiorina's lovely crosstabs, I'm guessing McCain will be able to win just as much-- if not more-- support from the gay community.

I highly doubt that. You can point to the ones you know, and I can point to the ones I know, but in the end Obama will win the gay vote in a landslide just as Kerry did.

Well, again, we'll see what happens. There's no way of knowing for sure how it will play out, but I'd say that almost a third of my gay friends are on the fence as to what they'll do come November.

Actually I gurantee HE WONT. He said himself, "I wont pretend there are any good options left for Iraq"

There are almost never any gurantees in life, just maybe's and probablys. I can't even gurantee he wont bring the troops home a year or two into his presidency just to satisfy the voters and up aproval ratings.

Okay then.

Speak in your guarantees. Then in two years, if we're still in the same situation with soldiers dying on a regular basis under an Obama presidency, I get to pull another brick out of the foundation supporting your already dilapidated credibility.

He might still do that, just by opposing the ammendmant, and increasing voter turn out among liberals.

Funny how Obama has yet to do any of that, and this issue has been at the forefront of domestic politics for about a month now.

i don't know who Sam Nunn is. I will read up on that person, just to know.

You should.

In some ways he's different, and in other ways he's not.

Thanks for the vague, fortune cookie philosophy.

It is very different because unlike some of those mentioned, he supports a federal law to grant civil union rights in all 50 states instead of just leaving that up to the states.

Again-- how does he plan to do this? He can't just become president, magically wave his fingers, and-- viola-- civil unions are granted in fifty states. He's going to have one hell of a fight in order for this to happen.

Which is why I don't see him doing anything to make this plan a reality during his presidency. It will be too complicated, and might injure his approval rating. Meaning he will be another failure for the GLBT community.

I also think you have to remember, Obama will bring change from the Bush administration policies, but this is still politics. You can yell at a rock all day to quit being a rock, but it will always be a rock.

Sometimes, I wonder if a Democrat would actually operate differently if given the same powers as the Bush administration.

Spider-Bite

06-17-2008, 12:28 AM

Do you have any proof of this? Or are you just taking Obama's word for it? I haven't seen anything from Obama to make me believe that he would be so much better on the issue than anyone else has been. (And that's not saying a whole lot.)

You need proof that these other politicians have not come out in support of gay marriage?

On actual marraige, no he's no different from the other democrats. On civil unions he is stronger. and yes as of right now all we can do is take his word for it. He's not president yet.

As with any other candidate, all we can do is hope they wont change their position once elected. Can't really prove it.

Matt

06-17-2008, 12:32 AM

he promises to keep the troops in Iraq. That is a hell of a lot of damage. what exactly do think McCain is going to do that is so much better than Obama?

Sure about that? Obama has already said he will send the troops back to Iraq or stop pulling out if there is evidence of Al-Queda operating within Iraq. But news flash, Al-Queda is already in Iraq. They are called...wait for it...Al-Queda in Iraq. He already has a way to wiggle out of that promise.

McCain might be a good guy, but he gives off the impression that he doesn't quite know what's going on around him.

McCain will appoint pro life judges to the bench. How is that for longterm? McCain will veto timetables for withdrawl. He will veto ending the don't ask don't tell policy.

McCain will not be good for this country.

How exactly do you think he will get pro-life judges appointed to the bench when they have to go through congressional hearings? The Democrats will have a majority capable of overriding vetos possibly after this election (if they work with the more liberal, progressive Republican senators) and worst case scenario by 2010.

Spider-Bite

06-17-2008, 12:37 AM

Yawn.

Bill Clinton was "very strong" on gay rights when he ran for president in 1992, then he abandoned the needs of the GLBT community by signing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and Defense of Marriage Act into law during his presidency.

And, as I've mentioned before, I recognize that few candidates in this election had any sort of positive record on gay rights. That doesn't excuse Obama's positions on some of the issues, however.

Ididn't say it did. I said credit should be given where it is due.

Considering 20% of the GLBT community voted for Bush in 2004, according to Morris P. Fiorina's lovely crosstabs, I'm guessing McCain will be able to win just as much-- if not more-- support from the gay community.

I don't really feel like searching for a link. It will take forever in the MSNBC database, but Kerry won 90% of the gay vote.

Well, again, we'll see what happens. There's no way of knowing for sure how it will play out, but I'd say that almost a third of my gay friends are on the fence as to what they'll do come November.

yeah but you always have these weird examples of people you know that sound like a 1 in a million situation. black people buddy buddy with people waving the confederate flag. huge accumulation of gay people voting for McCain. etc.

Okay then.

Speak in your guarantees. Then in two years, if we're still in the same situation with soldiers dying on a regular basis under an Obama presidency, I get to pull another brick out of the foundation supporting your already dilapidated credibility.

you quoted wrong. I was talking about the possiblity of McCain bringing the troops home a year or two into his presidency.

Funny how Obama has yet to do any of that, and this issue has been at the forefront of domestic politics for about a month now.the general election hasn't happened yet.

You should.

Thanks for the vague, fortune cookie philosophy.

Again-- how does he plan to do this? He can't just become president, magically wave his fingers, and-- viola-- civil unions are granted in fifty states. He's going to have one hell of a fight in order for this to happen.

No president can ever wave a finger. This isn't a dictatorship. On supporting fedeal protection of civil unions, you claim it's politically not feasible, therefore his support of it makes him no different from anybody else, and then criticize him for not supporting gay marriage, which is 10 times more infeasible? You can't have it both ways. Your giving him a damned if he does, and a damned if he doesn't.

Which is why I don't see him doing anything to make this plan a reality during his presidency. It will be too complicated, and might injure his approval rating. Meaning he will be another failure for the GLBT community.

Not necessarily.

Sometimes, I wonder if a Democrat would actually operate differently if given the same powers as the Bush administration.
With the same green light, they would just take us to the left. do you really think Gore with a democrat controlled congress would have gave the wealthy such huge tax cuts, or vetoed embryonic stem cell research?

Of course it would be different.

The Senator

06-17-2008, 12:38 AM

[QUOTE]

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's an improvement and a huge step in the right direction. You can't assume they will be equal overnight, and if you do aim for that, you'll fail. Better to succeed in steps, than to fail and lose the whole battle. Lincoln advocated a seperate but equal for blacks to end slavery. It wasn't 100% equal but it still was good enough to make him one of our best presidents in history and improve the lives of blacks in the south.

The Separate But Equal policies towards blacks served as a way to prolong discrimination and racism in the South for almost 100 years.

I was under the impression that we learned from our mistakes. No policy which promotes "separate but equal" policies should be considered "a step in the right direction." That's ludicrous. All it will do is prolong discriminatory practices in this country. It will allow folks to operate under the mindset of "well, the gays can have civil unions, why do they deserve marriage?" Then we'll have to wait until another generation comes along to fix the failed policies of the Obama administration.

We cannot afford this.

I'll try to provide one for you tomorrow. I wont have time tonight, but it should be pretty easy. I don't know how you haven't heard of it. When your on your death bed, nobody except relatives have the right to visit you, and if your not legally joined, your not conisdred a relative. Its a key point in selling the civil union, gay marriage argument. It's talked about in the media quite often.

As I should have stated more clearly, I have never come across a specific example of such a policy taking place. I've heard inklings here and there, but no specific example ever came up when I was researching it.

I've read about tax benefits and the like being denied... but I have been under the astute impression that most states allow death-bed visits between partners of the same sex...

The Senator

06-17-2008, 12:38 AM

Seriously, which masturbatory pic/trailer/action figure from "The Dark Knight" is causing this site to act all funky? :huh:

[Double Post]

The Senator

06-17-2008, 12:50 AM

Spider-Bite
I don't really feel like searching for a link. It will take forever in the MSNBC database, but Kerry won 90% of the gay vote.

Sigh.

You are wrong again. According to Fiorina, Kerry won roughly 80% of the gay vote. I forget the exact number (I know it was mentioned elsewhere in this thread), but Bush managed to win 20% of the gay vote, at least.

Last I knew, when you subtract twenty from 100, you get 80. Not 90.

Now, because I am lazy and really don't want to go through my books to find Fiorina's exact stats (which he derived from NES data compiled after the 2004 election), I have a link from the Washington Blade (which you find an incredulous source anyway, despite the fact that it is on public record, publicly funded by the DC government, and the article in question uses stats from the Washington Post, ABC, and CNN) which discusses the gay vote in 2004:

http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=155

And-- surprise, surprise-- Bush won 21% of the gay vote in 2004. He won 23% of the gay vote in 2000, and Dole won the same percentage of gay votes in 1996. Tell me McCain won't do at least as well, if not better, than Bush and Dole.

Marx

06-17-2008, 12:51 AM

Seriously, which masturbatory pic/trailer/action figure from "The Dark Knight" is causing this site to act all funky? :huh:

[Double Post]

It probably has something to do with the newly released clip of the Harvey Two-Face reveal in the viral campaign. That's my guess man.

The Senator

06-17-2008, 12:54 AM

It probably has something to do with the newly released clip of the Harvey Two-Face reveal in the viral campaign. That's my guess man.

Oh, yes.

I just read about it on the homepage.

I'm in the process of downloading it myself, but my video player hates me.

Anyway, back to the gays...

StorminNorman

06-17-2008, 03:44 AM

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/theskinny/blog/RichardSimmons.jpg

:huh:

Mr Sparkle

06-17-2008, 10:28 AM

Oh, yes.

I just read about it on the homepage.

I'm in the process of downloading it myself, but my video player hates me.

Anyway, back to the gays...

there's something I don't get.
you and I had a conversation about how you felt Obama should put on a flannel shirt and drive a tractor or something so that a certain demographic could Identify with him.
yet in the same breath you expect him to full on accept a position on one of the single most polarizing issues in the US of A?
regardless of your info and my info ( my info suggests that about 55% of people in the US don't even want civil unions) isn't it a little contradictory?

kane9321

06-17-2008, 10:34 AM

Mr Sparkle

06-17-2008, 10:46 AM

hahaha Obama could cure Cancer tomorrow and Matt would see it as Obama feeling superior to metasticized cells.

BlackLantern

06-17-2008, 10:48 AM

Matt..wtf, you really gonna vote for....McCain...cmon bro dont do this:csad:

well a nice chunk of Clintons' supporters are voting for McCain....so what's one more??

Mr Sparkle

06-17-2008, 10:55 AM

ah yes the "blind spite" demographic.

Matt

06-17-2008, 11:13 AM

Matt..wtf, you really gonna vote for....McCain...cmon bro dont do this:csad:

It is better in the long run. 4 years of deadlock is better than 20 more years of Republican control.

hahaha Obama could cure Cancer tomorrow and Matt would see it as Obama feeling superior to metasticized cells.

Nonsense. I would support his nomination for the Nobel Prize. Still not the Presidency of the United States, as he would still remain grossly unqualified for the position.

well a nice chunk of Clintons' supporters are voting for McCain....so what's one more??

ah yes the "blind spite" demographic.

Ah, but I was never a Clinton supporter, now was I?

SuperT

06-17-2008, 11:59 AM

I'm telling you my friend, 4 years of McCain is better than the long term effects of an Obama presidency. I doubt McCain can do that much damage with a Democratic congress who has a strong control.

Wow, just wow.

After the debauchery of the last eight years, we can't afford to have anymore Republicans anywhere near leading this country. As much as John McCain wants you to believe he's a breath of fresh air, he's still the same of dirty, smear, Republican tatics of yore.

Steal from the poor, give to the rich.

Marx

06-17-2008, 12:07 PM

Wow, just wow.

After the debauchery of the last eight years, we can't afford to have anymore Republicans anywhere near leading this country. As much as John McCain wants you to believe he's a breath of fresh air, he's still the same of dirty, smear, Republican tatics of yore.

Steal from the poor, give to the rich.

Bush had a "rubber stamp" Congress for the majority of his presidency. (Which is something that McCain, should he become president, will not have.) The Republicans are poised to lose even more seats in the fall and will expand the Democratic majority as a result. McCain would not have the luxuries that Bush as had.

Raiden

06-17-2008, 12:12 PM

Bush had a "rubber stamp" Congress for the majority of his presidency. (Which is something that McCain, should he become president, will not have.) The Republicans are poised to lose even more seats in the fall and will expand the Democratic majority as a result. McCain would not have the luxuries that Bush as had.

Well, if McCain becomes the prez he will try his darnest to keep the troops in Iraq, no matter what happens.

Matt

06-17-2008, 12:18 PM

Wow, just wow.

After the debauchery of the last eight years, we can't afford to have anymore Republicans anywhere near leading this country. As much as John McCain wants you to believe he's a breath of fresh air, he's still the same of dirty, smear, Republican tatics of yore.

Steal from the poor, give to the rich.

I don't doubt that. My point is, 4 years of Republican control is better than 20 years of Republican control following the Jimmy Carter-esque term of Barack Obama. Furthermore, McCain will not have the free reign Bush had. Democrats control Congress and provided they do not **** up in a major way, will continue to control it through 2012 when we can run a competent candidate like Mark Warner or Sherrod Brown or someone qualified for the job.

Matt

06-17-2008, 12:19 PM

Well, if McCain becomes the prez he will try his darnest to keep the troops in Iraq, no matter what happens.

And Obama won't. He has already promised to keep the troops in Iraq if Al-Queda is there. Newsflash, Al-Queda IS in Iraq. They call themselves "Al-Queda in Iraq."

StorminNorman

06-17-2008, 12:29 PM

Wow, just wow.

After the debauchery of the last eight years, we can't afford to have anymore Republicans anywhere near leading this country. As much as John McCain wants you to believe he's a breath of fresh air, he's still the same of dirty, smear, Republican tatics of yore.

Steal from the poor, give to the rich.

I love the way you seem to assume that deceit, smear and dirty tactics are Republican Exclusive. Forever ever bad egg Republican you have a bad Democrat. They are of the same breed. The faults of the GOP are just as bad as the faults of the DNC.

The difference is that instead of stealing from the poor to give to the rich, the democrats want to steal from both and give to the government.

Marx

06-17-2008, 12:32 PM

I love the way you seem to assume that deceit, smear and dirty tactics are Republican Exclusive. Forever ever bad egg Republican you have a bad Democrat. They are of the same breed. The faults of the GOP are just as bad as the faults of the DNC.

The difference is that instead of stealing from the poor to give to the rich, the democrats want to steal from both and give to the government.

The Democrats do their fair share but the Republicans are far better at the "deceit, smear, dirty tactic" style of campaigning. You can't deny that Norm. :cwink:

rdh007

06-17-2008, 12:44 PM

I love the way you seem to assume that deceit, smear and dirty tactics are Republican Exclusive. Forever ever bad egg Republican you have a bad Democrat. They are of the same breed. The faults of the GOP are just as bad as the faults of the DNC.

The difference is that instead of stealing from the poor to give to the rich, the democrats want to steal from both and give to the government.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Republicans are better at it and I envy their dirty tactics almost as much as I do their lockstep organization. I disagree with much of what the GOP wants, but I love how they go about getting it.

SuperT

06-17-2008, 12:47 PM

^ Exactly. It's truly scary and saddendnig.

Matt

06-17-2008, 12:57 PM

Just because the Republicans are better at it, does not mean the Democrats are innocent of it. That is like Ted Bundy going into his trial and his entire defense is, "Sure, I murdered those girls, but Charlie Manson was a better serial killer than me, so I should walk and he should take the punishment for my crimes."

rdh007

06-17-2008, 03:05 PM

Just because the Republicans are better at it, does not mean the Democrats are innocent of it.
Did anyone say that? I didn't check the previous page, so maybe I'm missing something.

StorminNorman

06-17-2008, 03:30 PM

The Democrats do their fair share but the Republicans are far better at the "deceit, smear, dirty tactic" style of campaigning. You can't deny that Norm. :cwink:

They are more effective but equally bad. Thats simply further insulting Democrats. :hehe:

StorminNorman

06-17-2008, 03:31 PM

I wholeheartedly disagree. Republicans are better at it and I envy their dirty tactics almost as much as I do their lockstep organization. I disagree with much of what the GOP wants, but I love how they go about getting it.

Democrats use the same amount of dirty tactics. The GOP is just more effective with it.

Marx

06-17-2008, 03:45 PM

They are more effective but equally bad. Thats simply further insulting Democrats. :hehe:

To be less effective in smear tactics is an insult? I can see what you're getting at Norm. But the Republicans being so good at it is hardly something for them to brag about. :oldrazz:

StorminNorman

06-17-2008, 05:18 PM

To be less effective in smear tactics is an insult? I can see what you're getting at Norm. But the Republicans being so good at it is hardly something for them to brag about. :oldrazz:

If you are going to smear, might as well be effective. :up:

Tag279

06-17-2008, 06:25 PM

As we have discussed in private, LS!, Obama winning could be disastrous for the black community than an Obama loss.

WTF? And why the hell do you care? :angry: Do you think that black people are too stupid to deal with a black President. What gives you the authority to make such an asanine statement? It is apparent that you do not think very much of us.:huh:

I've decided how I am going to play my cards this election. I will vote McCain or write in uncommitted (I'm waiting on McCain's running mate to decide). Obama should not be president of these United States, not yet.

Hell no not the black guy arrrgggh!!!:waa:

Plain and simple. His policies concern me and I do fear he will be the next Jimmy Carter and destroy the party (the party has only recently as in 2006, recovered from Carter's damage). However, I will also do something I do not like the notion of doing. I will vote for Jason Altmire in my Congressional election. I originally intended to write in uncommitted, but if the Democrats should lose this election, it is crucial that the Congress has the ability to override a Presidential veto...if not in 2008 than by 2010. So while I will either vote McCain or not vote Obama, I will do what I can (including donations to various congressional campaigns) to see to it that McCain's presidency is limited in power.

All this over damn bitter statement. Why vote for a person that wants to keep us in Iraq and use our tax dollars to rebuild it while signing IOU's to China.

At the same time not giving a Flip about domestic concerns. F*** New Orleans, Biloxi, and the rest of the Gulf Coast that is still suffering the effects of Hurricane Katrina and spend money to re-build a country that for the most part hates us.

All this because Obama is too "exotic" to be President and he is just a stupid rock star; and I guess McCain is a genius. And a spun blown up single statement about folks being bitter makes Obama an Idiot.

If you have the gumpshon Matt why don't you run for President as an independent you still have time to qualify.

Matt

06-17-2008, 10:36 PM

WTF? And why the hell do you care? :angry: Do you think that black people are too stupid to deal with a black President. What gives you the authority to make such an asanine statement? It is apparent that you do not think very much of us.:huh:

Actually, no. I have explained why I believe this to LS!, it has nothing to do with being "too stupid" to deal with a black president. Nice attempt to paint me as racist. Perhaps you should read Kel's announcement.

Hell no not the black guy arrrgggh!!!:waa:

Again with the race card? Maybe it has nothing to do with his skin color, but more to do with his total lack of experience and a coherrant platform.

All this over damn bitter statement. Why vote for a person that wants to keep us in Iraq and use our tax dollars to rebuild it while signing IOU's to China.

No, not all over a "bitter statement." I have opposed Obama's candidacy far before that for reasons I have stated in this thread numerous times.

At the same time not giving a Flip about domestic concerns. F*** New Orleans, Biloxi, and the rest of the Gulf Coast that is still suffering the effects of Hurricane Katrina and spend money to re-build a country that for the most part hates us.

A country we destroyed. We do have an obligation to at least help them rebuild.

All this because Obama is too "exotic" to be President and he is just a stupid rock star; and I guess McCain is a genius. And a spun blown up single statement about folks being bitter makes Obama an Idiot.

Again, you're assuming that the reason I am not voting for him is because I am both racist, and because of one statement.

If you have the gumpshon Matt why don't you run for President as an independent you still have time to qualify.

Oh, so having the "gumpshon" to run qualifies you to hold our country's highest office?

1) I do not have the money to launch a nationwide campaign.

2) I am not yet 35 and therefore ineligible.

The Senator

06-17-2008, 10:41 PM

I think this little spat essentially proved that the only thing Tag seems to capable of in this debate is throwing race against the wall and insinuating that those who dislike Obama are racists...

Matt

06-17-2008, 10:49 PM

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:00 PM

As we have discussed in private, LS!, Obama winning could be disastrous for the black community than an Obama loss.

And I still disagree with you. Let me tell you something...

Media Whores like Reverend Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright and Jesse Jackson are "disastrous" for the black community. Polarizing figures like Louis Farrakhan are "disastrous" for the black community. Sell-outs like BET's Bob Johnson are "disastrous" for the black community. These fools--with their selfish, divisive outlooks and materialistic, opportunistic endeavors--have set ALL of us--blacks and whites alike--back 100 years.

Not Obama.

Don't you realize that if Obama becomes POTUS, black men will no longer be able to say "the Man is keeping us down"? This type of divisive rhetoric is what feeds the sermons of the idjits I mentioned above, and an Obama presidency silences them--it takes the glass ceiling right off their arguments.

Obama's example would show men raised in single-parent households WORLDWIDE that you don't have to turn out to be a loser just because your father abandoned you and your mother in the ghetto. It shows these single mothers that despite the bad choices they may have made in their lives, that their child has a shot at a future in this country.

In other words, Obama mirrors the African American plight in so many ways it's actually amazing.

Sorry Matt, but you're waaaaaaay off base on this man. Way off. :down

I've decided how I am going to play my cards this election. I will vote McCain or write in uncommitted (I'm waiting on McCain's running mate to decide). Obama should not be president of these United States, not yet. Plain and simple. His policies concern me and I do fear he will be the next Jimmy Carter and destroy the party (the party has only recently as in 2006, recovered from Carter's damage). However, I will also do something I do not like the notion of doing. I will vote for Jason Altmire in my Congressional election. I originally intended to write in uncommitted, but if the Democrats should lose this election, it is crucial that the Congress has the ability to override a Presidential veto...if not in 2008 than by 2010. So while I will either vote McCain or not vote Obama, I will do what I can (including donations to various congressional campaigns) to see to it that McCain's presidency is limited in power.

Well, that's your business.

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:04 PM

I think this little spat essentially proved that the only thing Tag seems to capable of in this debate is throwing race against the wall and insinuating that those who dislike Obama are racists...

While I agree that invoking the race card here was innappropriate on Tag's part, I can see how he came to that conclusion given the context. To Tag's credit, Matt didn't explain why he felt that Obama would hurt the African American community, and to be honest his comment was kinda random.

However, I have a clearer understanding of Matt's thinking on the matter and can vouch as his friend that he is definitely no racist--even though I totally disagree with his stance on this issue. :whatever:

The Senator

06-17-2008, 11:05 PM

While I agree that invoking the race card here was innappropriate on Tag's part, I can see how he came to that conclusion given the context. To Tag's credit, Matt didn't explain why he felt that Obama would hurt the African American community, and to be honest his comment was kinda random.

However, I have a clearer understanding of Matt's thinking on the matter and can vouch as his friend that he is definitely no racist--even though I totally disagree with his stance on this issue. :whatever:

Well, this isn't the first time Tag has insinuated that posters who dislike Obama are racist.

Matt

06-17-2008, 11:07 PM

And I still disagree with you. Let me tell you something...

Media Whores like Reverend Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright and Jesse Jackson are "disastrous" for the black community. Polarizing figures like Louis Farrakhan are "disastrous" for the black community. Sell-outs like BET's Bob Johnson are "disastrous" for the black community. These fools--with their selfish, divisive outlooks and materialistic, opportunistic endeavors--have set ALL of us--blacks and whites alike--back 100 years.

Not Obama.

Don't you realize that if Obama becomes POTUS, black men will no longer be able to say "the Man is keeping us down"? This type of divisive rhetoric is what feeds the sermons of the idjits I mentioned above, and an Obama presidency silences them--it takes the glass ceiling right off their arguments.

Obama's example would show men raised in single-parent households WORLDWIDE that if you don't have to turn out to be a loser just because your father abandoned you and your mother in the ghetto. Obama mirrors the African American plight in so many ways it's actually amazing.

Sorry Matt, but you're waaaaaaay off base on this man. Way off. :down

I do not disagree with any of that, but what happens when Obama enters office and all of this "change" he promises, essentially does not happen? Obama, will still be playing by the rules of the system. He will not enter office and be able to revolutionize anything. Suddenly hundreds of thousands of black voters become disillusioned. Same with young voters. A lot of the new voters, both young and black have little to no grasp of how the system works as they have essentially never paid attention prior to this "rockstar's" appearance. And Obama has set the bar too high. He has built himself up as some Olympian-esque figure. They are expecting him to entire office and within his first week, have all the troops out of Iraq, have the economy completely fixed, etc. He set the bar too damn high, and when you're that high, the only place to go is down. Suddenly, to them Obama is no longer a figure of "change." He is the status quo. Doesn't matter that he is black. Doesn't matter that he is young. Doesn't matter that he is energetic. It won't matter anymore. He cannot live up to this legacy he has already set for himself or this idea of "change" (whatever that means) that his campaign has promised.

These people, now disillusioned, do not vote in 2012. Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, or whatever young energetic Republican decides to run pretty much walks into office as Obama's base is gone...and suddenly, that party has a new Ronald Reagan and unless they really screw the pooch, we have another 30 years of Republican rule to endure.

Well, that's your business.

Meh, seems like a good plan to me.

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:13 PM

Well, this isn't the first time Tag has insinuated that posters who dislike Obama are racist.

Well, if that's a problem then the moderators may need to infract his behind. However, that goes the other way around too: If we make statements that we know may strike a nerve, it behooves us to clarify our positions. By not doing so here, Matt built a bridge to conclusions for Tag to jump across.

Honestly though I don't think Tag was deliberately accusing Matt of being a racist...just a bitter old Pennsylvanian. You know...the gun-clutching, religious type. :cool:

The Senator

06-17-2008, 11:13 PM

And I still disagree with you. Let me tell you something...

Media Whores like Reverend Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright and Jesse Jackson are "disastrous" for the black community. Polarizing figures like Louis Farrakhan are "disastrous" for the black community. Sell-outs like BET's Bob Johnson are "disastrous" for the black community. These fools--with their selfish, divisive outlooks and materialistic, opportunistic endeavors--have set ALL of us--blacks and whites alike--back 100 years.

Not Obama.

Don't you realize that if Obama becomes POTUS, black men will no longer be able to say "the Man is keeping us down"? This type of divisive rhetoric is what feeds the sermons of the idjits I mentioned above, and an Obama presidency silences them--it takes the glass ceiling right off their arguments.

Obama's example would show men raised in single-parent households WORLDWIDE that if you don't have to turn out to be a loser just because your father abandoned you and your mother in the ghetto. Obama mirrors the African American plight in so many ways it's actually amazing.

Sorry Matt, but you're waaaaaaay off base on this man. Way off. :down

I would agree with this. Obama does not operate in extremes like Sharpton or Jackson. He tries to strike a certain balance between all races, and he's not willing to turn white folks into a scapegoat. I believe that Obama, if elected, will be able to transcend race, and that his election could end some of the divisive rhetoric being uttered on both sides of the spectrum.

I also believe that, while Obama's election will not end some of the disparities between the white and black communities (including economic differences and racial injustice), he will be the only candidate who will be able to help send race relations in this country to the next level. Maybe, if he's elected, we could begin to eliminate some of the mindless stereotypes and cynicism which dominates race relations in this country.

Matt

06-17-2008, 11:14 PM

Well, if that's a problem then the moderators may need to infract his behind. However, that goes the other way around too: If we make statements that we know may strike a nerve, it behooves us to clarify our positions. By not doing so here, Matt built a bridge to conclusions for Tag to jump across.

Honestly though I don't think Tag was deliberately accusing Matt of being a racist...just a bitter old Pennsylvanian. You know...the gun-clutching, religious type. :cool:

THEY TOOK 'RE JEERBS!!!!

Matt

06-17-2008, 11:15 PM

While I agree that invoking the race card here was innappropriate on Tag's part, I can see how he came to that conclusion given the context. To Tag's credit, Matt didn't explain why he felt that Obama would hurt the African American community, and to be honest his comment was kinda random.

However, I have a clearer understanding of Matt's thinking on the matter and can vouch as his friend that he is definitely no racist--even though I totally disagree with his stance on this issue. :whatever:

Well thanks for vouching for my lack of racism. :up: Everyone knows the only race I hate are those damn meatball eating Italians...but its okay, because I'm a self-hating Italian. :cmad: :cwink:

Marx

06-17-2008, 11:15 PM

While I agree that invoking the race card here was innappropriate on Tag's part, I can see how he came to that conclusion given the context. To Tag's credit, Matt didn't explain why he felt that Obama would hurt the African American community, and to be honest his comment was kinda random.

However, I have a clearer understanding of Matt's thinking on the matter and can vouch as his friend that he is definitely no racist--even though I totally disagree with his stance on this issue. :whatever:

As Jman said, this isn't the first time that posters who disagree with or don't support Barack Obama have been painted as racists by certain members of this forum.

I, for one, have grown quite tired of that accusation being thrown around.

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:18 PM

I do not disagree with any of that, but what happens when Obama enters office and all of this "change" he promises, essentially does not happen?

Have you prepared yourself for the fact that maybe--just maybe--none of us expecting him to revolutionize anything out the box?

As POTUS, he will be inheriting a CRAP LOAD of major problems--those issues will take priority first. The very fact that he'd be elected and breaking so many barriers will define his presidency alone Matt--even if he doesn't do anything more progressive than his predecessor.

The fact that he's African American shows tremendous national progress BY ITSELF. You need to stop short-changing that. :mad:

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:22 PM

Well thanks for vouching for my lack of racism. :up: Everyone knows the only race I hate are those damn meatball eating Italians...but its okay, because I'm a self-hating Italian. :cmad: :cwink:

For all the years I've known you I don't think I was aware you were Italian.

That explains...everything. :up:

Don't feel bad though...my dad is of Italian/Irish descent so I share your effed-upness.

Matt

06-17-2008, 11:22 PM

Have you prepared yourself for the fact that maybe--just maybe--none of us expecting him to revolutionize anything out the box?

As POTUS, he will be inheriting a CRAP LOAD of major problems--those issues will take priority first. The very fact that he'd be elected and breaking so many barriers will define his presidency alone Matt--even if he doesn't do anything more progressive than his predecessor.

The fact that he's African American shows tremendous national progress BY ITSELF. You need to stop short-changing that. :mad:

Look at exit polls, the number one reason people are voting for Obama is this vague concept of "change."
And I am not shortchanging the accomplishment of a black president, but I am opposed to the idea of electing a black man simply because he is a black man (hell, if anything, voting for him because he is black is a great injustice to him and the black community). I am also opposed to electing a candidate with a platform that is at best vague and impractical and at worst non-exisitent with the little he has being impossible. Real change goes beyond cosmetics.

Matt

06-17-2008, 11:23 PM

For all the years I've known you I don't think I was aware you were Italian.

That explains...everything. :up:

Don't feel bad though...my dad is of Italian/Irish descent so I share your effed-upness.

:hehe:

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:24 PM

As Jman said, this isn't the first time that posters who disagree with or don't support Barack Obama have been painted as racists by certain members of this forum.

I, for one, have grown quite tired of that accusation being thrown around.

We should put such trolls in the Phantom Zone. :hehe:

The Senator

06-17-2008, 11:26 PM

We should put such trolls in the Phantom Zone. :hehe:

You mean Utah? :huh:

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:28 PM

Look at exit polls, the number one reason people are voting for Obama is this vague concept of "change."
And I am not shortchanging the accomplishment of a black president, but I am opposed to the idea of electing a black man simply because he is a black man (hell, if anything, voting for him because he is black is a great injustice to him and the black community). I am also opposed to electing a candidate with a platform that is at best vague and impractical and at worst non-exisitent with the little he has being impossible. Real change goes beyond cosmetics.

I think most would agree that now that Hillary is out of the way, Obama has made huge efforts to put "meat" on the bones of his platform. There is substance to his appeal now--you cannot say he's still "vague." He's coming with the plans and the numbers. Now, if you don't believe they are realistic or smart--that's fine. But I don't believe that there is this huge number of people voting for him PURELY because he's black.

I think you're sterotyping Matt. That's bad.

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:31 PM

You mean Utah? :huh:

Nah, Utah is too good for them (Salt Lake City is sexy). LOL Send them somewhere else...like Afghanistan or something terrible. :)

Matt

06-17-2008, 11:33 PM

I think most would agree that now that Hillary is out of the way, Obama has made huge efforts to put "meat" on the bones of his platform. There is substance to his appeal now--you cannot say he's still "vague." He's coming with the plans and the numbers. Now, if you don't believe they are realistic or smart--that's fine. But I don't believe that there is this huge number of people voting for him PURELY because he's black.

I think you're sterotyping Matt. That's bad.

How many Excels do you think there are LS!? People who had no interest in politics until they saw this black man. Even if they have since learned more about his policies, it is invalid as the entire basis for their initial support is "I'm voting for the black guy." Therefore all of their beliefs have that foundation. Anything he said from that point on, they would've followed.

BlackLantern

06-17-2008, 11:34 PM

Nah, Utah is too good for them (Salt Lake City is sexy). LOL Send them somewhere else...like Afghanistan or something terrible. :)

Wyoming??

The Senator

06-17-2008, 11:35 PM

Nah, Utah is too good for them (Salt Lake City is sexy). LOL Send them somewhere else...like Afghanistan or something terrible. :)

Ah, well, if that's the case, then they should be sent to the stretch of I-95 in Delaware which takes two hours to get through even though it's only, like, 7 miles long.

The Senator

06-17-2008, 11:36 PM

Wyoming??

They should re-route I-95 to go through Wyoming. People would want to blow their brains out if they had to spend 17 hours stuck in traffic on a 40 mile stretch of Wyoming back country :up:

jaguarr

06-17-2008, 11:38 PM

Nah, Utah is too good for them (Salt Lake City is sexy). LOL Send them somewhere else...like Afghanistan or something terrible. :)

Dude, no. Salt Lake City is NOT sexy. Ever. :down

jag

BlackLantern

06-17-2008, 11:38 PM

i-95 is the Devils work, even here in CT....I am so happy I don't have to drive on it

The Senator

06-17-2008, 11:39 PM

Dude, no. Salt Lake City is NOT sexy. Ever. :down

jag

I have family in Salt Lake City. It's a pretty cool city. I don't think I'd want to live there, but it's fun to visit for a few days. It even has a pretty active gay scene.

Marx

06-17-2008, 11:39 PM

Dude, no. Salt Lake City is NOT sexy. Ever. :down

jag

:funny:

The Senator

06-17-2008, 11:40 PM

i-95 is the Devils work, even here in CT....I am so happy I don't have to drive on it

I've driven on it in DC.

Not fun :csad:

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:43 PM

How many Excels do you think there are LS!? People who had no interest in politics until they saw this black man. Even if they have since learned more about his policies, it is invalid as the entire basis for their initial support is "I'm voting for the black guy." Therefore all of their beliefs have that foundation. Anything he said from that point on, they would've followed.

You. Are. Sterotyping.

Not all of us think that way.

Dude, no. Salt Lake City is NOT sexy. Ever.

It's sexy as **** out there. Have you ever made love in the mountains? With a mountain goat staring you both down like WTF are you humans doing?

'Tis hawt. :up: Don't even get me started.

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:44 PM

Wyoming??

Nebraska would be better. It stinks out in that country. Literally. Dung everywhere...baked hard in the sun too. Ick. :csad:

jaguarr

06-17-2008, 11:44 PM

Double Post! :cmad:

jag

jaguarr

06-17-2008, 11:45 PM

I have family in Salt Lake City. It's a pretty cool city. I don't think I'd want to live there, but it's fun to visit for a few days. It even has a pretty active gay scene.

I used to have to travel there for business quite a bit. It's pretty and has great skiing and is overrun with Mormon suburbanites but I would never describe it as "sexy".

jag

BlackLantern

06-17-2008, 11:46 PM

It's sexy as **** out there. Have you ever made love in the mountains? With a mountain goat staring you both down like WTF are you humans doing?

'Tis hawt. :up: Don't even get me started.

Thats not hot...its disturbing....well, to be fair, the mountain goat was probably staring at you because you were making love to another mountain goat....

The Senator

06-17-2008, 11:48 PM

I used to have to travel there for business quite a bit. It's pretty and has great skiing and is overrun with Mormon suburbanites but I would never describe it as "sexy".

jag

I didn't say it was sexy.

When compared to DC, NYC, Miami, or San Diego... Salt Lake City is about as sexy as Jocelyn Wildenstein...

Matt

06-17-2008, 11:49 PM

You. Are. Sterotyping.

Not all of us think that way.

Never said everyone did, but to assume that a man with no platform, was able to build the pre-Iowa base he did indicates to me that a sizable number of his supporters fall in that category.

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:50 PM

I used to have to travel there for business quite a bit. No, sir, I didn't like it.
jag

To their credit, the city probably didn't like you. And I totally understand. :o

the mountain goat was probably staring at you because you were making love to another mountain goat....

Well, now that I think about it...it was really dark outside at the time...and that would explain the fur. :csad:

Whatever it was...it was hot.

:confused:

jaguarr

06-17-2008, 11:50 PM

I didn't say it was sexy.

When compared to DC, NYC, Miami, or San Diego... Salt Lake City is about as sexy as Jocelyn Wildenstein...

The imagery you conjure inspires serious wiltage. :(

jag

jaguarr

06-17-2008, 11:51 PM

It's sexy as **** out there. Have you ever made love in the mountains? With a mountain goat staring you both down like WTF are you humans doing?

'Tis hawt. :up: Don't even get me started.

Tsk. SMH. You don't need to go to SLC for that, Foo'!

jag

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:52 PM

Never said everyone did, but to assume that a man with no platform, was able to build the pre-Iowa base he did indicates to me that a sizable number of his supporters fall in that category.

Iowa is one of the whitest places on the planet Matt. Is it possible that perhaps those people were simply INSPIRED by the man? You know, you don't have to be black to inspire people. JFK had a similar stance. So did Martin Luther King.

The Senator

06-17-2008, 11:52 PM

So where exactly does Obama fit in with all these goat innuendos? :huh:

jaguarr

06-17-2008, 11:53 PM

To their credit, the city probably didn't like you. And I totally understand. :o

Don't lash out at me just because a mountain goat broke your heart.

jag

jaguarr

06-17-2008, 11:54 PM

So where exactly does Obama fit in with all these goat innuendos? :huh:

Goats would vote for Obama. Because he's black. :up:

:huh:

jag

Marx

06-17-2008, 11:54 PM

So where exactly does Obama fit in with all these goat innuendos? :huh:

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm confused...to say the least!

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:54 PM

Tsk. SMH. You don't need to go to SLC for that, Foo'!

jag

I--like yourself--was on a business trip. And I had to "make do" with the resources at my disposal. But I'll tell you this: that experience was by far the most...

...let me stop.

The Senator

06-17-2008, 11:54 PM

Iowa is one of the whitest places on the planet Matt. Is it possible that perhaps those people were simply INSPIRED by the man? You know, you don't have to be black to inspire people. JFK had a similar stance. So did Martin Luther King.

Of course, Iowa was a caucus state, where a good chunk of Obama's active supporters were college students. He barely won the state in the first place, and had the college students not been home for winter break, I'd be willing to bet that Edwards would have come out on top in the state and that Obama would be in Edwards' place by South Carolina.

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:55 PM

Goats would vote for Obama. Because he's black. :up:

:huh:

jag

Also because he has hair like the wool of a sheep. Like steel-wool.

Marx

06-17-2008, 11:56 PM

I--like yourself--was on a business trip. And I had to "make do" with the resources at my disposal. But I'll tell you this: that experience was by far the most...

...let me stop.

Stopping is probably the best idea. :hehe:

BlackLantern

06-17-2008, 11:57 PM

Also because he has hair like the wool of a sheep. Like steel-wool.

First mountain goats...now you insult a black mans hair??? RACIST!!!!:cmad::oldrazz:

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:57 PM

Don't lash out at me just because a mountain goat broke your heart.

jag

I didn't **** a goat.

Somebody in Salt Lake City ****ed the G.O.A.T.

:hehe:

jaguarr

06-17-2008, 11:58 PM

Stopping is probably the best idea. :hehe:

He won't really stop. He just says he's going to. He's a tease like that. :o

jag

jaguarr

06-17-2008, 11:59 PM

I didn't **** a goat.

Somebody in Salt Lake City ****ed the G.O.A.T.

:hehe:

Haha! Well played, sir! :up:

jag

Lightning Strykez!

06-17-2008, 11:59 PM

First mountain goats...now you insult a black mans hair??? RACIST!!!!:cmad::oldrazz:

I am not. I have naps too. And that's why I'm gonna vote for him. Because he's nappy like me. :whatever:

Lightning Strykez!

06-18-2008, 12:01 AM

Haha! Well played, sir! :up:

jag

:hehe::up:

Although I don't think some here got it.

I can read the Hype Headlines now: "OMG! LS plugs goat up the azz!" :eek:

The Senator

06-18-2008, 12:02 AM

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/08_obamagoat_lg.jpg

Marx

06-18-2008, 12:03 AM

Now I'm getting concerned... :funny:

jaguarr

06-18-2008, 12:03 AM

:lmao: You're outdone yourself, J. Manspice. :D

jag

Lightning Strykez!

06-18-2008, 12:04 AM

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/08_obamagoat_lg.jpg

:lmao:

Screw you beeyotch! And yer goat!

kane9321

06-18-2008, 10:00 AM

well a nice chunk of Clintons' supporters are voting for McCain....so what's one more??

If McCain gets the white house...then america is doomed...dont peeps understand this. America cant survive another 4 yrs of republican BS

Matt

06-18-2008, 10:08 AM

If McCain gets the white house...then america is doomed...dont peeps understand this. America cant survive another 4 yrs of republican BS

That is a bit melodramatic.

kane9321

06-18-2008, 10:15 AM

But true sir:(

Matt

06-18-2008, 10:23 AM

No its not. Worst case scenario is four years of deadlock due to the Democrat controlled Congress

rdh007

06-18-2008, 10:31 AM

I think kane was referring to foreign policy more than domestic. I wouldn't go as far as he does, but I wouldn't vote for McCain, either.

Marx

06-18-2008, 11:34 AM

According to a new Quinnipiac poll

Obama is currently leading McCain 52-40 percent in Pennsylvania, 48-42 percent in Ohio, and 47-43 in Florida. All three states are crucial building blocks to an election triumph for either candidate in November.

According to a new Zogby poll

Obama is currently leading McCain by 47 percent to 42 nationally, with a 22-point lead among all-important independents.

For the full article, click below.
Obama beats McCain in three swing states
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080618/pl_afp/usvotepoll_080618153230

The Senator

06-18-2008, 11:38 AM

Damn it, TheMarx beat me to it.

Oh well:

Obama is starting to have a pretty good "post-primary" showing in many of the key swing states. He currently has statistically significant leads in Ohio (+6), Wisconsin (+9) and Pennsylvania (+12). He is also leading McCain in Virginia and Florida (within the margin of error, but still impressive considering Obama was down by double-digits in both states a month ago).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Of course, the election is still several months away, and anything can happen... but I'm starting to suspect that Obama may very well win in a blowout this November...

Marx

06-18-2008, 11:46 AM

Matt

06-18-2008, 11:48 AM

StorminNorman

06-18-2008, 12:24 PM

It is also almost completely irrelevant.

Matt

06-18-2008, 12:32 PM

Spider-Bite

06-18-2008, 12:40 PM

Behind Obama's Bounce in Florida and Ohio (Hint: It's the Women)

Is that the sound of something bouncing?
When the fine folks at Quinnipiac University Polling Institute released their last round of swing-state surveys (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1180) in late May, things looked sort of bleak for Barack Obama--at least at first glance. While Hillary Clinton trounced John McCain in all three head-to-head match-ups-- 48 to 41 percent in Florida, 48 to 41 percent in Ohio and 50 to 37 percent in Pennsylvania--Obama trailed his Republican rival by four in the first two contests (41-45 and 40-44, respectively) and led by a narrower margin (six points to Clinton's 13) in Keystone country. According to Clinton, this meant that she would win big swing states on Election Day and Obama wouldn't.

But as we wrote at the time (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/22/the-electability-mirage.aspx), looks can be deceiving. With the interminable Democratic primary clash stuck in a strange twilight phase, Clinton's supporters were still coming to terms with the fact that Obama was all-but-certain to top the ticket--and many felt disappointed, angry and/or vindictive. Obama's supporters, on the other hand, were celebrating his impending nomination; they largely felt magnanimity toward Clinton, who posed little threat. That's why in Quinnipiac's McCain-Obama matchups, 26 to 36 percent of Clinton supporters in each state said that they'd vote for McCain in November if their candidate wasn't the nominee, while only 10 to 18 percent of Obama supporters responded in kind. Thanks to a little back-of-the-envelope math (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/22/the-electability-mirage.aspx), we calculated that pro-Clinton defectors represented a 7.5 percent swing vote--and that if even half of them were to swing back to Obama, he would lead McCain in Florida and Ohio and pull further ahead in Pennsylvania. "Call it the Electability Mirage," we concluded. "Right now, Obama trails McCain in key states [largely] because a sizable number of [Clinton] supporters tell pollsters they will crossover in the fall."
Turns out we were right. This morning, Quinnipiac released a new round of numbers (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1187) from Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania--and delivered a clean sweep for Obama. With voters now forced to choose between two candidates (Obama and McCain) instead of three (Obama, McCain and Clinton), the Illinois senator has established leads of 12 points in Pennsylvania (52-40), six points in Ohio (48-42) and four points in Florida (47-43). For the record, that's his first-ever edge in the Sunshine State. Why the bounce? Part of it's due to a decline in defectors. Last month, for example, 36 percent of Clinton's Florida supporters said they'd vote for McCain over Obama in November; today, that number has plummeted to 19 percent. But an even bigger reason is Obama's huge post-Clinton gains among women overall. Last month, Obama split women in Florida (43-42) and Ohio (42-40) with McCain; today he crushes the Arizona senator 50-40 among female Floridians and 51-39 among their Ohio counterparts, while he's doubled his lead with Keystone State women from 12 points (49-37) to a massive 23 (57-34). Also boosting Barack: the fact that Quinnipiac is now surveying "likely voters" instead of "registered voters," which means that factors that could greatly affect turnout--an expanded electorate, the enthusiasm gap between liberals and conservatives and the Democrats' recent gains in party ID--are finally being taken into account.
The Quinnipiac Poll is the first to surface in Florida since Clinton withdrew from the race, so it's too early to say for sure if it's the start of a statewide trend. But Ohio, at least, seems to be leaning toward Obama at this point. The other poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_Ohio_61708.pdf) released this week (PPP) shows the Democratic nominee ahead by a whopping 11-point margin, and he now clobbers McCain by an average of 6.2 percent (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html) in the state. Of course, a lot could--and will--happen in the four-and-a-half months before Election Day. But the latest stats should have the folks at McCain HQ at least a little worried. In 2004, John Kerry lost Ohio and Florida but still managed to win 252 electoral votes--18 shy of a majority. If Obama picks up even one of these prizes--which are worth 20 and 27 electoral votes, respectively--it will be very, very difficult for the Arizona Republican to find a plausible path to the White House.
Boing boing.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/06/18/obama-takes-the-lead-in-ohio-and-florida.aspx

Spider-Bite

06-18-2008, 12:42 PM

As I was saying along time ago, a lot more threatened to defect than actually would. Now that the primary is over, Obama's lead is growing, and growing, and growing, and growing.

The Senator

06-18-2008, 12:51 PM

Agreed. Following the convention, McCain will get a bump. And Obama will get a bump following his. And McCain will get a bump when he announces his VP, and vice versa. The funny thing about undecides is, for the most part, whichever candidates name they see before they go into the booth, they will vote for. Until then, they will flip flop back and forth between candidates until November.

I don't know if we can call it irrelevant now. We'll have to see what the polls are saying in three or four weeks, when the campaign reaches that summer peak. If Obama has a substantial lead then, I would say that this election is his to lose, and that McCain is headed for a crippling defeat. If Obama goes back down, then I'd say his post-primary bump was irrelevant, and that would just put Obama back where he was a few weeks ago, in the realm of uncertainty.

StorminNorman

06-18-2008, 12:54 PM

Obama's lack of solutions to address the energy crisis is whats going to kill him in the end.

StorminNorman

06-18-2008, 12:54 PM

I don't know if we can call it irrelevant now. We'll have to see what the polls are saying in three or four weeks, when the campaign reaches that summer peak. If Obama has a substantial lead then, I would say that this election is his to lose, and that McCain is headed for a crippling defeat. If Obama goes back down, then I'd say his post-primary bump was irrelevant, and that would just put Obama back where he was a few weeks ago, in the realm of uncertainty.

Polls before the Convention are almost always irrelevant. Neither campaign really fully starts until after the event.

kainedamo

06-18-2008, 01:35 PM

Muslims barred from picture at Obama event.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11168.html

Varient

06-18-2008, 01:55 PM

Muslims barred from picture at Obama event.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11168.html

No surprise.

Everyone with a limited amount of brainpower have been saying that he's really a muslim - @ the same time they want to say he spent twenty years going to the wrong christen church. Just another example of how irrational alot of his naysayers are.

He would be a fool to have Muslim ANYTHING sitting behind him with those losers running around screaming "aha!" at anything that even smells like what they believe is correct.

Tsk.

moraldeficiency

06-18-2008, 01:58 PM

Actually I think that's pretty ****ty. I wish they were in the pic and I wish his people were less myopic and take a harder stand. There are plenty of Muslims right here that aren't terrorists or any of that **** and if they come to support obama they shouldn't have been turned away regardless of some minor appearence issue.

The Senator

06-18-2008, 02:01 PM

Muslims barred from picture at Obama event.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11168.html

Unfortunately, his campaign has to do this to avoid any further untrue claims that he is a Muslim. Idiots would look at it and go "There's dat Obama, gatherin' wit terra-ists again!"

Of course, this is a double-edged sword, because had he taken the picture, it probably never would have surfaced in the news and would only be used negatively among the ignoramuses who have believed Obama is a Muslim for months now. Now that he refused to take the picture, it is receiving media coverage, and the "is Obama a Muslim?" debate is starting to take center stage yet again.

tdeverea

06-18-2008, 03:47 PM

Obama's lack of solutions to address the energy crisis is whats going to kill him in the end.

Shall I provide you with Obama's solutions, or are you purposely being dishonest?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

It's all right there. Try another reason.

Marx

06-18-2008, 04:28 PM

Huckabee says "demonizing" Obama "fatal mistake" for Republicans
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080618/pl_bloomberg/av1uvggn8jqo

Mr Sparkle

06-18-2008, 04:50 PM

Huckabee looks like he is in a particularly intense session of freestyle rap in the picture
"Don't be playa hatin' son!..." he seems to say"....America don't want that noise again"

StorminNorman

06-18-2008, 05:19 PM

Shall I provide you with Obama's solutions, or are you purposely being dishonest?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

It's all right there. Try another reason.

Yea, perhaps what I should of said was that Obama's lack of any credible solution to lower gas prices will kill him.

Taxing oil companies is easily one of the stupidest ideas I have heard. Yes, lets lower prices by penalizing the companies selling oil - BRILLIANT!

Lightning Strykez!

06-18-2008, 05:21 PM

Obama's lack of solutions to address the energy crisis is whats going to kill him in the end.

I doubt it. Neither of them are particularly strong in that area in my opinion. And people are less concerned about that than they are about employment/economy (AKA JOBS) and the war. Rising gas prices are an issue to be sure, but it's the war that is driving those costs up--not anything internal to this country.

For example: Bush is trying to veto the unemployment extensions because the funding would affect the Iraq War. That pisses Americans off because basically that shouldn't be our problem if we can't put food on the table. So if Obama can get this stupid war resolved a lot of stuff--i.e. gas prices--will likely go down. And those are the top priorities in people's minds right now.

StorminNorman

06-18-2008, 05:23 PM

I doubt it. Neither of them are particularly strong in that area. And people are less concerned about that than they are about employment/economy and the war. Those are the top priorities in people's minds right now.

People are less concerned about oil prices than the economy and the war? Really?

McCain advocating drilling (with states approval) is a far more sellable (and rational) solution than anything Obama is proposing.

Lightning Strykez!

06-18-2008, 05:27 PM

People are less concerned about oil prices than the economy and the war? Really?

McCain advocating drilling (with states approval) is a far more sellable (and rational) solution than anything Obama is proposing.

You missed my edit. I clarified my statement further. Oil prices are a ricochet affect of a much bigger problem.

StorminNorman

06-18-2008, 05:30 PM

You missed my edit. I clarified my statement further. Oil prices are a ricochet affect of a much bigger problem.

Obama is not going to sell people that surrendering the Iraq War is going to decrease oil prices. You have to appear to have some sort of solution to sell. He lacks one and he refuses to consider drilling as an answer. That is a HUGE problem for Obama and a HUGE advantage for Republicans and John McCain.

Tag279

06-18-2008, 09:33 PM

HERE I AM TAG-279 THE SHH RESIDENT REVERSE-RACIST.

Why is it when I say something that is not as near as insulting, scathing, or inflammatory as other posters on this forum I get called a racist?

It is a fact that voters in WV and KY said that they DID NOT vote for Obama because he is identified as black.

It is a fact that Hillary did not campagn well because she thought she was entitled to the nomination.

It is a fact that Obama started reciving death threats soon as he announced he was running for president from supremacists. Below is a link to a GA Newspaper.

http://www.ajc.com/m/content/metro/northfulton/stories/2008/05/21/obama_0522.html

It is a fact that Hillary made the statement 3-times that Bobby Kennedy was assasinated in June as the reason she was staying in the race.

It is a fact that that Obama's former pastor said that 911 was a result of America's ME-policies. It is also a fact that Wright was quoting the statements of a white U.S. ambassador.

It is a fact that there are some white people that fear if Obama became President that he would opress white people the same way blacks have been opressed.

I have never said "all" or made a statement about a group without attaching some or other disclaimer to indicate not ALL. If i have please point it out to me because that was not my intent.

When Matt says "an Obama Presidency will hurt blacks" as a black person how do you think I would take it? How does Matt know that I read his long explanation on why he makes such an assertion while considering he has over 1000 posts? Just like Matt was offended by Obama's bitter comments how is it I am racist for being offended by some of the statements of others?

I have a white step-mom, a mixed sister, several mixed cousins, White aunts, and uncles. I was never taught to be racist but I live in the south so maybe I am a bit sensitive about racial issues.You see racism is placed squarely in front of me almost daily.

I am by no means racist but there are some that appear to have such contempt for Obama even being a candidate it is hard for me to not regard some of that contempt as racism.

Again I am not racist but it appears that some have already made their minds up. If some of you would take the time to know me you would see that I am not that way. I enjoy politics and I enjoy debating and I try to be civil in my statements.

If I have offended anyone I apologize.

StorminNorman

06-18-2008, 09:37 PM

Ha! Random!

The Senator

06-18-2008, 09:45 PM

I am by no means racist but there are some that appear to have such contempt for Obama even being a candidate it is hard for me to not regard some of that contempt as racism.

And that is why several posters have a problem with you.

You cannot comprehend that people could dislike Obama so passionately. There are posters on these forums who despise John McCain adamantly, yet no one is saying that they dislike him because of race or any other superficial reason. Most folks who dislike Obama do so because they disagree with him as a presidential candidate, not because he's a black man. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.

While I will vote for Obama, I still think that he is out of touch with blue collar voters, and that his policies are nothing more than empty promises without an accompanying blueprint to achieve success. And that doesn't even get into how vastly unqualified he is for the job.

Marx

06-18-2008, 09:59 PM

I am by no means racist but there are some that appear to have such contempt for Obama even being a candidate it is hard for me to not regard some of that contempt as racism.

Again I am not racist but it appears that some have already made their minds up. If some of you would take the time to know me you would see that I am not that way. I enjoy politics and I enjoy debating and I try to be civil in my statements.

If I have offended anyone I apologize.

Jman pretty much hit the nail on the head. The problem lies in your refusal to comprehend how people can be so much against Barack Obama without it being racial in some way. Time and time again, several posters on here (myslef included) have explained why we have such dislike Obama. And time and time again, we are greeted with comments linked to racism. (That it is somehow unfathomable that we could dislike him due to "lack of platform" or his inexperience.) It's always said or implied that we're all just a bunch of racists.

Which couldn't be farther from the truth.

Excel

06-18-2008, 09:59 PM

Nice to Michelle hit a homer on the View...

The Senator

06-18-2008, 10:01 PM

Has Obama Made Alaska a Swing State?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/alaska/election_2008_alaska_presidential_election

Marx

06-18-2008, 10:04 PM

Has Obama Made Alaska a Swing State?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/alaska/election_2008_alaska_presidential_election

That's quite an interesting turn of events. I wonder if the margins will hold, or if Obama will somehow overtake McCain in the state.

The Senator

06-18-2008, 10:12 PM

That's quite an interesting turn of events. I wonder if the margins will hold, or if Obama will somehow overtake McCain in the state.

Alaska is a tricky state to nail. While the state has voted Republican in the past, it has been trending more Democratic as of late. The competitive Senate race this year could also help Obama, as could Bob Barr and Ralph Nader's candidacies (third parties are big in the state). Also, the potential selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate has made this state all the more interesting.

BlackLantern

06-18-2008, 10:15 PM

Why can't Obama have a hot wife like Kucinich???

Excel

06-18-2008, 10:16 PM

Obama is making a lot of states swing states...theres a slight chance he could win the popular vote in a blowout but lose the electoral college.

Tag279

06-18-2008, 10:16 PM

And that is why several posters have a problem with you.

You cannot comprehend that people could dislike Obama so passionately. There are posters on these forums who despise John McCain adamantly, yet no one is saying that they dislike him because of race or any other superficial reason. Most folks who dislike Obama do so because they disagree with him as a presidential candidate, not because he's a black man. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.

There is a difference in strongly disagreeing with a person's political platform and hating them as a person.

I strongly disagree with McCains policies but I do not hate him as a person.

While I will vote for Obama, I still think that he is out of touch with blue collar voters, and that his policies are nothing more than empty promises without an accompanying blueprint to achieve success. And that doesn't even get into how vastly unqualified he is for the job.

And you think McCain is more qualified and that he has a blueprint?

Obama is not out of touch with blue collar voters? Oh I forgot that black blue collar voters don't count.:cwink:

The Senator

06-18-2008, 10:17 PM

Why can't Obama have a hot wife like Kucinich???

Because Obama is not an alien occult leader who brainwashes hot chicks to fall in love with him :huh:

BlackLantern

06-18-2008, 10:18 PM

And you think McCain is more qualified and that he has a blueprint?

Obama is not out of touch with blue collar voters? Oh I forgot that black bluecollar voters don't count.

are you assuming that every black blue collar voter will vote for Obama??

BlackLantern

06-18-2008, 10:19 PM

Because Obama is not an alien occult leader who brainwashes hot chicks to fall in love with him :huh:

she doesn't seem brainwashed.....

The Senator

06-18-2008, 10:21 PM

And you think McCain is more qualified and that he has a blueprint?

I believe McCain is much more experienced and that he does have a blueprint for his version of success; however, I do not believe that his blueprint is the best for America.

There is a difference in strongly disagreeing with a person's political platform and hating them as a person.

I strongly disagree with McCains policies but I do not hate him as a person.

I don't believe Matt hates Obama as a person, just as a candidate. He believes Obama has the wrong vision for America, and that he could harm the Democratic party more than he could help it.

Obama is not out of touch with blue collar voters? Oh I forgot that black bluecollar voters don't count.

No, black blue collar voters count. However, blue collar voters as a whole prefer McCain to Obama, meaning he has a problem with the entire blue collar demographic.

Tag279

06-18-2008, 10:26 PM

are you assuming that every black blue collar voter will vote for Obama??

No I'm not assuming that but i'm sure he will get substantially better than 50% of black blue collar voters probably around 75 or 80%.

Obama did not do well in appilacia but he will get better than 50% of white and other blue collar voters.

Y'all forget that he got 18-million votes in the primary also.

Marx

06-18-2008, 10:35 PM

Alaska is a tricky state to nail. While the state has voted Republican in the past, it has been trending more Democratic as of late. The competitive Senate race this year could also help Obama, as could Bob Barr and Ralph Nader's candidacies (third parties are big in the state). Also, the potential selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate has made this state all the more interesting.

I think Bob Barr and Ralph Nader are going to influence this race even more so than in 2000. That being said, I see Barr doing more damage than Nader.

Why can't Obama have a hot wife like Kucinich???

Because Obama is not an alien occult leader who brainwashes hot chicks to fall in love with him :huh:

:funny:

Matt

06-18-2008, 10:40 PM

Obama is making a lot of states swing states...theres a slight chance he could win the popular vote in a blowout but lose the electoral college.

I've actually been wondering about this possibility lately.

hippie_hunter

06-18-2008, 10:42 PM

Huckabee says "demonizing" Obama "fatal mistake" for Republicans
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080618/pl_bloomberg/av1uvggn8jqo

Huckabee's right. Demonizing the other candidate is pretty much a guaranteed failure. It was the sole strategy the Democrats did with Bush in 2004 and it ended up being a downright embarassing year for them.

It's a smart strategy of Obama that he's showing that he's disagreeing with McCain, but he isn't trying to make him look like a downright horrible person and states his respect for him in certain instances.

Marx

06-18-2008, 10:44 PM

Huckabee's right. Demonizing the other candidate is pretty much a guaranteed failure. It was the sole strategy the Democrats did with Bush in 2004 and it ended up being a downright embarassing year for them.

It's a smart strategy of Obama that he's showing that he's disagreeing with McCain, but he isn't trying to make him look like a downright horrible person and states his respect for him in certain instances.

I would like to think that the DNC has learned from the mistakes of 2004.

Matt

06-18-2008, 10:48 PM

I don't believe Matt hates Obama as a person, just as a candidate. He believes Obama has the wrong vision for America, and that he could harm the Democratic party more than he could help it.

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/08/84/23458408.jpg

tdeverea

06-19-2008, 08:36 AM

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/08/84/23458408.jpg

What part of his vision do you feel may harm America and the Democratic Party?

tdeverea

06-19-2008, 08:37 AM

Why can't Obama have a hot wife like Kucinich???

She's hot to me.

tdeverea

06-19-2008, 09:22 AM

People are less concerned about oil prices than the economy and the war? Really?

McCain advocating drilling (with states approval) is a far more sellable (and rational) solution than anything Obama is proposing.

That's patently false. Experts have suggested that offshore drilling in the U.S. "could yield about 18 billion barrels of oil. That would meet current U.S. consumption for about 2 1/2 years, but it would likely take a decade or more to find the oil and produce it. The prospect of more energy supply down the road could calm nervous traders who see a looming global oil crunch, but any actual supply would be years away even if Congress acted quickly."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080618/tpl-uk-bush-energy-factbox-20b2d2f.html

Obama's plan for the energy crisis is far more comprehensive than anything anyone else is proposing and it presents long-term solutions. For one, creating new jobs by expanding the clean energy industry sounds better to me.

Matt

06-19-2008, 10:08 AM

What part of his vision do you feel may harm America and the Democratic Party?

I've already said it numerous times. Read the thread if you'd like to know.

StorminNorman

06-19-2008, 11:17 AM

That's patently false. Experts have suggested that offshore drilling in the U.S. "could yield about 18 billion barrels of oil. That would meet current U.S. consumption for about 2 1/2 years, but it would likely take a decade or more to find the oil and produce it. The prospect of more energy supply down the road could calm nervous traders who see a looming global oil crunch, but any actual supply would be years away even if Congress acted quickly."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080618/tpl-uk-bush-energy-factbox-20b2d2f.html

Obama's plan for the energy crisis is far more comprehensive than anything anyone else is proposing and it presents long-term solutions. For one, creating new jobs by expanding the clean energy industry sounds better to me.

You simply don't get it. The oil we actually get from drilling is not important - its the real attempt by America to become independent of OPEC. If we start drilling - OPEC lowers prices. If we start building Coal to Fuel plants - OPEC lowers prices. If we start utilizing Oil Shale - OPEC lowers prices.

chamber-music

06-19-2008, 11:21 AM

Why can't Obama have a hot wife like Kucinich???

Kucinich wife probabley married him for the green card and his money.

StorminNorman

06-19-2008, 11:24 AM

Obama Forgoes Public Funds in First for Major Candidate
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama announced on Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.

With his decision, Mr. Obama became the first candidate of a major party to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals.

Mr. Obama made his announcement in a video message sent to supporters and posted on the Internet. While it was not a surprise — his aides have been hinting that he would take this step for two months — it represented a turnabout from his strong earlier suggestion that he would join the system. Mr. McCain has been a champion of public financing of campaign throughout his career.

“The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,” he said. “John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

Mr. Obama had pledged to meet with Mr. McCain following the primaries to attempt to work out an agreement on financing. That meeting never took place, aides to Mr. Obama said, because a meeting between lawyers for the two sides was not fruitful. “It became clear to me that there wasn’t any basis for future discussion,” said Robert Bauer, the general counsel for Mr. Obama’s campaign.

Told on Thursday morning of Mr. Obama’s decision to opt out of public financing, Charlie Black, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain, charged that Mr. Obama had “broken his word.” Mr. Black reacted to the news after a reporter showed him the Obama campaign’s statement on a Blackberry in the lobby of the Chicago hotel where the McCain campaign was staying.

Jill Hazelbaker, the McCain campaign’s communications director, said later on a conference call with reporters: “The true test of a candidate for President is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people. Barack Obama has failed that test today, and his reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics.” She added, “This decision will have far-reaching and extraordinary consequences that will weaken and undermine the public financing system.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign has been notable this year for its success in raising money; he outstripped his Democratic opponents in the primary and seemed well-positioned to out-raise Mr. McCain as well.

Under the federal presidential financing system, a candidate this year would be given $84.1 million from the Treasury to finance a general election campaign. In exchange, the candidate is barred from accepting private donations, or from spending more than the $84.1 million.

All indications this year are that Mr. Obama will have no problem raising more than that amount for the general election; he raised $95 million in February and March alone, most of it, as his aides noted Thursday, in small contributions raised on the Internet. More than 90 percent of the campaign’s contributions were for $100 or less, said Robert Gibbs, the communications director to Mr. Obama.

That said, the Republican National Committee — which does not operate under the same contribution limits as the candidates — has proved to be much more successful than the Democratic National Committee in raising funds.

Mr. Black said that the McCain campaign’s fundraising was improving, and that its efforts to raise money in conjunction with the Republican National Committee and several state parties working to elect Mr. McCain — which allows donors to contribute far more than the $2,300 limit that they can give to presidential campaigns alone — was yielding results.

“I assume he’s going to outspend us,” Mr. Black said of Mr. Obama, but he added that the money advantage would prove to be less important than it appeared: “We don’t have to spend as much as he does to win.” he said.

For his part, Mr. Obama portrayed the decision to opt out of public financing as one that would limit the influence of special interests in the campaign.

“Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford,” he told his supporters in the video message. “And because you did, we’ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans.”

Michael Cooper contributed reporting from Chicago.

Obama already breaking promises.

Matt

06-19-2008, 11:27 AM

Marx

06-19-2008, 11:31 AM

The Senator

06-19-2008, 11:33 AM

I'm so ****ing sick of Obama's whole "I don't take campaign donations from lobbyists" battle cry. OF COURSE HE DOESN'T, NO ONE CAN TAKE MONEY FROM A LOBBYIST ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY THEY ARE LOBBYING FOR! IT IS ILLEGAL! He simply takes private donations from them as "citizens."

That is definitely true. One of my professors is a telecom lobbyist, and he donated money to Obama's campaign. We were having a debate in class about whether Obama truly denies money from lobbyists, so he whipped out his laptop, went to BarackObama.com, and donated $10. The site asked him 1) what his occupation was, and 2) who his employer was. He wrote "lobbyist/ professor" and the name of his firm on the form. He had no problems submitting the form.

The next week, he told us that the $10 had been deducted from his account, no questions asked.

Matt

06-19-2008, 11:38 AM

That is definitely true. One of my professors is a telecom lobbyist, and he donated money to Obama's campaign. We were having a debate in class about whether Obama truly denies money from lobbyists, so he whipped out his laptop, went to BarackObama.com, and donated $10. The site asked him 1) what his occupation was, and 2) who his employer was. He wrote "lobbyist/ professor" and the name of his firm on the form. He had no problems submitting the form.

The next week, he told us that the $10 had been deducted from his account, no questions asked.

And yet according to Obama and his supporters, McCain and every Republican are in the "pockets of big oil" for doing this, but it is okay for Obama to do it because apparently his speaking out against it makes it okay to do it. And people wonder why I won't vote for him.

tdeverea

06-19-2008, 11:46 AM

You simply don't get it. The oil we actually get from drilling is not important - its the real attempt by America to become independent of OPEC. If we start drilling - OPEC lowers prices. If we start building Coal to Fuel plants - OPEC lowers prices. If we start utilizing Oil Shale - OPEC lowers prices.

I get it. OPEC won't lower prices based on us drilling alone. The tanking value of the American dollar is increasing the cost of gas in our country while OPEC also raises the cost based on the worldwide demand for crude oil. As I said, I get it. I personally am not affected by who you vote for, but I do care about you dishonest or being intentionally shortsighted in your views towards Obama... or any other subject.

StorminNorman

06-19-2008, 11:51 AM

I get it. OPEC won't lower prices based on us drilling alone. The tanking value of the American dollar is increasing the cost of gas in our country while OPEC also raises the cost based on the worldwide demand for crude oil. As I said, I get it. I personally am not affected by who you vote for, but I do care about you dishonest or being intentionally shortsighted in your views towards Obama... or any other subject.

I have never been intentionally dishonest or even shortsided about Obama - or even any subject.

The fact is that Obama's solution of taxing oil companies does nothing but make this problem worse. We are suppose to have an economy based on capitalism - and Obama's plans go against that completely. If we start penalizing companies for being successful, we are going to see bad, bad things happen here.

tdeverea

06-19-2008, 11:51 AM

And yet according to Obama and his supporters, McCain and every Republican are in the "pockets of big oil" for doing this, but it is okay for Obama to do it because apparently his speaking out against it makes it okay to do it. And people wonder why I won't vote for him.

You guys are truly sad here. Your cynicism is so hilarious. Obama will be President anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm sure you guys will appreciate him more after he improves the country for you and your children.

tdeverea

06-19-2008, 11:52 AM

I have never been intentionally dishonest or even shortsided about Obama - or even any subject.

The fact is that Obama's solution of taxing oil companies does nothing but make this problem worse. We are suppose to have an economy based on capitalism - and Obama's plans go against that completely. If we start penalizing companies for being successful, we are going to see bad, bad things happen here.

And the sky is falling.

Matt

06-19-2008, 11:52 AM

The Senator

06-19-2008, 11:54 AM

You guys are truly sad here. Your cynicism is so hilarious. Obama will be President anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm sure you guys will appreciate him more after he improves the country for you and your children.

You have no way of knowing that he will improve this country. That's what's sad about the die-hard Obama supporters: They think that the moment he becomes President, he will vastly improve this country, not thinking at all about how this government functions, what goes on behind the scenes, and the simple fact that some problems will require far greater solutions than pretty speeches.

Sadly, we won't know if he actually improved this country until he leaves office, which is usually the case with every president. I don't see how we can say he'll improve the country when he isn't even president yet.

StorminNorman

06-19-2008, 11:58 AM

And the sky is falling.

:lmao:

Yes, we have a man who may be President that wants to undermine the basic principals of our economy - and you simply dismiss it. Thats simply adorable.

Marx

06-19-2008, 12:09 PM

You guys are truly sad here. Your cynicism is so hilarious. Obama will be President anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm sure you guys will appreciate him more after he improves the country for you and your children.

First of all, you don't know that "Obama will be President anyway". He has to win an election first. Secondly, you have absolutely no idea if he will improve this country or not.

You wonder why people have such a problem with Obama? It's because of die-hard supporters (like I would imagine you are) that make outragious accusations and feed into this "god-like" persona that Obama has come to have...that he will be this great change maker and uniter, when there is no evidence whatsover of that beyond buzz words and pretty speeches.

What are you going to do if Obama turns out to be a catastrophic failure? (Assuming he wins the election and becomes president.)

souvlaki

06-19-2008, 12:15 PM

First of all, you don't know that "Obama will be President anyway". He has to win an election first. Secondly, you have absolutely no idea if he will improve this country or not.

You wonder why people have such a problem with Obama? It's because of die-hard supporters (like I would imagine you are) that make outragious accusations and feed into this "god-like" persona that Obama has come to have...that he will be this great change maker and uniter, when there is no evidence whatsover of that beyond buzz words and pretty speeches.

What are you going to do if Obama turns out to be a catastrophic failure? (Assuming he wins the election and becomes president.)

Did an Obama supporter run over your mom or something? I am becoming more and more convinced with every passing day half the people on this board have more of a problem with the people that support Obama than with Obama himself.

Darthphere

06-19-2008, 12:17 PM

You guys are truly sad here. Your cynicism is so hilarious. Obama will be President anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm sure you guys will appreciate him more after he improves the country for you and your children.

I'm middle class, he can fix the whole ****ing world and I'll still be taking it up the ass, figuratively. :whatever:

Matt

06-19-2008, 12:18 PM

Did an Obama supporter run over your mom or something? I am becoming more and more convinced with every passing day half the people on this board have more of a problem with the people that support Obama than with Obama himself.

I'd say its a mix of both for me. Do you not see the hypocrisy of his entire "I don't take money from lobbyists...just citizens who happen to be lobbyists," spiel, Sovlaki?

Raiden

06-19-2008, 12:18 PM

You have no way of knowing that he will improve this country. That's what's sad about the die-hard Obama supporters: They think that the moment he becomes President, he will vastly improve this country, not thinking at all about how this government functions, what goes on behind the scenes, and the simple fact that some problems will require far greater solutions than pretty speeches.

Sadly, we won't know if he actually improved this country until he leaves office, which is usually the case with every president. I don't see how we can say he'll improve the country when he isn't even president yet.

I'm an Obama supporter, but if he makes a mistake I'd like to call him on that, and imo he shouldn't have made himself an exception from the campaign finance law, after being a proponent for it early in the campaign. This is the stuff opponents can throw at you and you can't refute it.

Marx

06-19-2008, 12:21 PM

Did an Obama supporter run over your mom or something? I am becoming more and more convinced with every passing day half the people on this board have more of a problem with the people that support Obama than with Obama himself.

Hi Souv! :funny:

You know that I have a huge problem with the hardcore Obama supporters. (And there are several posters on this board who strike me as such.) There are those who cannot have an intelligent debate about Obama, they instead just resort to the blind accusations that he will be President and he is going to be a great change maker and uniter. Despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of those claims and despite the fact that he actually has to win the general election first. I have very little tolerance when it comes to people like that.

That beind said, I'm still not entirely sold on Obama himself. I will admit that he has grown on me a little, but that isn't saying a whole lot.

The Senator

06-19-2008, 12:27 PM

I'm an Obama supporter, but if he makes a mistake I'd like to call him on that, and imo he shouldn't have made himself an exception from the campaign finance law, after being a proponent for it early in the campaign. This is the stuff opponents can throw at you and you can't refute it.

I am an Obama supporter as well.

However, considering he was towards the bottom of my list of all the Democratic candidates who ran this year, he has been subjected to more and more scrutiny from me.

I think his inexperience constantly shows, from his empty campaign promises to the pedestal he holds himself and his supporters on. He is good at double talk, good at going against early campaign promises, and he has just as many shady connections as his opponents (he's just better at brushing them off).

What truly annoys me is that many of his supporters act as if he's a Messiah, and that he cannot do any wrong whatsoever. They speak in absolutes, step in line with everything he says, and they make bull **** excuses for him whenever he screws up.

I have never stepped 100% in line with any candidate, and I'm not going to with Obama, even though I'd rather have him in the White House than McCain.

tdeverea

06-19-2008, 12:27 PM

You have no way of knowing that he will improve this country. That's what's sad about the die-hard Obama supporters: They think that the moment he becomes President, he will vastly improve this country, not thinking at all about how this government functions, what goes on behind the scenes, and the simple fact that some problems will require far greater solutions than pretty speeches.

Sadly, we won't know if he actually improved this country until he leaves office, which is usually the case with every president. I don't see how we can say he'll improve the country when he isn't even president yet.

I never said he was gonna wave a magic wand dude. And I know that implementing sound policy is what improves the workings of the government... not overnight fixes. He has laid out his plans and I think he is on the right track, just like you think he's on the wrong track and you're making assumptions before he gets in office.

Varient

06-19-2008, 12:30 PM

This post may very well be one of the most ridiculous posts in this thread.

So, if people don't celebrate Father's Day, that means that they never knew their fathers or had a good relationship with them?

My father does not care for Father's Day. Aside from a "happy Father's Day" wish, he doesn't care if he gets any gifts or special treatment. Not at all.

And I'm sure many other fathers are like that.

This is almost on the same level as other posters' insinuation that the blue collar voters who won't vote for Obama are racists... claims which I'd call 'hysterically ignorant.'

(Because I have time)

In the CONTEXT of what came before,.. anyone who reduces "Fathers Day" to a "Hallmark created Holiday" As a weak-azz excuse to dispute Obama Speaking on Fatherhood In a Church, On Fathers Day MUST NOT have had a good relationship with his/her father because they can't even give up A DAY to give respect to Men who toe the line and step up to the plate.

It's not WHETHER YOU CELEBRATE this holiday or not - it's the DISCONNECT where you wanna ***** ABOUT THOSE WHO DO.

Obama is a father,... talking about fatherhood, in a church on Fathers Day. IMHO the only someone who can't grasp the concept of WHY there is a fathers day or any celebrated holiday for that matter is one who has poor relations with the causes/reasons for such holidays.

I've honestly stopped taking this thread seriously because of how far from reality it stray's in the name of Obama bashing.

V.

souvlaki

06-19-2008, 12:32 PM

I'd say its a mix of both for me. Do you not see the hypocrisy of his entire "I don't take money from lobbyists...just citizens who happen to be lobbyists," spiel, Sovlaki?

It's hypocritical, yes. I guess it bothers me less given that they are doing it as private citizens through a website as opposed to an actual lobbying firm donating the money, but I can understand how it may bother some people. Clinton ran as a change candidate 20 years ago, and he's pretty much a perfect example of a typical politician. I've just come to acknowledge there is not a single "clean" politician out there. Everyone has their skeletons, Obama certainly has his, but the "change" argument has never been the one that got me to vote for him. He's a hypocrite, but so is every politician. Hell, I have more respect for Al Gore than just about any politician out there, yet we have a thread on this page pointing out what giant hypocrite he can be.

As for Obama supporters... what people need to realize is that like 99% of americans (not an actual statistic. It may be lower, but I'm sure it's a pretty high number) are completely uninformed about politics, or the candidates they support. Most people are complete idiots when it comes to politics. The fact of the matter is it's not the fact that they are Obama supporters that make these people uninformed idiots, it's the fact that they are uninformed idiots that make them uninformed idiots. Instead of blaming the candidate, you should blame the supporter. Hillary had her fair share of nutjobs supporting her, and I'm absolutely certain McCain has a ton.

tdeverea

06-19-2008, 12:32 PM

First of all, you don't know that "Obama will be President anyway". He has to win an election first. Secondly, you have absolutely no idea if he will improve this country or not.

You wonder why people have such a problem with Obama? It's because of die-hard supporters (like I would imagine you are) that make outragious accusations and feed into this "god-like" persona that Obama has come to have...that he will be this great change maker and uniter, when there is no evidence whatsover of that beyond buzz words and pretty speeches.

What are you going to do if Obama turns out to be a catastrophic failure? (Assuming he wins the election and becomes president.)

He'll be President because he's the better candidate... although, that doesn't guarantee anything after seeing the 2000 election results. Obama's not a God by any means and he can fail. If he does fail, he won't be the firrst man to attempt something great and not succeed. I will call him on his mistakes just like anyone else. If he renigs on any promises, I will hold him accountable. Don't assume that because I support him that I am delusional.

As I said before, it doesn't matter to me who you guys vote for but I will rebut any claims you make that I found frivolous, inconsistent, or false.

The Senator

06-19-2008, 12:33 PM

I never said he was gonna wave a magic wand dude. And I know that implementing sound policy is what improves the workings of the government... not overnight fixes. He has laid out his plans and I think he is on the right track, just like you think he's on the wrong track and you're making assumptions before he gets in office.

I'm not making any assumptions, I'm stating facts.

1) Before Obama can implement any of his policies, he needs support from Congress.

2) He doesn't just need support from the Democrats in Congress, he will need support from many Republicans in Congress. Especially in the Senate, where they have the ability to block or filibuster legislation.

3) Before he can do any of this, he needs to have an actual plan for success. I have yet to hear him say "This is my plan for ____, and this is how we're gonna get there. First..." All I hear is something like "mothers are crying because their children are dying in Iraq, we must change the course in Iraq and bring our troops home," or "if we can bail out Wall Street, we can help Main Street." Well, he leaves out HOW he plans to do these things.

I think many of his supporters think he'll get in office and magically fix everything. That isn't true at all, our government doesn't work that way and even if it did, there is no guarantee he would be able to fix everything.

Marx

06-19-2008, 12:34 PM

StorminNorman

06-19-2008, 12:35 PM

He'll be President because he's the better candidate... although, that doesn't guarantee anything after seeing the 200 election results. Obama's not a God by any means and he can fail. If he does fail, he won't be the firrst man to attempt something great and not succeed. I will call him on his mistakes just like anyone else. If he renigs on any promises, I will hold him accountable. Don't assume that because I support him that I am delusional.

As I said before, it doesn't matter to me who you guys vote for but I will rebut any claims you make that I found frivolous, inconsistent, or false.

He already has reniged on his promises. Are you holding him accountable?

tdeverea

06-19-2008, 12:37 PM

He already has reniged on his promises. Are you holding him accountable?

What promises have he reniged on?

Raiden

06-19-2008, 12:40 PM

I am an Obama supporter as well.

However, considering he was towards the bottom of my list of all the Democratic candidates who ran this year, he has been subjected to more and more scrutiny from me.

I think his inexperience constantly shows, from his empty campaign promises to the pedestal he holds himself and his supporters on. He is good at double talk, good at going against early campaign promises, and he has just as many shady connections as his opponents (he's just better at brushing them off).

What truly annoys me is that many of his supporters act as if he's a Messiah, and that he cannot do any wrong whatsoever. They speak in absolutes, step in line with everything he says, and they make bull **** excuses for him whenever he screws up.

I have never stepped 100% in line with any candidate, and I'm not going to with Obama, even though I'd rather have him in the White House than McCain.

I agree 100%. I think if a candidate made a mistake that is inexcusable, then he should be criticized. Obama, despite being a great speaker who has grand plan for the country, also makes several of moves that seemed to lack good sense. I think a candidate should consider carefully on whether his decisions will infringe on his principles or integrity, and if not then whether it is wise to go ahead with them anyway. However, McCain isn't immune to flip-flops so neither candidates are perfect or consistent with their action.

The Senator

06-19-2008, 12:40 PM

(Because I have time)

In the CONTEXT of what came before,.. anyone who reduces "Fathers Day" to a "Hallmark created Holiday" As a weak-azz excuse to dispute Obama Speaking on Fatherhood In a Church, On Fathers Day MUST NOT have had a good relationship with his/her father because they can't even give up A DAY to give respect to Men who toe the line and step up to the plate.

It's not WHETHER YOU CELEBRATE this holiday or not - it's the DISCONNECT where you wanna ***** ABOUT THOSE WHO DO.

Obama is a father,... talking about fatherhood, in a church on Fathers Day. IMHO the only someone who can't grasp the concept of WHY there is a fathers day or any celebrated holiday for that matter is one who has poor relations with the causes/reasons for such holidays.

I've honestly stopped taking this thread seriously because of how far from reality it stray's in the name of Obama bashing.

V.

Again, this is a case of "hysterical ignorance."

Just because YOU can't possibly see how someone who had a good relationship with his father can knock Father's Day, that does not mean that the person in question had a bad relationship with his father.

It's a ridiculous, far-off assumption. There are fathers who do not care to celebrate this "holiday," who tell their children not to buy them anything, who only care, maybe, for a "happy Father's Day" wish and that is all.

Like my father, who I have had a solid relationship with. He calls Father's Day a greeting card holiday, I call it a greeting card holiday, and others apparently share similar views.

It doesn't deride the significance of the holiday in the eyes of others to say such a thing. If Obama cares to celebrate Father's Day, fine. I have no problem with it.

I do, personally, have a problem with a man who gives a speech on a topic the President cannot fix, simply for political attention. But considering it was a "holiday," I can let it pass.

Now, I take it, that means my father must have been a jolly drunkard who wailed on my mother every night after spending all his earnings at the local pub? :huh: