Support NeoGAF

[Particle Physicist]

And you're really buying into Obama aren't you? There have been many people in the LGBT community who don't buy Obama's half-hearted political BS. If he felt this way about gay marriage, why did he not do a single goddamn thing about it during his four years in office when it is a fundamental, human rights issue?

Obama has progressed gay rights more than any president in the history of the united states. He may not have worked as fast as some have wanted, but he has done a shit tons for the community. There is still more to be done, but to deny what he has already accomplished is quite disingenuous.

The rest of your post is just hilarious, especially considering how you derided Obana here.

 

[Terra Firma]

Wait, so you're telling me that the Republicans who voted nay did so because their districts are comprised mostly of Republicans, who are opposed to repealing DADT?

No, I'm saying that if a Democrat from conservative regions of the country was voting, he/she would also vote "Nay". It is not a matter of Democrat or Republican, but social liberalism and conservatism. There are many Republicans, not just elected officials, who are on record for supporting gay marriage. They just happen to be from more socially liberal areas (though they are fiscal conservatives).

Find me a handful of republicans who support basic gay rights (not even talking about marriage here). At least 80% of democrat legislators support basic gay rights while less than 10% of republican legislators do. In short, you're wrong and if you had put even the slightest measure of research into the topic, you'd know it.

There's an organization called Log Cabin Republicans. Look em up. There are many Republicans that advocate gay rights but they are found in areas where their constituents are also socially liberal, but may be fiscally conservative.

It would have ended? When? McCain was on record saying we should stay there for years more, perhaps even 100 years. No reason to stay after it became unpopular? The war was unpopular for at least 5 years during Bush's terms and he put no effort into ending it.

A more logical argument for you would have been that the US would likely leave due to Iraq's decision to remove immunity from US soldiers. Bush started the withdrawal process eventually, and Obama carried it out - that's certainly true. Yet given the rhetoric of McCain and other republicans who moved even farther to the right than W Bush on the topic, there's no guarantee we would have left if McCain was president instead of Obama.

On Afhanistan, Romney opposes negotionating with the Taliban, as well as setting a withdrawal date/period. He's on completely opposite sides of the spectrum with Obama on this issue.

McCain's line was that he'd listen to the generals and stick around if it required decades or whatever (correct me if I'm wrong). The generals had pretty much been suggesting a gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Obama did deliver but he also delayed. McCain staying in Iraq indefinitely would have been political suicide and even Palin would've known it. The war in Iraq had grown to be unpopular with both Democrats and Republicans.

As for Afghanistan, where are the fruits of Obama's rhetoric? If anything, under Obama, America is creating a new enemy in Pakistan because of the drone attacks and Romney would only continue down this avenue.

Even Republicans are tired of the war in Afghanistan since Bin Laden's been bagged and tagged. Romney's official position on Afghanistan is to leave it to the generals to decide. That seems to be the Republican shtick of non-committal.

I would say again: he doesn't have the clout or position to say what needs to be said: Iran is not a threat to the US, is years away from a nuclear bomb, and is too at war with itself to declare war on anyone else. With respect to covert operations, if they lessen the possibility that Israel unilaterally attacks Iran, I'm all for them.

Then how is Obama being different from any Republican president? It is usually the Republican talking heads in the US that praise the targeted assassinations of Iranian scientists.

And again, the cyber warfare plan that backfired was technically a declaration of war by the US. If China was to pull something like that in the US, Beijing would be a mushroom cloud.

First argument: there is no difference between democrats and republicans on gay rights
Second argument: The differences between democrats and republicans on gay rights are due to constituencies

Pay attention: the goalposts are the same.

The constituencies determine the political leanings of the candidate that is elected. If a Democrat is elected from the deep south, his voting record will be similar to a Republican. If a Republican is elected from New York, his voting record will be similar to a Democrat. So, there is no difference between "Democrats" and "Republicans" - but there are differences between social liberals and conservatives, both of which are found in both parties, since a person who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal may vote Republican (e.g. rich Hollywood) whereas a person who is fiscally liberal but socially conservative may vote Democrat (e.g. religious Black groups).

Despite the goal post moving you're still wrong: democrats resoundingly support gay rights, republicans don't. Hell, if it boiled down to districts and constituents, why do republicans in liberal areas reject gay rights? This can be broken down to a state level which would show the same results: democrats supporting gay rights, republicans denying them. From California to Texas.

The Democratic party is has a large group of African Americans, who tend to be socially conservative. This issue is brought up by the LGBT community many times (including during the whole Prop 8 fiasco) and sometimes even devolves into racism vs homophobia.

Again, there are many people who vote Republican because of the perceived fiscal conservatism not necessarily the social conservatism. Some people even in the Bush White House were socially liberal and the right wing Republicans hated them for it.

 

[The Librarian]

Still waiting on that list.

 

[Terra Firma]

Obama has progressed gay rights more than any president in the history of the united states. He may not have worked as fast as some have wanted, but he has done a shit tons for the community. There is still more to be done, but to deny what he has already accomplished is quite disingenuous.

The rest of your post is just hilarious, especially considering how you derided Obana here.

He repealed DADT, sure, I'll give him that but what has been the bigger issue: DADT, which affects a handful of people in an optional field or gay marriage, which affects every member of the LGBT community, whether in the army or not?

Obama only bothered to speak his mind when that vote against gay marriage was being cast in North Carolina. Obama is a slick politician.

@Dax:

Pay attention to what I've posted. Any list, whether it exists or not, would be irrelevant since the Republicans and Democrats represent their constituency. What matters is that there are sizable groups of Republicans that are for LGBT, such as the Log Cabin Republicans. Even Dick Cheney supports it because his daughter is gay. It is mostly dependent on where you're from.

Go through this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supporters_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Grab a map of the US and plot all these people in support of Gay marriage. You'll find giant vacuums in many southern states.


---

Again, don't get me wrong and think I'm saying voting for Romney is the same as voting for Obama. If I lived in America, I'd never vote for Romney even with a gun to my head but I'd wear a paper bag when voting for Barack Obama.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Terra, Log Cabin Republicans are not elected officials. We're asking you to provide a list of elected officials who support gay rights, and you keep moving the goal posts because there are only a small handful.

 

[PantherLotus]

I think the idea that there's no difference between Bush and Obama as patently offensive.

Regarding the parties, most of what this Canadian guy is observing is regional differences between left and right that could make for a dozen separate parties, when there's only two viable parties in the United States by design.

 

[The Librarian]

@Dax:

Pay attention to what I've posted. Any list, whether it exists or not, would be irrelevant since the Republicans and Democrats represent their constituency. What matters is that there are sizable groups of Republicans that are for LGBT, such as the Log Cabin Republicans. Even Dick Cheney supports it because his daughter is gay. It is mostly dependent on where you're from.

Go through this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supporters_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Grab a map of the US and plot all these people in support of Gay marriage. You'll find giant vacuums in many southern states.

Still waiting on that list of ten.

 

[Terra Firma]

Terra, Log Cabin Republicans are not elected officials. We're asking you to provide a list of elected officials who support gay rights, and you keep moving the goal posts because there are only a small handful.

I've already said, elected officials are only representative of their constituency. They are NOT representative of the party at large. So even if I provide a list (which I'm pretty sure is nonexistent), it would not prove that Republicans are all homophobes because groups like the Log Cabin Republicans disproves that, just how a list of Democrats supporting gay marriage cannot hide the fact that many groups, especially minorities who vote for Democrats in large numbers do not agree with gay marriage but vote Democrat because they're fiscally liberal.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The constituencies determine the political leanings of the candidate that is elected. If a Democrat is elected from the deep south, his voting record will be similar to a Republican. If a Republican is elected from New York, his voting record will be similar to a Democrat. So, there is no difference between "Democrats" and "Republicans" - but there are differences between social liberals and conservatives, both of which are found in both parties, since a person who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal may vote Republican (e.g. rich Hollywood) whereas a person who is fiscally liberal but socially conservative may vote Democrat (e.g. religious Black groups).

And yet you can't provide a general list of republicans who support gay marriage in liberal states/districts. There certainly are some in NY, but overall the number is quite small. And of course on a national scale, the party's positions on gay rights could not be more different. No matter how you spin it, MOST democrats support gay rights and MOST republicans don't support gay rights.

Party members often bow down to the will of their district but democrats tend to favor taxes and spending whereas republicans favor social conservatism, tax cuts, and less spending wherever you go.

Aaron Strife's vote tallys (including House numbers, where there were multiple democrats in more conservative districts) ultimately shit cans your lazy opinion.

 

[Oblivion]

Wait, did we just get a new right wing best friend addition to Poligaf?

 

[Terra Firma]

I think the idea that there's no difference between Bush and Obama as patently offensive.

Regarding the parties, most of what this Canadian guy is observing is regional differences between left and right that could make for a dozen separate parties, when there's only two viable parties in the United States by design.

What this "Canadian guy" has been saying has yet to be refuted. Care to tell me how Obama is different from Bush, especially near the end of his term? On civil liberties? On global interventionism? On the economy?

Bush may have been a disaster when he went into Afghanistan without a plan and went into Iraq to suck up to daddy, but at the end of his presidency, he at least was winding down the wars, which Obama continued to do. Bush also wanted to bailout the banks, just like Obama. Now, Obama did introduce the issue of mandated health care, but everything else more or less remained the same or were made worse (especially on the civil liberties front).

 

[Chumly]

What this "Canadian guy" has been saying has yet to be refuted. Care to tell me how Obama is different from Bush, especially near the end of his term? On civil liberties? On global interventionism? On the economy?

Bush may have been a disaster when he went into Afghanistan without a plan and went into Iraq to suck up to daddy, but at the end of his presidency, he at least was winding down the wars, which Obama continued to do. Bush also wanted to bailout the banks, just like Obama. Now, Obama did introduce the issue of mandated health care, but everything else more or less remained the same or were made worse (especially on the civil liberties front).

lol yet to be refuted. Youve been refuted on all fronts and still can't see it. You have yet to prove that republicans in liberal states support SSM in a meaningful manner at all.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I've already said, elected officials are only representative of their constituency. They are NOT representative of the party at large. So even if I provide a list (which I'm pretty sure is nonexistent), it would not prove that Republicans are all homophobes because groups like the Log Cabin Republicans disproves that, just how a list of Democrats supporting gay marriage cannot hide the fact that many groups, especially minorities who vote for Democrats in large numbers do not agree with gay marriage but vote Democrat because they're fiscally liberal.

So how come the republican party at large does not support gay rights, gay marriage, or repealing DADT? Among individual republicans there is support for the repeal of DADT, and even decent numbers of republicans support gay marriage. Yet the party has quite an anti-gay stance. The existence of the Log Cabin Republicans proves nothing here. In fact, Log Cabin Republicans are often excluded from national conservative events, aren't allowed to speak at conventions, etc.

I don't see how you can argue democrats and republicans are the same on this issue, or on taxes, or on foreign policy. You have no understanding of basic US politics or policy.

I'm going to assume you're trolling, no one can be this dense. Have a good night

 

[bishoptl]

Still waiting on that list of ten.

Me too

That should probably be the next post.

 

[Terra Firma]

And yet you can't provide a general list of republicans who support gay marriage in liberal states/districts. There certainly are some in NY, but overall the number is quite small. And of course on a national scale, the party's positions on gay rights could not be more different. No matter how you spin it, MOST democrats support gay rights and MOST republicans don't support gay rights.

Party members often bow down to the will of their district but democrats tend to favor taxes and spending whereas republicans favor social conservatism, tax cuts, and less spending wherever you go.

Aaron Strife's vote tallys (including House numbers, where there were multiple democrats in more conservative districts) ultimately shit cans your lazy opinion.

This is the problem with this discussion. You and others keep on conflating social opinion and fiscal opinion when a person can be fiscally conservative yet socially liberal and vice versa. So it isn't something that distinguishes parties. As I've said, African American religious groups which overwhelmingly vote Democrat are also overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Many members of the LGBT community blame the African American communities in California for the passing of prop 8, despite California being an overwhelming liberal state.

As also mentioned, votes by elected officials are of no reflection to what the party itself stands for because there is no "manifesto" or common platform. Why would there be opposition to Obama by some Democrats? If Romney overwhelmingly wins in the 2012 elections (and I hope for America's sake that he doesn't), would there be a constitutional ban on gay marriage that could be forced upon states? Even in one of the most liberal, heavily Democrat state of California, proposition 8 passed. What does that mean? That it is ultimately a person's social leanings, not his party affiliation that determines who he votes for.

 

[GaimeGuy]

And yet you can't provide a general list of republicans who support gay marriage in liberal states/districts. There certainly are some in NY, but overall the number is quite small. And of course on a national scale, the party's positions on gay rights could not be more different. No matter how you spin it, MOST democrats support gay rights and MOST republicans don't support gay rights.

Party members often bow down to the will of their district but democrats tend to favor taxes and spending whereas republicans favor social conservatism, tax cuts, and less spending wherever you go.

Aaron Strife's vote tallys (including House numbers, where there were multiple democrats in more conservative districts) ultimately shit cans your lazy opinion.

Every section of the bolded is bullshit

 

[Chumly]

This is the problem with this discussion. You and others keep on conflating social opinion and fiscal opinion when a person can be fiscally conservative yet socially liberal and vice versa. So it isn't something that distinguishes parties. As I've said, African American religious groups which overwhelmingly vote Democrat are also overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Many members of the LGBT community blame the African American communities in California for the passing of prop 8, despite California being an overwhelming liberal state.

As also mentioned, votes by elected officials are of no reflection to what the party itself stands for because there is no "manifesto" or common platform. Why would there be opposition to Obama by some Democrats? If Romney overwhelmingly wins in the 2012 elections (and I hope for America's sake that he doesn't), would there be a constitutional ban on gay marriage that could be forced upon states? Even in one of the most liberal, heavily Democrat state of California, proposition 8 passed. What does that mean? That it is ultimately a person's social leanings, not his party affiliation that determines who he votes for.

The problem with the discussion is that you cannot comprehend that YES it is possible to socially liberal and fiscally conservative but it that group is insignificant. The vast majority of republicans are socially conservative while the vast majority of democrats are socially liberal. You cannot get around that.

 

[Oblivion]

Me too

That should probably be the next post.

Well, Rush Limbaugh invited Elton John to perform at his (4th) wedding.

 

[Terra Firma]

So how come the republican party at large does not support gay rights, gay marriage, or repealing DADT? Among individual republicans there is support for the repeal of DADT, and even decent numbers of republicans support gay marriage. Yet the party has quite an anti-gay stance. The existence of the Log Cabin Republicans proves nothing here. In fact, Log Cabin Republicans are often excluded from national conservative events, aren't allowed to speak at conventions, etc.

I don't see how you can argue democrats and republicans are the same on this issue, or on taxes, or on foreign policy. You have no understanding of basic US politics or policy.

I'm going to assume you're trolling, no one can be this dense. Have a good night

That is because majority rules and old habits are hard to break, especially since the Republican party has to woo the evangelical Christians to remain a viable party in this day and age.

As I said, I'm speaking from an outsider perspective, who has seen parties with actual differences, rather than some problems on peripheral issues.

You are pretty deluded to believe that there is any real difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

Let's look at foreign policy, which we love to blame Bush for. How many Democrats voted for the war in Iraq? How many Republicans? How many Democrats have spoken out against intervening against Iran? How many Republicans? How many Democrats have spoken out for/against intervening in Syria? How many Republicans?

Now, let's look at civil liberties. How many Democrats have spoken out against Obama and his continuation of Bush's policies, from wiretapping to Gitmo to rendition to torture to now killing of American citizens? How many Republicans?

Now, let's look at the economy. How many Democrats have had the guts to ask for an increase in taxation to improve the economy? Why do the Republicans get to do all the talking here?

Meanwhile in Canada, the Liberal party refused to get Canada involved in America's personal war on Saddam, while the Conservative opposition was all for it. Meanwhile in Canada, the newly elected Conservative government decreased our sales tax, which forced the provincial Liberals and New Democrats to introduce the harmonized sale tax (effectively increasing taxation on all imported goods). Meanwhile in Canada, the Conservative government has been trying to improve funding to the military but has been blockaded by the other parties because the priorities are different.

Now, if you want to claim real difference, show me Democrats that actually want a tax increase and are vocal about it and not just letting Billionaire philanthropists do all the talking. Show me Democrats that are actually pushing for universal healthcare, and not just letting the markets decide while mandating it. Show me democrats that are for freedom without infringing on our privacy and being actively vocal about it. Show me Democrats that denounce and continue to denounce all violations of international law, from torture to extraordinary rendition (outsourced torture). Show me Democrats that put individual liberty above paranoia.

I can only think of one (Kucinich) and even he is made a mockery out of by fellow Democrats when he is the only sane elected Democrat who has integrity.

 

[PantherLotus]

^^

 

[Jackson50]

I've already said, elected officials are only representative of their constituency. They are NOT representative of the party at large. So even if I provide a list (which I'm pretty sure is nonexistent), it would not prove that Republicans are all homophobes because groups like the Log Cabin Republicans disproves that, just how a list of Democrats supporting gay marriage cannot hide the fact that many groups, especially minorities who vote for Democrats in large numbers do not agree with gay marriage but vote Democrat because they're fiscally liberal.

Obviously, elected officials are only representative of their constituencies...that's principally why we elect them. Therefore, why do you think more liberal constituencies tend to support the Democratic Party whereas more conservative constituencies tend to support the Republicans? The Democratic Party is comparably liberal. Furthermore, we can test for a partisan effect by comparing the voting records of mixed Senate delegations. Senators from different parties have identical constituencies. Thus, if your hypothesis is correct, Democratic and Republican Senators from the same state will have identical voting records. Except, when you compare the voting records of mixed Senate delegations, they frequently diverge on party differences. Consequently, the parties are differential. Now, are parties the only independent determinant of policy preferences? No. As you have aptly displayed, geography also exerts a substantial effect. Yet even when controlling for geography, the fissures between the parties manifests. For example, in the Wikipedia entry to which you linked, why are the Democratic state parties the only parties to support gay marriage? Why have Republican state parties from the same states conspicuously failed to include marriage equality in their platform? The answer should be glaringly obvious.

 

[Terra Firma]

The problem with the discussion is that you cannot comprehend that YES it is possible to socially liberal and fiscally conservative but it that group is insignificant. The vast majority of republicans are socially conservative while the vast majority of democrats are socially liberal. You cannot get around that.

I've mentioned religious African Americans many times. They are overwhelmingly Democrat but they are also socially conservative. As I've mentioned before, many in the LGBT community in California blame the religious African American community in California for the passing of proposition 8, despite the state being considered extremely liberal.

 

[Terra Firma]

Every section of the bolded is bullshit

Only in America is "taxing and spending" twisted to be seen as an inherently bad thing...

Obviously, elected officials are only representative of their constituencies...that's principally why we elect them. Therefore, why do you think more liberal constituencies tend to support the Democratic Party whereas more conservative constituencies tend to support the Republicans? The Democratic Party is comparably liberal. Furthermore, we can test for a partisan effect by comparing the voting records of mixed Senate delegations. Senators from different parties have identical constituencies. Thus, if your hypothesis is correct, Democratic and Republican Senators from the same state will have identical voting records. Except, when you compare the voting records of mixed Senate delegations, they frequently diverge on party differences. Consequently, the parties are differential. Now, are parties the only independent determinant of policy preferences? No. As you have aptly displayed, geography also exerts a substantial effect. Yet even when controlling for geography, the fissures between the parties manifests. For example, in the Wikipedia entry to which you linked, why are the Democratic state parties the only parties to support gay marriage? Why have Republican state parties from the same states conspicuously failed to include marriage equality in their platform? The answer should be glaringly obvious.

Then can you please explain why this phenomenon exists when there is no official party manifesto in either the Republican or Democratic camp that states that one has to be pro or against gay rights?

As I see it, it is a matter of the Republican party appeasing the masses of evangelicals as part of a national agenda. Conversely, last I checked, the US had 50 states and only 20 of the 50 state Democratic parties have endorsed gay marriage - a whopping 30 state Democratic parties haven't done so. Many of the absentee states are the usual suspects (e.g. North Carolina, Louisiana, Arizona).

 

[XMonkey]

You should probably stick to Canadian politics.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

^^

He waits; that's what he does.

And I tell you what: tick followed tock followed tick followed tock followed tick...

 

[Chumly]

I've mentioned religious African Americans many times. They are overwhelmingly Democrat but they are also socially conservative. As I've mentioned before, many in the LGBT community in California blame the religious African American community in California for the passing of proposition 8, despite the state being considered extremely liberal.

John Lewis out of Georgia (GASP) a Black man (GASP) supports gay rights. Bob Kerry out of Nebraska (GASP) supported gay rights. You haven't proved anything. Your literally just making up stuff and stating them as facts.

Obviously, elected officials are only representative of their constituencies...that's principally why we elect them. Therefore, why do you think more liberal constituencies tend to support the Democratic Party whereas more conservative constituencies tend to support the Republicans? The Democratic Party is comparably liberal. Furthermore, we can test for a partisan effect by comparing the voting records of mixed Senate delegations. Senators from different parties have identical constituencies. Thus, if your hypothesis is correct, Democratic and Republican Senators from the same state will have identical voting records. Except, when you compare the voting records of mixed Senate delegations, they frequently diverge on party differences. Consequently, the parties are differential. Now, are parties the only independent determinant of policy preferences? No. As you have aptly displayed, geography also exerts a substantial effect. Yet even when controlling for geography, the fissures between the parties manifests. For example, in the Wikipedia entry to which you linked, why are the Democratic state parties the only parties to support gay marriage? Why have Republican state parties from the same states conspicuously failed to include marriage equality in their platform? The answer should be glaringly obvious.

Exactly

 

[Terra Firma]

John Lewis out of Georgia (GASP) a Black man (GASP) supports gay rights. Bob Kerry out of Nebraska (GASP) supported gay rights. You haven't proved anything. Your literally just making up stuff and stating them as facts.

Are you really trying to prove your point by pointing out individuals? Last I checked, the parties were made up overwhelmingly by their voters.

Furthermore, you're making this a race issue, when it is clearly a religion issue. A lot African Americans that are also Democrats are also religious Christians and tend to be socially conservative. A simple Google search will show you the contentions that the LGBT community has had with the religious African American community. Even black members of the LGBT community have taken issue with the religious African American community, which continues to support the Democrats while still not being in support of equal marriage.

Just read this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/did-blacks-tank/

The difference between an evangelical white Christian and a black Christian tends to be on the fiscal side, with evangelical white Christians being against taxation and government spending, whereas black Christians being more supportive of social programs and not supportive of trickle down economics. On the social side, it is their being Christian which unites them against gay marriage.

 

[PantherLotus]

I still think the idea that Obama is no different than Bush is really extremely offensive.

The examples of Iraq and Afghanistan are largely academic -- the foreign policy differences between the left and the right here usually deal with how we view the UN, but since Bush was in office the rhetoric of hate toward 'the new world order' and the UN has gone through the roof. LOL Imagine Bush addressing the Muslim world like Obama did in Egypt.

The examples of civil liberties are also largely irrelevant, though I know it bothers a lot of people. That's one of the issues with having a prime minister that is also the commander in chief which is also the head of state -- once a new power is discovered by the executive, it is rarely if ever relinquished. Still, I don't know anyone that is satisfied with how Obama has handled civil liberties, but I know lots of people that would give up a little freedom to feel more protected from terrorists.

The other examples are bullshit, insulting, and identify the bearer as someone with a very cursory view of American politics (like California being "extremely liberal"). There's a vast gulf between approaches to social welfare, equal rights, environmental protection, worker's rights, not to mention taxes. Equating the two as the same just because both are to the right of the spectrum of your parties is silly and uneducated. I appreciate that you're trying, but really, you sound fucking ridiculous. GTFO with that bullshit.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Now jumping on the debunked "blacks shitcanned prop 8" shit? Yea, come on. I wouldn't walk into a European thread and start throwing out nonsensical comparisons, assertions, and non facts.

 

[PantherLotus]

Now jumping on the debunked "blacks shitcanned prop 8" shit? Yea, come on. I wouldn't walk into a European thread and start throwing out nonsensical comparisons, assertions, and non facts.

LOL I heard all swedes are nazis.

 

[PantherLotus]

Are you really trying to prove your point by pointing out individuals? Last I checked, the parties were made up overwhelmingly by their voters.

Furthermore, you're making this a race issue, when it is clearly a religion issue. A lot African Americans that are also Democrats are also religious Christians and tend to be socially conservative. A simple Google search will show you the contentions that the LGBT community has had with the religious African American community. Even black members of the LGBT community have taken issue with the religious African American community, which continues to support the Democrats while still not being in support of equal marriage.

Just read this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/did-blacks-tank/

The difference between an evangelical white Christian and a black Christian tends to be on the fiscal side, with evangelical white Christians being against taxation and government spending, whereas black Christians being more supportive of social programs and not supportive of trickle down economics. On the social side, it is their being Christian which unites them against gay marriage.

You need to stop bro.

 

[Terra Firma]

Now jumping on the debunked "blacks shitcanned prop 8" shit? Yea, come on. I wouldn't walk into a European thread and start throwing out nonsensical comparisons, assertions, and non facts.

Comprehension helps. I never said race was the factor. It is RELIGION that is the factor.

 

[Chumly]

Are you really trying to prove your point by pointing out individuals? Last I checked, the parties were made up overwhelmingly by their voters.

Furthermore, you're making this a race issue, when it is clearly a religion issue. A lot African Americans that are also Democrats are also religious Christians and tend to be socially conservative. A simple Google search will show you the contentions that the LGBT community has had with the religious African American community. Even black members of the LGBT community have taken issue with the religious African American community, which continues to support the Democrats while still not being in support of equal marriage.

Just read this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/did-blacks-tank/

The difference between an evangelical white Christian and a black Christian tends to be on the fiscal side, with evangelical white Christians being against taxation and government spending, whereas black Christians being more supportive of social programs and not supportive of trickle down economics. On the social side, it is their being Christian which unites them against gay marriage.

So what does any of this have to do with your ABSURD notion that democrats and republicans are even REMOTELY the same on SSM rights? You have not posted one lick of evidence to back your opinions.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Comprehension helps. I never said race was the factor. It is RELIGION that is the factor.

Most black voters are religious, so what's your point - and blacks happen to be the most homophobic minority in the country. If you had paid any attention to the events instead of blindly looking for links to support your half assed positions, maybe you wouldn't fall in so many logical ditches.

Black people don't vote republican for a variety of reasons, most of which you did not list

 

[XMonkey]

Honestly, if both parties were the same on so many issues as Terra is so hellbent on being wrong about, we wouldn't be faced with the shitshow that is our Congress for the last 4 years (and arguably before that as well, but it's definitely not as partisan and ineffective then as it is currently).

 

[Terra Firma]

I still think the idea that Obama is no different than Bush is really extremely offensive.

The examples of Iraq and Afghanistan are largely academic -- the foreign policy differences between the left and the right here usually deal with how we view the UN, but since Bush was in office the rhetoric of hate toward 'the new world order' and the UN has gone through the roof. LOL Imagine Bush addressing the Muslim world like Obama did in Egypt.

The examples of civil liberties are also largely irrelevant, though I know it bothers a lot of people. That's one of the issues with having a prime minister that is also the commander in chief which is also the head of state -- once a new power is discovered by the executive, it is rarely if ever relinquished. Still, I don't know anyone that is satisfied with how Obama has handled civil liberties, but I know lots of people that would give up a little freedom to feel more protected from terrorists.

The other examples are bullshit, insulting, and identify the bearer as someone with a very cursory view of American politics (like California being "extremely liberal"). There's a vast gulf between approaches to social welfare, equal rights, environmental protection, worker's rights, not to mention taxes. Equating the two as the same just because both are to the right of the spectrum of your parties is silly and uneducated. I appreciate that you're trying, but really, you sound fucking ridiculous. GTFO with that bullshit.

So, you essentially have no problem with Obama's foreign policy (which is not just the same, but worse than Bush's at this point) and you have no problem with Obama's civil liberties (instead you choose to dust it under the rug!)?

Are you even a liberal? (and no, I'm not American so this term is not a pejorative)

Sheesh. That's the thing with party allegiance. At least PhoenixDark conceded that Obama has been crap on the civil liberties front.

So what does any of this have to do with your ABSURD notion that democrats and republicans are even REMOTELY the same on SSM rights? You have not posted one lick of evidence to back your opinions.

Were those religious African Americans Democrats or Republicans? Is California overwhelming Democrat or Republican? Who did most of this state vote for in the last election? Did proposition 8 pass or fail in this same state?

 

[reilo]

Are you really trying to prove your point by pointing out individuals? Last I checked, the parties were made up overwhelmingly by their voters.

Furthermore, you're making this a race issue, when it is clearly a religion issue. A lot African Americans that are also Democrats are also religious Christians and tend to be socially conservative. A simple Google search will show you the contentions that the LGBT community has had with the religious African American community. Even black members of the LGBT community have taken issue with the religious African American community, which continues to support the Democrats while still not being in support of equal marriage.

Just read this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/did-blacks-tank/

The difference between an evangelical white Christian and a black Christian tends to be on the fiscal side, with evangelical white Christians being against taxation and government spending, whereas black Christians being more supportive of social programs and not supportive of trickle down economics. On the social side, it is their being Christian which unites them against gay marriage.

You do realize that democrats are predominantly religious, too, right? So let me ask you: why are they pro-LGBT rights despite their religious beliefs?

 

[PantherLotus]

Oh ok you're trolling. I thought you were serious for a bit.

Heads up: there was a post on the last page to which you should pay attention. Getting banned as a junior, last I heard, is a permanent thing.

 

[Chumly]

Were those religious African Americans Democrats or Republicans? Is California overwhelming Democrat or Republican? Who did most of this state vote for in the last election? Did proposition 8 pass or fail in this same state?

Which party led the charge against Proposition 8 in the state of California? Ill give you ONE guess.

 

[Terra Firma]

Most black voters are religious, so what's your point - and blacks happen to be the most homophobic minority in the country. If you had paid any attention to the events instead of blindly looking for links to support your half assed positions, maybe you wouldn't fall in so many logical ditches.

Black people don't vote republican for a variety of reasons, most of which you did not list

Yes, they don't vote Republican because the Republican party tends to favour trickle down economics that doesn't work and helps the wealthy. They also don't vote Republican because there's the notion of racism in the Republican party (many Republican voters also tend to be racist or less understanding of diversity). Yes, there is a plethora of reasons why some religious African Americans don't vote Republican.

But the fact remains that they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats and they overwhelmingly were in favour of prop 8. Now, you can say that this is a religious black phenomenon, to which a Republican in favour of gay marriage would say that the religious evangelical Christian community pulls the strings of the Republican party, preventing it from endorsing gay marriage, especially since it has a much larger stranglehold on the Republicans than religious African Americans have on the Democrats.

 

[Averon]

I cannot see how you can witness what's happened politically in the US over the past 3-4 years and argue Democrats and the GOP are exactly the same. I really can't.

edit: To argue Democrats and the GOP are the same on SSM and gay rights in general is fucking laughable.

 

[Oblivion]

Now jumping on the debunked "blacks shitcanned prop 8" shit? Yea, come on. I wouldn't walk into a European thread and start throwing out nonsensical comparisons, assertions, and non facts.

Was this debunked? I'm not up to date on the facts.

 

[Chumly]

Hey, this thread got fun! Looking forward to seeing the legendary list of 10.

To help him out in his research.......

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives that support SSM. Its like finding wheres waldo. Can you spot the republican?



Gary Ackerman[122] (D–New York)
Rob Andrews[123] (D–New Jersey)
Tammy Baldwin[56] (D–Wisconsin)
Karen Bass[124] (D–California)
Xavier Becerra[125] (D–California)
Shelley Berkley[56] (D–Nevada)
Tim Bishop[126] (D–New York)
Earl Blumenauer[127] (D–Oregon)
Suzanne Bonamici[128] (D–Oregon)
Bruce Braley[129] (D–Iowa)
Lois Capps[130] (D–California)
Mike Capuano[131] (D–Massachusetts)
André Carson[132] (D–Indiana)
Judy Chu[133] (D–California)
David Cicilline[134] (D–Rhode Island)
Yvette Clarke[135] (D–New York)
Emanuel Cleaver[136] (D–Missouri)
Former Majority Whip Jim Clyburn[137] (D–South Carolina)
Steve Cohen[138] (D–Tennessee)
Gerry Connolly[139] (D–Virginia)
John Conyers[56] (D–Michigan)
Joe Courtney[140] (D–Connecticut)
Joseph Crowley[141] (D–New York)
Danny K. Davis[142] (D–Illinois)
Susan Davis[143] (D–California)
Diana DeGette[144] (D–Colorado)
Rosa DeLauro[145] (D–Connecticut)
Ted Deutch[146] (D–Florida)
Norman D. Dicks[147] (D–Washington)
Lloyd Doggett[148] (D–Texas)
Donna Edwards[149] (D–Maryland)
Keith Ellison[56] (D–Minnesota)
Eliot Engel[150] (D–New York)
Anna Eshoo[151] (D–California)
Sam Farr[152] (D–California)
Chaka Fattah[153] (D–Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner[154] (D–California)
Barney Frank[131] (D–Massachusetts)
Marcia Fudge[155] (D–Ohio)
John Garamendi[90] (D–California)
Charlie Gonzalez[56] (D–Texas)
Raúl Grijalva[56] (D–Arizona)
Luis Gutiérrez[156] (D–Illinois)
Janice Hahn[157] (D–California)
Alcee Hastings[158] (D–Florida)
Martin Heinrich[56] (D–New Mexico)
Brian Higgins[159] (D–New York)
Jim Himes[160] (D–Connecticut)
Maurice Hinchey[161] (D–New York)
Mazie Hirono[91] (D–Hawaii)
Kathy Hochul[162] (D–New York)
Rush Holt[123] (D–New Jersey)
Mike Honda[163] (D–California)
Minority Whip Steny Hoyer[164] (D–Maryland)
Steve Israel[165] (D–New York)
Sheila Jackson Lee[166] (D–Texas)
Jesse Jackson, Jr.[167] (D–Illinois)
William R. Keating[131] (D–Massachusetts)
Dennis Kucinich[168] (D–Ohio)
James Langevin[169] (D–Rhode Island)
Rick Larsen[170] (D–Washington)
Barbara Lee[171] (D–California)
John Lewis[172] (D–Georgia)
Zoe Lofgren[173] (D–California)
Nita Lowey[174] (D–New York)
Ben R. Luján[175] (D–New Mexico)
Stephen Lynch[131] (D–Massachusetts)
Carolyn B. Maloney[141] (D–New York)
Ed Markey[131] (D–Massachusetts)
Doris Matsui[176] (D–California)
Betty McCollum[177] (D–Minnesota)
Jim McDermott[178] (D–Washington)
Jim McGovern[131] (D–Massachusetts)
Jerry McNerney[179] (D–California)
Gregory Meeks[180] (D–New York)
George Miller[181] (D–California)
Gwen Moore[182] (D–Wisconsin)
Jim Moran[183] (D–Virginia)
Chris Murphy[184] (D–Connecticut)
Jerrold Nadler[56] (D–New York)
Richard Neal[131] (D–Massachusetts)
John Olver[131] (D–Massachusetts)
Frank Pallone[123] (D–New Jersey)
Bill Pascrell[185] (D–New Jersey)
Minority Leader and Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi[56] (D–California)
Ed Perlmutter[186] (D–Colorado)
Gary Peters[187] (D–Michigan)
Chellie Pingree[188] (D–Maine)
Jared Polis[56] (D–Colorado)
Michael Quigley[56] (D–Illinois)
Charles B. Rangel[189] (D–New York)
Laura Richardson[190] (D–California)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen[191] (R–Florida)
Steve Rothman[123] (D–New Jersey)
Lucille Roybal-Allard[192] (D–California)
Tim Ryan[193] (D–Ohio)
Linda Sánchez[194] (D–California)
John Sarbanes[195] (D–Maryland)
Jan Schakowsky[56] (D–Illinois)
Adam Schiff[196] (D–California)
Allyson Schwartz[197] (D–Pennsylvania)
José Enrique Serrano[198] (D–New York)
Brad Sherman[196] (D–California)
Albio Sires[185] (D–New Jersey)
Louise Slaughter[199] (D–New York)
Adam Smith[200] (D–Washington)
Jackie Speier[201] (D–California)
Pete Stark[202] (D–California)
Betty Sutton[203] (D–Ohio)
Mike Thompson[204] (D–California)
John F. Tierney[131] (D–Massachusetts)
Paul Tonko[205] (D–New York)
Edolphus Towns[206] (D–New York)
Niki Tsongas[131] (D–Massachusetts)
Chris Van Hollen[56] (D–Maryland)
Nydia Velázquez[207] (D–New York)
Tim Walz[208] (D–Minnesota)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz[209] (D–Florida)
Mel Watt[210] (D–North Carolina)
Henry Waxman[211] (D–California)
Peter Welch[212] (D–Vermont)
Frederica Wilson[213] (D–Florida)
Lynn Woolsey[214] (D–California)
John Yarmuth[215] (D–Kentucky)

 

[Terra Firma]

You do realize that democrats are predominantly religious, too, right? So let me ask you: why are they pro-LGBT rights despite their religious beliefs?

Are Democrats predominantly evangelical? The religious black community in the US is similar to the white evangelical community in terms of religious beliefs, whereas non-evangelical Christians tend to use the Bible as a guide, rather than a literal book of dos and don'ts. Now, I think it's safe to say that the majority of the white evangelical community is Republican so it forces its politics upon the party.

Which party led the charge against Proposition 8 in the state of California? Ill give you ONE guess.

Does that mean that the Republicans in California were overwhelming for prop 8? Even Arnold was against it.

http://www.republicansagainst8.com/

Can people not read? I've already conceded that a list of 10 probably does not exist and I've said why it may not exist.

@PantherLotus:

If you've got nothing to say except for threats, then you should probably leave.

I cannot see how you can witness what's happened politically in the US over the past 3-4 years and argue Democrats and the GOP are exactly the same. I really can't.

edit: To argue Democrats and the GOP are the same on SSM and gay rights in general is fucking laughable.

The argument wasn't whether Democrats and the Repubs are the same on gay rights, but that they are fundamentally the same. Gay rights is just one facet.

 

[Terra Firma]

edit see above

 

[Chumly]

Does that mean that the Republicans in California were overwhelming for prop 8? Even Arnold was against it.

http://www.republicansagainst8.com/

Yes republicans in the state of California were overwhelmingly for prop 8. I think to sum it up I will just quote you:

Are you really trying to prove your point by pointing out individuals? Last I checked, the parties were made up overwhelmingly by their voters.

The argument wasn't whether Democrats and the Repubs are the same on gay rights, but that they are fundamentally the same. Gay rights is just one facet.

Your right. You have been wrong on multiple facets of the democrat/republican party.

 

[Oblivion]

Hey, this thread got fun! Looking forward to seeing the legendary list of 10.

Maybe they're like the Shichibukai and can only be completely revealed after a certain amount of time has passed?

 

[Terra Firma]

Yes republicans in the state of California were overwhelmingly against prop 8. I think to sum it up I will just quote you:

So it's okay for you to say that individuals who are elected members of the state Democratic party are somehow representative of all Democrats, including the religious African Americans who voted against prop 8 but not okay for me to point out that even the Republican state party was against prop 8?

 

[Chumly]

So it's okay for you to say that individuals who are elected members of the state Democratic party are somehow representative of all Democrats, including the religious African Americans who voted against prop 8 but not okay for me to point out that even the Republican state party was against prop 8?

LINK

A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California shows that the ballot measure banning gay marriage in California received its strongest support from Republicans and evangelical Christians.

The poll was taken after the Nov. 4 elections and found that despite the heated debate over Prop. 8, opinions in California about gay marriage have not changed very much.

"When voters are asked the separate question of whether they favor or oppose same-sex marriage, they are divided, with 47 percent in favor, 48 percent opposed, and 5 percent unsure," according to the PPIC poll results statement. "[It's] a result consistent with responses in the October PPIC preelection survey."

The PPIC survey, which received funding from the James Irvine Foundation, polled 2,003 California voters, who were contacted by phone November 5–16, 2008. The poll has a margin of error of 2%, perhaps more for subgroups surveyed.

Among the findings:

-- Evangelical or born-again Christians (85%) were far more likely than others (42%) to vote yes.

-- Three in four Republicans (77%) voted yes, two in three Democrats (65%) voted no, and independents were more closely divided (52% yes, 48% no).

-- Voters without a college degree (62%) were far more likely than college graduates (43%) to vote yes.

While there has been much made about the strong support for Prop. 8 among African Americans, the sample size for blacks was too small in this poll to report separately.

-- Shelby Grad

Tell me again what party supports SSM and what party doesn't?

 

[Dude Abides]

Terra Firma is wrong about almost everything but he does at least try to support his position and his perspective is good for discussion.