Support NeoGAF

[Mercury Fred]

fred is still sad that hillary lost

Yes, all criticism of Obama should always refer back to the Clintons. You sound like a Republican.

 

[Cheebs]

Then why is Obama throwing a historic segment of the Democratic block under the bus to pander to a group of wingnuts who are never going to vote for him anyway? And if you think voting gay Americans don't care about these statements you're wrong.

Obama is the worst kind of hypocrite, which is to be expected as this is politics. But the idea of "new politics" in association with Obama is just absurd.

Never going to win anyway? That is clueless. Nearly every state it was on the ballot it lost, by easily over 50% in many states he NEEDS to win like Ohio and Michigan. If 50%+ of Ohio and Michigan "are never going to vote for him anyway" he is fucked.

And I never said Gay Americans don't care about the issue, I said Americans (as a whole don't). It never even registers in the top 10 concerns of voters in polls, unlike 2004.

Gay Marrige is NOT an important issue this year. Period.

 

[lopaz]

Then why is Obama throwing a historic segment of the Democratic block under the bus to pander to a group of wingnuts who are never going to vote for him anyway? And if you think voting gay Americans don't care about these statements you're wrong.

Obama is the worst kind of hypocrite, which is to be expected as this is politics. But the idea of "new politics" in association with Obama is just absurd.

I remember him talking to a gay magazine ages ago and he basically said the reason he wasn't pushing for gay marriage was cause he didn't think it was achievable. Now he's against it on moral grounds or some shit. Poor form.

 

[Cheebs]

I remember him talking to a gay magazine ages ago and he basically said the reason he wasn't pushing for gay marriage was cause he didn't think it was achievable. Now he's against it on moral grounds or some shit. Poor form.

He has never changed his position on gay marriage. He has been anti-gay marriage, pro-civil unions ever since he was a state senator. He was against it on moral grounds in his 2004 senate election, you are mistaken.

 

[Mercury Fred]

I remember him talking to a gay magazine ages ago and he basically said the reason he wasn't pushing for gay marriage was cause he didn't think it was achievable. Now he's against it on moral grounds or some shit. Poor form.

Exactly. It's one thing to say that it's not achievable yet, but it's another to take a pandering "moral grounds" stance on this.

 

[Cheebs]

Exactly. It's one thing to say that it's not achievable yet, but it's another to take a pandering "moral grounds" stance on this.

Except Obama was ALWAYS against it on moral grounds?

 

[SouthernDragon]

Oh, for the love of...

Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Not this shit again, Fred. Obama was reiterating the same policy you've been complaining about for months.

 

[Odrion]

fred, seriously, vote for mccain

 

[Cheebs]

Oh, for the love of...

Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water.

He supported Hillary. That should explain everything you need to know.

I would support a law banning Hillary voters from sharing opinions about Obama. They always look like idiots when they do.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Except Obama was ALWAYS against it on moral grounds?

Sure, it was ALWAYS a shitty defense of a position for a Democratic leader to take.

The hypocrisy I'm referring to concerns the idea that Obama positions himself as progressive while he spouts off draconian crap about gay marriage.

fred, seriously, vote for mccain

I wouldn't vote for McCain if you paid me.

I'm bitching about this again because Obama is putting his foot in his mouth about this AGAIN. If he'd shut his fucking trap and stop throwing me and other gay Americans under the bus then I'd stop posting about this.

 

[Cheebs]

Sure, it was ALWAYS a shitty defense of a position for a Democratic leader to take.

The hypocrisy I'm referring to concerns the idea that Obama positions himself as progressive while he spouts off draconian crap about gay marriage.

Gay Marriage doesn't define a progressive, like I said the public and the political parties don't treat as an important issue.

Your beloved Hillary was just as much anti-gay marriage as Obama.

As was Kerry.

As was Gore.

Expecting the Dem nominee, no matter the year, to support gay marriage is like wanting them to give you a million dollars. Not happening.

If it is so important vote Nader, the Democratic Party is NOT the party of gay marriage. Dem party is a moderate liberal leaning party. It isn't what you are looking for.

 

[soul creator]

Hasn't this always been Obama's view.

a lot of people call out Obama for flip-flopping for things he's never actually changed his mind on. The only real "flip-flop" was the whole "I will filibuster FISA" thing. He's always had a "I personally think marriage is between a man and a woman due to my religion, but government-wise gay couples should have the exact same rights".

I've mentioned many times before but the "change" that he puts forth has always been in campaign-style, not dumbing himself down, open to compromise, speaking directly, etc., and not "change" in the sense that he's some raging liberal that will destroy the evil conservatives. Obama is (and always has been) relatively moderate in a lot of areas. Actual "raging liberals" hate him in a lot of ways, lol.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Gay Marriage doesn't define a progressive, like I said the public and the political parties don't treat as an important issue.

Your beloved Hillary was just as much anti-gay marriage as Obama.

As was Kerry.

As was Gore.

We've been through this. Hillary was never my "beloved" candidate. She was an attack dog that I thought had the best shot of beating a Republican contender. However, she never took the position that she was against gay marriage because of some man in the sky book morality bullshit. Had she done so, I would have blasted her in the same way.

 

[Odrion]

If he'd shut his fucking trap and stop throwing me and other gay Americans under the bus then I'd stop posting about this.

I didn't know you were gay. I can see why you want Obama to fuck off on this issue.

 

[lopaz]

Goddamn I can't find the link. You guys are right, he has said in the past that he was against it because of his religion, but I'm sure there was one interview with a gay magazine where he said it was down to practicality

 

[Cheebs]

Goddamn I can't find the link. You guys are right, he has said in the past that he was against it because of his religion, but I'm sure there was one interview with a gay magazine where he said it was down to practicality

He probably pandered a bit for the magazine but he has been against it since his political career began in 1995.

 

[Cheebs]

We've been through this. Hillary was never my "beloved" candidate. She was an attack dog that I thought had the best shot of beating a Republican contender. However, she never took the position that she was against gay marriage because of some man in the sky book morality bullshit. Had she done so, I would have blasted her in the same way.

Obama is the first born again christian nominee since Jimmy Carter. What did you expect?

 

[Hitokage]

Then why is Obama throwing a historic segment of the Democratic block under the bus to pander to a group of wingnuts who are never going to vote for him anyway? And if you think voting gay Americans don't care about these statements you're wrong.

Yet he's not pandering. If anything, saying otherwise would be.

Obama is the worst kind of hypocrite, which is to be expected as this is politics. But the idea of "new politics" in association with Obama is just absurd.

"You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

 

[Odrion]

sucks that the democrats get a candidate that has a lot going religiously to the point where we got excited that obama may get the evangelical vote, and it turns out they're siding with mccain

why is that?

 

[soul creator]

I'm not sure why Obama's position causes so much anger (then again, I'm not gay). His religious, Christian side think marriage is between a man and a woman, but his governmental side (the side that actually matters to voters) thinks gay couples should have the same exact rights as a "regular" marriage. Which is why he opposes amendments banning it, is perfectly fine with California's decision, etc.

I'm not sure why people keep expecting his religious side to redefine marriage. *shrug*

 

[Mercury Fred]

I'm not sure why Obama's position causes so much anger (then again, I'm not gay). His religious, Christian side think marriage is between a man and a woman, but his governmental side (the side that actually matters to voters) thinks gay couples should have the same exact rights as a "regular" marriage. Which is why he opposes amendments banning it, is perfectly fine with California's decision, etc.

I'm not sure why people keep expecting his religious side to redefine marriage. *shrug*

We have a (ever eroding) separation between church and state.

 

[Cheebs]

We have a (ever eroding) separation between church and state.

The church didn't decide the gay marriage laws, peoples beliefs did. Not the same thing. People can vote and support issues on any belief they want and that does not interfere at all with church and state separation.

Putting a big statue of Jesus on the cross in a court house? Breaking church and state separation.

Supporting a bill due to religious beliefs? Nothing to do with church and state.

 

[lopaz]

I'm not sure why Obama's position causes so much anger (then again, I'm not gay). His religious, Christian side think marriage is between a man and a woman, but his governmental side (the side that actually matters to voters) thinks gay couples should have the same exact rights as a "regular" marriage. Which is why he opposes amendments banning it, is perfectly fine with California's decision, etc.

I'm not sure why people keep expecting his religious side to redefine marriage. *shrug*

Well he's taking the view that it's up to the states, which basically doesn't help. A federal guarantee of equal rights for gay civil unions would be better

 

[soul creator]

Well he's taking the view that it's up to the states, which basically doesn't help. A federal guarantee of equal rights for gay civil unions would be better

well yeah, and that's understandable. Then again, if you take the Gaborn side of things, he actually would support Obama leaving it to the states, and sees federal civil unions as bad, lol.

And yeah, "separation of church and state" doesn't necessarily mean politicians should never have religious beliefs. It's just meant that those religious beliefs should be forced upon others by the state. Obama personally being a Christian and talking about it isn't "violating church and state".

Of course, being a nonbeliever, justifying anything based on what some invisible dude wrote in an old book doesn't make any sense to me, but I'm in the minority on that

 

[The Librarian]

"You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

<3 Princess Bride.

 

[Hop]

Well he's taking the view that it's up to the states, which basically doesn't help. A federal guarantee of equal rights for gay civil unions would be better

Still better than the "fuck all y'all" mentality I get from McCain. But yea, I just care about the legal rights, I don't care if a church won't marry me. And Obama's about as good as the GLBT community's gonna get for a *long* time. thisisamericadude.gif and all that. (Though I'm sure being on the BT part of the community probably makes my view different than G and L, but that divide's been around anyway...)

 

[lopaz]

well yeah, and that's understandable. Then again, if you take the Gaborn side of things, he actually would support Obama leaving it to the states, and sees federal civil unions as bad, lol

See I don't get how to him state government is okay, but federal isn't. But then again it's Gabby

 

[Hitokage]

Obama is the first born again christian nominee since Jimmy Carter. What did you expect?

I haven't seen anything to support the use of this term, be it for Trinity UCC, its affiliation with the United Church of Christ, or its roots in congregationalism. Most importantly, Obama's own description of his conversion is not one of dramatic renewal, but one of gradual recognition and acceptance.

 

[Cheebs]

I haven't seen anything to support the use of this term, be it for Trinity UCC, its affiliation with the United Church of Christ, or its roots in congregationalism. Most importantly, Obama's own description of his conversion is not one of dramatic renewal, but one of gradual recognition and acceptance.

To be fair I dont got a clue what means since my family is fairly secular I thought it referred to those who "saw the light" as adults.

 

[Hitokage]

To be fair I dont got a clue what means since my family is fairly secular I thought it referred to those who "saw the light" as adults.

No, that's just being a convert, but even in "saw the light" terms, that isn't how Obama described it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Then why is Obama throwing a historic segment of the Democratic block under the bus to pander to a group of wingnuts who are never going to vote for him anyway? And if you think voting gay Americans don't care about these statements you're wrong.

Obama is the worst kind of hypocrite, which is to be expected as this is politics. But the idea of "new politics" in association with Obama is just absurd.

Since when are homosexuals "historic segments" of the party worth losing an election over? I'm not suggesting Obama is against gay marriage for political reasons, but the demographic certainly isn't large enough to win or lose an election for. I'd imagine many homosexuals are grown up enough to realize that while they aren't getting exactly what they want, with Obama they will be getting SOMETHING (civil unions) as opposed to NOTHING.

 

[APF]

Obama's always been bad regarding gay marriage. It's the Dems as a whole who should be cast as hypocrites on this issue, not him specifically.

 

[tanod]

For VP, I still think it will be either:

Clark - didn't vote for Iraq and despite everybody telling us it will not be Clark

or:

Biden - did vote for Iraq

It will happen on Monday or Tuesday of this week.

 

[speculawyer]

Then why is Obama throwing a historic segment of the Democratic block under the bus to pander to a group of wingnuts who are never going to vote for him anyway? And if you think voting gay Americans don't care about these statements you're wrong.

Obama is the worst kind of hypocrite, which is to be expected as this is politics. But the idea of "new politics" in association with Obama is just absurd.

Small steps, Fred, small steps.

I know how you feel. But there are people who would consider voting for Obama who might change their mind on this issue. There is not much one can do about gay marriage as President, so there is not much of a reason to stick his neck out for it. And he did come out against the California constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage.

 

[speculawyer]

I didn't know you were gay. I can see why you want Obama to fuck off on this issue.

Dude!

Mercury Fred
time to drop the homocard
(Today, 10:05 AM)
Reply | Quote

And you know who Freddie Mercury was, right?

 

[reilo]

You can make all the people happy some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot make all the people happy all the time.

Actually, I think I prefer Lincoln's version:

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

This one is REALLY good:

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

 

[ZealousD]

The hypocrisy I'm referring to concerns the idea that Obama positions himself as progressive while he spouts off draconian crap about gay marriage.

Being a progressive doesn't mean you take the progressive stance on every issue.

And please don't become somebody that cares only about one issue. Then you're no better than many other people who vote on wedge issues like abortion, guns, or even the people on the other side of the debate on gay marriage.

Anyway, I still believe the word "marriage" should be stricken off legal documents if it's such a religiously involved institution. Put everybody on civil unions, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

 

[grandjedi6]

Obama's always been bad regarding gay marriage. It's the Dems as a whole who should be cast as hypocrites on this issue, not him specifically.

The only ones in the Dem primary who even were pro-gay marriage was Kuchinich and Gravel. Pretty sad

I still have faith it'll change in time though. Right now its political suicide to support gay marriage so everyone goes into hypocrite mode. But not forever.

 

[TDG]

The only ones in the Dem primary who even were pro-gay marriage was Kuchinich and Gravel. Pretty sad

I still have faith it'll change in time though. Right now its political suicide to support gay marriage so everyone goes into hypocrite mode. But not forever.

At least obama is in favor of civil unions with the same rights as married couples. His position is not ideal, but it certainly could be worse (see: John McCain.)

 

[The Librarian]

The only ones in the Dem primary who even were pro-gay marriage was Kuchinich and Gravel. Pretty sad

I still have faith it'll change in time though. Right now its political suicide to support gay marriage so everyone goes into hypocrite mode. But not forever.

Whatever happened to Gravel? He is "technically" still in the race, right?

 

[ToyMachine228]

Whatever happened to Gravel? He is "technically" still in the race, right?

No, he switched to Libertarian despite not being a Libertarian at all, and Bob Barr became the Libertarian nominee. So he's officially done.

 

[grandjedi6]

At least obama is in favor of civil unions with the same rights as married couples. His position is not ideal, but it certainly could be worse (see: John McCain.)

Obama's position is so close to the ideal (especially before he ran for Senate) that I'm pretty sure he's lying about his one man, one woman belief. Still not enough to forgive him though

No, he switched to Libertarian despite not being a Libertarian at all, and Bob Barr became the Libertarian nominee. So he's officially done.

and he endorsed the Green candidate while officially leaving the Democrat party...... I still expect him to try and run again though. Gravel nominated for the Gravel Party anyone? :lol

 

[Odrion]

Dude!

Mercury Fred
time to drop the homocard
(Today, 10:05 AM)
Reply | Quote

And you know who Freddie Mercury was, right?

I thought "drop the homocard" meant that he was a person that needs to come out of the closet.

 

[TDG]

Obama's position is so close to the ideal (especially before he ran for Senate) that I'm pretty sure he's lying about his one man, one woman belief. Still not enough to forgive him though

Yeah, it could be a religious thing, but I definitely suspect that in a world where most people were not horrified by the thought of same-sex marriage, he would be okay with it. It's likely just politics.

Still, I don't know why so many people regularly complain about this so much, I mean, it's at least progress.

 

[ToyMachine228]

and he endorsed the Green candidate while officially leaving the Democrat party...... I still expect him to try and run again though. Gravel nominated for the Gravel Party anyone? :lol

Election law would make it insanely difficult to get on the ballot with this little time left. In fact, it may be past the date already. It would require mass petition drives in each and every state, and there just isn't enough time to get it done at this point.

 

[speculawyer]

No, he switched to Libertarian despite not being a Libertarian at all, and Bob Barr became the Libertarian nominee. So he's officially done.

Meh. Exactly what a Libertarian is isn't so clear. There are general principles, but all members have their own interpretations and exceptions. I'm a Libertarian that politically lies somewhere between Gravel and Bob Barr.

JayDub & I have endless arguments on things yet we both call ourselves Libertarian.

 

[thefro]

So we don't have all the proof in yet, but it looks like the "Cross in the Dirt" story last night may be = Hillary's "sniper fire". There a similar story from Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his account "The Gulag Archipelago" and McCain is a big fan of his.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/17/122230/161/239/569299

Not in his 12,000 word POW account, although he'll "never forget it"

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news...n-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html

 

[Tamanon]

At least obama is in favor of civil unions with the same rights as married couples. His position is not ideal, but it certainly could be worse (see: John McCain.)

Nope, remember civil unions is actually worse than no marriage whatsoever I believe we hashed this out between pages 38 and 43.

 

[TDG]

Nope, remember civil unions is actually worse than no marriage whatsoever I believe we hashed this out between pages 38 and 43.

Oh yes, I remember that. Oh, the stupidity.