Obama Declares Support for Gay Marriage - Page 6

Schwartz gets all the rep today for dealing with this blowhole.

Just because a troll is trying really hard to appear like he's interested in intelligently arguing something, it doesn't mean he's not a troll.  It couldn't be any more obvious this guy is mostly interested in stirring up shit for the sake of stirring up shit.

 

There comes a point where "bi-partisanship" becomes "looking like a sucker". Also, ain't it always the way that Republicans like to cry about bi-partisanship only when they're out of power and when they're in power they do everything they can to fuck over the Dems like they did from 2000-2006. As far as I'm concerned, Obama has done everything but offer to blow the Republicans and they STILL act like fucking children who want their own way and are deliberately working to cripple the country further, after all the damage they caused, because in their vile little minds they hope that if things get worse then it will help them come election time.

 

How exactly would you categorize that sort of behavior? I'd call it EVIL!

 

No, that's what you're implying. That is not my position.

 

I think you're misunderstanding something fundamental about this sort of psychology if you think getting everything he is shouting about would make this guy happy.

 

You're not one of his supporters and didn't vote for him. I can tell because of the way you phrased this "Single payer is not what all his supporters wanted.  He had 50some million of them, and they weren't all single issue voters on the same issue." You implied that you voted for him in 2008 but didn't come out and say it and now refer to those who did vote for him as "his supporters" while not referring to yourself as one of them. Your lies are obvious as is your lack of morality and humanity given your dismissal of socialized Healthcare and the fact that you claim that Obama pulling out of Iraq in 2008 would have been defeatist. If you were a democrat, liberal or progressive you wouldn't support three more years of bloodshed just so that you can figure out how to put a positive spin on Iraq and claim to have won although you still have not given me an answer as to what there was to "win" in the first place.

 

Single payer is what his supporters wanted but they would have settled for a Government option which you conveniently ignored as it would have solved the issue of those who don't want socialized healthcare. But then your next argument would have been "well, why should I pay for someone elses healthcare like those fucking illegals etc...". I've read every single one of your arguments on thousnads of boards over the years.

It's like the Ron Paul thread all over again.

I phrased it that way because I don't presume to speak for all 50 million people who sort of share an opinion with me once every 4 years.  You should try it.

 

Sandbagged the American public based on that nice piece of fanfic where you claimed that Obama giving full support for Progressive/Liberal policies would have caused the country to burn to the ground. I've read more realistic stories written on the walls of an outhouse shitter never mind that you claim that Obama would have been crucified for supporting gay rights in 2008 although he's receiving almost universal support for backing it today which is what his supporters wanted when he took office. I guess it's a good thing that Conservatives don't have to worry about violating their campaign platform as it's always based on doing the most fucking loathsome shit imaginable while their fucking scumbag supporters cheering them on. Why would you not support healthcare? Because it's clear that you don't as you posed a scenario where it helped bring down civilization. What exactly is your reason for not supporting it beyond the typical Conservative greed and stupidity of worrying that you'll be paying for someone else's healthcare when you're too fucking retarded to understand that it will save you money in the long run. Don't you want people to be healthy and not to have to worry about losing everything they have to pay for medical bills? Can you not empathize for one fucking moment, like a decent human being, how fucking horrible it is to be sick or injured and be scared that you can't afford to get better? That's how I know you're a Republican, you have no heart or soul.

Sandbagged in the sense that what you're asking for would've flown in the face of his entire campaign.  Is English your first language?

 

Also, I supported Obama's healthcare reform.  This thing where you quote me plainly stating my position, accuse me of lying and holding the opposite view, and then berate that opposite view must be some avant-garde, European form of trolling that my feeble mind can't yet comprehend.

You don't do a lot of reading, do you Loki?  I think you maybe read two words in Schwartz's post before you went full retard at him.

 

Maybe you should get more resources to research for your political leanings than your Rage Against The Machine discography.

 

Once again, what exactly was there to be "won" in Iraq or Afghanistan because all you've fucking done is tap dance around the subject with the usual bullshit of "There are 100,000+ military personnel returning home, bitter in defeat and angry at the president who wouldn't let them finish the job,". What. Fucking. Job. Were. They. Supposed. To. Finish? WHAT WAS THERE TO FUCKING WIN ASSHOLE?!? The hearts and minds of the Iraqi and Afghanistan people? Yeah, GREAT FUCKING JOB! All those innocent people killed by the military, US drones and contractors have really endeared the US to those countries. Being a sociopathic cunt, you're able to justify it because it's not your retarded fucking family being blown to pieces, crippled and mutilated. You fucking make me sick.

In Iraq, winning meant getting some vaguely stable government in place before pulling out.  I'm not saying it was worth the lives and money that went into it, but there was a basic obligation to sort of fix what we broke.

 

In Afghanistan, the objectives are a bit more nebulous, but killing Bin Laden was about the perfect symbolic note to allow us to leave without out tails completely between our legs.  Yes Al Qaeda is still out there, but particularly when you are fighting a war on an abstract concept, image matters.  And our leaving with Bin Laden still free would've done wonders for his image.  Doesn't mean it was all worth it, just that your idea of what to do in 2008 would be worse than what happened.

 

Except that Obama had the political clout and muscle to ram through legistlation from 2008-2010 if he wanted to but he didn't. Bushco. got everything they wanted with even less support than Obama had during the first two years. THAT'S why he's lost soo much support but pathological liars like you just say "oh, see his policies did soo much damage that the Republicans were able to take back the house" when I've stated repeatedly that it was his meekness that has caused his approval rating to go down. That's a FACT! People stayed home because they gave Obama and the Dems what they kept saying they needed and they still didn't deliver. Seems that the Republicans can get whatever they want done, no matter what fucking damage it causes, and they don't need 60 votes unlike the Dems who do nothing but cry that "we can't get anything done because of those mean Republicans" and put the blame on fence sitting Blue Dog asswipes like Joe Lieberman.

 

I base it on the fact that you come off as a heartles bastard and that you claim that if Obama tried to get a lot more progressive legistlation put through then it would have been economic devestation with countrywide violence and shameful defeat if he pulled the troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan and, as I've also said, I've read every one of your arguments on various right wing sites that you are no doubt parroting. At the same time you continuously ignore that I've mentioned how Buscho. got everything they wanted with less support than Obama had during his first term and his lack of boldness is what kept people from coming out to support the Dems in 2010. The people that voted for Obama didn't do so based on less progress and to think otherwise is to deny the reality of the situation.    

Who cares what Bushco got?  We're talking about the situation Obama faced when he took office, where cleaning up after Bush's mistakes was the top priority.

Yeah, not entertaining any more.

 

I don't doubt that there's a huge audience in your mind's eye, but they're the only ones ever cheering you on. On these boards and, I'd safely assume, in life. 

 

I can imagine where you work.

 

 

The people who voted for Obama did so based on the idea of Hope and Change. That meant ending the wars asap. Holding Buscho. and Wall Street accountable for their crimes. Pushing for gay marriage. Single payer healthcare or a Government option at the very least. I know that's what his supporters, of which I'm one of them unlike yourself, wanted because I read it on every political forum that wasn't Fox News or Free Republic. We didn't want meekness and excuses when the Dems had everything they needed to pass whatever they wanted and instead claimed that they needed 60 votes while the Republicans pushed every evil, rotten bit of fascist bullshit they wanted. This included the Patriot Act of which your only complaint wasn't that it was created in the first place but that Obama is at fault for not revoking it when people like you - who claim that puling of Iraq in 08 would be defeatist and giving no logcal reason for continuing it beyond "allowing the troops to win" despise my repeated request that you define "winning" which have stil not answered like the rat fuck that you are - would be the first to cry that Obama wasn't protecting you.

 

Know why I'm soo pissed? When Obama took office and said he wanted to extend his hand to the Republicans I said "fine" just so that he could show that he was the bigger man. Well, after six months and their non-stop roadblocking, it was clear that they were NEVER going to help fix the damage they caused and wanted to drive the country even further into the ground because they believe it would be to their gain. That's just unconscionable evil and for Obama to continue with that charade made him look weak and ineffective while Pelosi and Reid didn't help by taking impeachment off the table for Bush when there was MOE than enough justification to have him removed from office just given the fact that his criminal enterprise started a war based on outright lies, profited from said war, committed treason not to mention the gross negligence displayed during 9/11 and Katrina that resulted in the deaths of over 5,000 Americans, the illegal wiretapping and DOJ firings, as previously mentioned.

 

There is no grey area here. These are clearly crimes in the eyes of any person who sane, fair and sensible and Obama is a coward for not pursuing these people to the fullest letter of the law while trying to fix the destruction they caused. His failure is in deliberately trying to avoid pushing for progressive legislation that the people who voted for him demanded all the while worrying about what the dirty cocksuckers who voted against him (and would most likely enjoy seeing him killed) would say because, HEY, listening to the people who voted for George W, Bush and John McCain/Sarah fucking Palin is much more important than serving the ideals of those that put you into office.

 

I’d rather have someone who is bold and wants to fight for progress instead of a fucking pussy.

 I can imagine what Law Firm you'd work for.....

 

 

 The people who voted for Obama did so based on the idea of Hope and Change. That meant ending the wars asap. Holding Buscho. and Wall Street accountable for their crimes. Pushing for gay marriage. Single payer healthcare or a Government option at the very least. I know that's what his supporters, of which I'm one of them unlike yourself, wanted because I read it on every political forum that wasn't Fox News or Free Republic. We didn't want meekness and excuses when the Dems had everything they needed to pass whatever they wanted and instead claimed that they needed 60 votes while the Republicans pushed every evil, rotten bit of fascist bullshit they wanted. This included the Patriot Act of which your only complaint wasn't that it was created in the first place but that Obama is at fault for not revoking it when people like you - who claim that puling of Iraq in 08 would be defeatist and giving no logcal reason for continuing it beyond "allowing the troops to win" despise my repeated request that you define "winning" which have stil not answered like the rat fuck that you are - would be the first to cry that Obama wasn't protecting you.

 

Know why I'm soo pissed? When Obama took office and said he wanted to extend his hand to the Republicans I said "fine" just so that he could show that he was the bigger man. Well, after six months and their non-stop roadblocking, it was clear that they were NEVER going to help fix the damage they caused and wanted to drive the country even further into the ground because they believe it would be to their gain. That's just unconscionable evil and for Obama to continue with that charade made him look weak and ineffective while Pelosi and Reid didn't help by taking impeachment off the table for Bush when there was MOE than enough justification to have him removed from office just given the fact that his criminal enterprise started a war based on outright lies, profited from said war, committed treason not to mention the gross negligence displayed during 9/11 and Katrina that resulted in the deaths of over 5,000 Americans, the illegal wiretapping and DOJ firings, as previously mentioned.

There is no grey area here. These are clearly crimes in the eyes of any person who sane, fair and sensible and Obama is a coward for not pursuing these people to the fullest letter of the law while trying to fix the destruction they caused. His failure is in deliberately trying to avoid pushing for progressive legislation when the people who voted for him demanded all the while worrying about what the dirty cocksuckers who voted against him (and would most likely enjoy seeing him killed) would say because, HEY, listening to the people who voted for George W, Bush and John McCain/Sarah fucking Palin is much more important than serving the ideals of those that put you into office.

 

I’d rather have someone who is bold and wants to fight for progress instead of a fucking pussy who cowers at the thought of what some fucking assholes might say about him because no matter what he does, those people will always be against him.      

I knew that dastardly bartender was the cause of all of America's woes...

Whoa, this was all in good fun, but Wolfram and Hart?  That...that's just mean.

 

I would've gone for a Three Stooges riff myself.  Especially seeing as how I'd rather be poked in the eye by a fat bald man than read another Loki post.

Remember that time when you stalked Princess Kate and PM'd her weird suicide pictures? Progress would be you taking your own advice.

If I understand Loki correctly, Schwartz, it's obvious you're not an Obama supporter because you keep defending him. Makes sense!
 

I mean, credit where it's due, he found a way to attack me from an angle I've never seen, and I'm still not sure even exists.  It's like I said 2+2=4, and he said NO BULLSHIT YOU OBVIOUSLY THINK 2+2=cos√-4, you RACIST!!!

Why are you guys rewarding this troll?

My work network was down this afternoon leaving me nothing but free time.  I know that I should know better.

So...


Pretty damn awesome for Obama to speak out his support for gay marriage, amirite?

This thread has turned sad.   Cheer up and celebrate a pretty significant achievement already.   Another thing to be happy about?   Obama has dominated the news cycles AND has put Romney on defense for two solid weeks!

Here's something cheerful. In an article on today's Americablog, contributor Gaius Publius covers the history that MSNBC's Chris Matthews has of lending credibility to Tony Perkins and his one man hate group, the Family Research Council. As a demonstration of the impact that a President can have simply with the example he sets, Gaius posts a video from this Thursday's Hardball, wherein Matthews and Barney Frank tag team Perkins like they're the Road Warriors and he's the jobber in the Doomsday Device.

(Video is on the other end of the link; the article covers Matthews' history with Perkins and why it's problematic in more detail.)

Creepy, I'd call you a cunt, but frankly, I like cunts way more than you.

A memo being circulated by George W. Bush's 2004 campaign pollster has been picked up and is making the rounds on a few news sites. The author, Jan van Lohuizen, is acknowledging the trend in growing public acceptance of marriage equality, urging Republicans to get on the right side before they condemn their party to irrelevance, and offering talking points that politicians can use to explain why gay marriage is a conservative idea.

It's a fascinating read. As Andrew Sullivan points out, this memo looks like the party talking to itself, off stage and off camera.

Ugh...I'm so sick of this debate. All this noise just because half the country thinks that butt sex will anger their gods.

 

Stop this planet, I wanna get off.

 

"I'll take a lot of credit for that."

I'm waiting for the upcoming announcements by Obama that he's closing Gitmo, throwing the architects of the 2008 Wall St meltdown in jail, and has personally discovered an unlimited, non-polluting new fuel source that's being put into production immediately, and the subsequent eye-rolling reaction from the left that it's all been tainted by politics.

 

Seriously, though, I have a gleeful feeling that Obama might roll out a lot more goodies in the coming months. He can be as cynical as he wants about it as long as he keeps 'em coming.
 

 

Who cares where you sit on a bus? You're still getting a seat, right?

It's almost not even about marriage.

 

"You people over here can wear hats. You people over here can't wear hats, because hats are defined as something only those people over there can wear. We can call them something other than hats, or you can wear something else on your head to keep the sun off, but don't go thinking you have the right to wear hats like those other God-fearing hat-wearers."

 

Not meaning to simplify the issue or trivialize it, but at its core it's about "You guys can do this. You guys can't, for no good reason." Which is un-American. It shouldn't matter whether it's hats or marriage. If it doesn't harm anyone else it should be allowed, duh, end of story.

 

Or as Clint Eastwood sez:

 

 

"I know what you're thinking. "Is he married to a man or a woman?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is the U.S. of fucking A., you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I favor equal rights for all of it's citizens? Well, do ya, punk?"

Really, who the hell wants to argue with Eastwood? Who's got the balls to? Obama's just getting on the right side of Clint. We should follow the example.

No, that's AWESOME.

And if we don't, just remember what happened to the town of Largo!

Here is the plan we should be arguing instead:  Get rid of all marriages. It is a religious institution that we have used to declare certain legal rights through custom. Let the Christians have marriage. Unionize everyone who is currently married. Let people be married in church, but let them get unionized in the eyes of the law. Make every government rule and regulation conform to unions and the private industry will follow. 

 

Eff the haters.

 

He convinced the people of Largo to paint their town pink.

 

IIRC, around the time of the whole Prop.8 debacle here in CA, there was some guy who wanted to put forward the idea/legislation to make divorce illegal

 

ahh, a little google, here ya go...

 

 

 

It's a good idea.  But around the Prop 8 biz there were a couple of good articles on why this is actually really hard from a legal standpoint.  I'll have to dig them up.  I think in Australia at least civil union has been made legally identical to marriage as far as taxes and so on go.  But to actually divorce (yuck yuck) it from the law and government entirely is just too damn hard.  It's easier just to let homosexual unions in instead, even though it's hard for people to take.

In any case, we secularised the concept now.  It can't really be called religious any more.  G&Ls are asking to be a part of a cultural institution about love  In a way that's part of the problem, as I had to explain to my Mum the other day (who isn't a fan, surprise surprise).  I video'd a friend of a friends Persian wedding a little while ago and a friend of mine married into a Greek family.  In those cultures there's really no mistaking what marriage is all about, it's right there in the ceremony:  This is the joining of two families  You kids are now going to continue our culture by having babies.  Lots and lots of babies.  Now hurry up and eat so you can go get on with it.

Two hundred years of romanticism and liberalism, we Anglos have stripped all of that out.  Now as soon as other unions want it, people want to put it all back in.  Too late.

 

So, have you finally given up on our species like all rational people have a long time ago?  I support gay marriage, they sure as HELL aren't gonna make the institution any more of a joke than it already is.