Obama takes one step forward
-
Steve, you're terribly uninformed. Terribly.
George Bush wasn't only against gay marriage, he pushed for and endorsed a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. That's hardly Obama's position on gay marriage. He's done nothing to try and stop the states from passing laws that legalize gay marriage. He's never said an unkind word about those decisions. Because he agrees with them. He just doesn't say so for political reasons. Politicians make these types of political decisions all the time -- you know, because they're politicians. It's fine to call them on it, but to imagine that this doesn't happen or that somewhere there's a politician who doesn't make political decisions is to live in a sizeable cocoon of naiveté.
As a supporter of gay marriage, and as someone who wanted to see Obama elected in part because of his far superior position on gay rights issues, and issues of equality in general, I didn't want him to mention his support for gay marriage in the campaign - nor did I expect him to - so that he'd stand the best chance of winning.
Trust me: the gay community, and the people who care about issues that affect the gay community, are much happier to see Barack Obama president than someone who was also against gay marriage (though not for amending the Constitution) and selected a running mate who believes that not only should gays not be allowed to marry, but that being gay is a sin against God.
Again, if you can't tell the difference between Barack Obama and George Bush or even John McCain on gay issues than you're tragically simple. It's really not that hard to differentiate.
Or try their policies on DADT. Again, totally different.
It's okay to admit this reality, even though I'm the one who is laying it out for you. It's like admitting that brown and green are different colors. It's that simple.
-
Steve, you're terribly uninformed. Terribly.
George Bush wasn't only against gay marriage, he pushed for and endorsed a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. That's hardly Obama's position on gay marriage. He's done nothing to try and stop the states from passing laws that legalize gay marriage. He's never said an unkind word about those decisions. Because he agrees with them. He just doesn't say so for political reasons. Politicians make these types of political decisions all the time -- you know, because they're politicians. It's fine to call them on it, but to imagine that this doesn't happen or that somewhere there's a politician who doesn't make political decisions is to live in a sizeable cocoon of naiveté.
As a supporter of gay marriage, and as someone who wanted to see Obama elected in part because of his far superior position on gay rights issues, and issues of equality in general, I didn't want him to mention his support for gay marriage in the campaign - nor did I expect him to - so that he'd stand the best chance of winning.
Trust me: the gay community, and the people who care about issues that affect the gay community, are much happier to see Barack Obama president than someone who was also against gay marriage (though not for amending the Constitution) and selected a running mate who believes that not only should gays not be allowed to marry, but that being gay is a sin against God.
Again, if you can't tell the difference between Barack Obama and George Bush or even John McCain on gay issues than you're tragically simple. It's really not that hard to differentiate.
Or try their policies on DADT. Again, totally different.
It's okay to admit this reality, even though I'm the one who is laying it out for you. It's like admitting that brown and green are different colors. It's that simple.
Steve, you're terribly uninformed. Terribly.
George Bush wasn't only against gay marriage, he pushed for and endorsed a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Don't see the big difference.
The Bush position was equal or to the left of most Americans. No marriage but accepting of civil union.
So they're both against it.
So one panders a little left and one a little right.
BFD.
I realize you fully expect Obama to lie since it might have alienated his biggest voting bloc.
Dude you can spin all ya want.
BIDEN: "No, Barack Obama nor I support redefining, from a civil side, what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically a decision to be able to be left to the faiths and people who practice their faiths to determine what you call it."
Plus the church Obama sought out as anadult is wayyyyy over the top orf any one Bush attended.
Just man up Heck, if ya hate Christians that badly hate 'em all.
I know "equality" is important to ya.
WSS
-
I guess you're that simple.
-
I guess you're that simple.
I guess you're that simple.
I guess you're that loyal.
Hey I think you're probably right.
The whole Christianity gay marriage thing could have easily been a cynical ruse.
But doesn't that beg the question:
If he so boldy lied about that to keep his ignorant and superstitious voters on the bus are you concerned about any other issues that mean something to you personally?
Or are you just automatically on board with whatever positions he chosses?
WSS
-
I guess you're that simple. Heck
***********************************
Forgive me, but I don't see that as addressing the issues Steve brought up.
It's just a personal slur against Steve.
Perhaps Dan will use you as an example of what's wrong with the board.
-
How often do I need to point you to the definition of ad hominem before stop using that line of attack? Do you realize that it's a sign of intellectual weakness? That it makes you look silly? Because you seem quite proud of it. And trot it out in every post.
I'll try one more time:
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Get it yet?
Let me walk you through it one more time:
Though I don't like it, strategically, I agree with Obama's decision to come out against gay marriage in the campaign. It was more important, especially for gays, that he be elected than it would be to have him take that stand and lose in November.
These are the political choices adults make all the time.
You think it makes you some sort of truth teller to see this an example if a "power-hungry liar" rather than a political decision, and a fairly obvious one. I just think it makes you a crank.
As for what went on his his church, I'm far less frightened by black people than you are, so I don't really care. Obama is not particularly religious, at least outwardly. Nor is he an Evangelical, nor does he hold views similar to Christian Right, or Christian fundamentalists in this country. Nor does he seem to rely on the Old Testament for wisdom and guidance on the legal or scientific issues facing the country. This much is plainly clear. To the extent that the loving example of Jesus informs his decisions, I don't care. One can come to the same decision with or without Jesus.
Nor do I think George Bush is particularly Christian because he claims to be, or because he goes to church every so often, one where white people sit calmly and don't frighten people like you. I don't see a lot of Jesus in george Bush. Lots of people don't. But that doesn't have anything to do with the type of church he occasionally went to - it has to do with George Bush.
There's a particular brand of Christianity that jibes pretty well with what I believe, even if the impetus for those beliefs comes from a different place than mine. I tend to find common ground with those people. People who cherry pick Leviticus as a way to launder their hate through the Bible? Not so much.
I can't walk you through my opinions any easier than that short of placing a dog collar around your neck.
Now you can go back to calling me a shill.
-
Also, why are you constantly so stunned that someone I supported for president tends to come down on the issues in a lot of the same ways that I do?
Are there any position that I take that you think I don't believe, but take out of loyalty to a person or party?
Can you name one? I bet this is going to be another one of these instances where I ask you to back up your shit and you can't, then you say, "Well, I still believe it anyway."
Which is another example of your intellectual laziness.
-
We'll see what he can come up with. I'm not holding my breath.
-
WSS is the absolute King of Everyone Exclusively Follows the Party Line-ville.
It's maddening.
mz. said:
WSS is the absolute King of Everyone Exclusively Follows the Party Line-ville.It's maddening.
Actually mz the pussy didn't we just come to an understanding that you and I would vote out of party if there was a viable candidate that we liked?
As to Heck my point isn't really that he pimps Obama no matter what, though he does.
I assume you're gonna be more in line with his promises. But when that rhetoric mirrors that of the hated Bush, well........
And Heck, you can repeat the incorrect ad hominem until you get it right.
Ask yourself if the Priest believes what he does because he's a Priest OR he believes what he does so he became a Priest?
Get the nuance?
I might guess that had the Bush people come up with an acceptable salary way back when you'd be preaching the neocon party line with equal indignant zeal.
Maybe not, but the arguing seems to be the end in itself. I undserstand that sir.
Many on the left have voiced their animosity toward Christians and GW Bush in particular.
So if I point out that Obama at least pretended to be as or more devout and aligned in an even more offensive church I get the old "How dare you" routine.
If a Republican had been so overtly disingenuous in his pandering I have no doubt you guys would see that as worthy of as much ridicule as I give Obama.
Or he actually buys it. And Heck couldn't stand that.
WSS
-
mz. said:
WSS is the absolute King of Everyone Exclusively Follows the Party Line-ville.It's maddening.
Actually mz the pussy didn't we just come to an understanding that you and I would vote out of party if there was a viable candidate that we liked?
As to Heck my point isn't really that he pimps Obama no matter what, though he does.
I assume you're gonna be more in line with his promises. But when that rhetoric mirrors that of the hated Bush, well........
And Heck, you can repeat the incorrect ad hominem until you get it right.
Ask yourself if the Priest believes what he does because he's a Priest OR he believes what he does so he became a Priest?
Get the nuance?
I might guess that had the Bush people come up with an acceptable salary way back when you'd be preaching the neocon party line with equal indignant zeal.
Maybe not, but the arguing seems to be the end in itself. I undserstand that sir.
Many on the left have voiced their animosity toward Christians and GW Bush in particular.
So if I point out that Obama at least pretended to be as or more devout and aligned in an even more offensive church I get the old "How dare you" routine.
If a Republican had been so overtly disingenuous in his pandering I have no doubt you guys would see that as worthy of as much ridicule as I give Obama.
Or he actually buys it. And Heck couldn't stand that.
WSS
Actually mz the pussy didn't we just come to an understanding that you and I would vote out of party if there was a viable candidate that we liked?
WSS
We did, then you accused an intelligent, free-thinking person (albeit one who disagrees with you most of the time) of the very same thing. I would just hope you'd give smart folks the benefit of the doubt.
-
Actually mz the pussy didn't we just come to an understanding that you and I would vote out of party if there was a viable candidate that we liked?
WSS
We did, then you accused an intelligent, free-thinking person (albeit one who disagrees with you most of the time) of the very same thing. I would just hope you'd give smart folks the benefit of the doubt.
mz. said:
We did, then you accused an intelligent, free-thinking person (albeit one who disagrees with you most of the time) of the very same thing. I would just hope you'd give smart folks the benefit of the doubt.I just see him as more of a party guy.
Like a Browns coach/fan.
If it's a Steeler it's a cheap shot.
A Brown and it's a good clean hit.
WSS
-
I just hold the belief that smart people value personal ideology over some antiquated, pre-fab "party."
There are people who identify with a party b/c that party tends to think like they do and then there are those people who think like the party they identify with for whatever reason.
You can tell who those guys are here.
-
I just hold the belief that smart people value personal ideology over some antiquated, pre-fab "party."
There are people who identify with a party b/c that party tends to think like they do and then there are those people who think like the party they identify with for whatever reason.
You can tell who those guys are here.
mz. said:
I just hold the belief that smart people value personal ideology over some antiquated, pre-fab "party."There are people who identify with a party b/c that party tends to think like they do and then there are those people who think like the party they identify with for whatever reason.
You can tell who those guys are here.
I think we can. And I say that animosity toward one guy or the other is a stronger force a lot of the time.
But it's natural to root for the guys you work for.
We all have a little pack animal in us.
WSS
-
"And Heck, you can repeat the incorrect ad hominem until you get it right.
Ask yourself if the Priest believes what he does because he's a Priest OR he believes what he does so he became a Priest?
Get the nuance?
I might guess that had the Bush people come up with an acceptable salary way back when you'd be preaching the neocon party line with equal indignant zeal."
I enjoyed how you pretend that your ad hominem attack was really nuance, and then followed it (unknowingly, it would seem) with another ad hominem attack - that one should dismiss what I say because I'm only in it for the money.
Come on. Make me work for it at least. This is too easy.
As for who employs me and pays my salary, it's a really big corporation, not a candidate or party or even a political movement. So in addition to being ad hominem, it was also completely off the mark.
But please, don't let that stop you.
Are you going to produce an instance of me shilling, or is this just another thing you believe but can't substantiate?
And don't you think this is beyond boring for everyone else? Isn't it enough that you lose these arguments all the time?
-
I guess you're that simple. Heck
**********************************
So, that in itself is an ad hominem attack. Not that I care.
But you called Steve "simple" instead of addressing the issue Steve put forth.
And, you changed the subject with a personal attack, avoiding the issue.
I say - is there anything you disagree with about Obama's actions to date,
and were there any actions Bush took that you agreed with?
Don't call ME "simple", it's a simple set of questions - no need to revert
to a personal attack.
-
"I say - is there anything you disagree with about Obama's actions to date," Sure. We were just talking about one.
"and were there any actions Bush took that you agreed with?" Sure. We've mention them before as well.
-
I don't see it. Maybe it's just me.
Care to point it out? You know, you were just talking about it....
help me out here. I don't have much time to be online right now...
-
For one, I disagree with Obama's stance on gay marriage. It's what this thread is about.
I just believe it to be a political stance. He's even admitted that his stance might be wrong. And the more states legalize gay marriage, and the more politicians (like the governor of Maine today) take the position I believe Obama shares but wasn't willing to take in the campaign, the harder it will be for Obama to maintain his current position. He's either going to have to admit he was wrong and go against a campaign platform, or he's going to have to go on pretending he thinks marriage is an institution that can only exist between a man and a woman.
But as I noted above, this is the position that I expected Obama to take, and the one I wanted him to take.
That doesn't mean I agree with it. It means that it was more important for me for Obama to win the election than to take the correct stand on gay marriage. Because marriage is not the only issue important to the gay community, and Obama is/was light years ahead of McCain/Palin on gay issues.
Much in the way you may disagree with how your boss is running the company, but you bite your tongue because it's more important to keep your job.
People make political decisions all the time, whether or not they're in politics. You do. I do. It's not necessarily a character flaw.
Or as Steve says, it makes him a "power-hungry liar."
Oh, the animus.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login