What's new
By:

Obama voices support for gay marriage.

trigg3r said:
I really could care less about this. The main issue is the economy. Unemployment is getting better because people have given up looking for jobs. This should be a one and done President, but we'll see if that is the case.
Click to expand...

This should be a one and done President for sure, but compared to the other choices he's the obvious choice. But I believe you meant to say you couldn't care less about this issue. So let me know if you misspoke, or just uneducated. Thanks.
 
Jerry Lundegaard said:
This should be a one and done President for sure, but compared to the other choices he's the obvious choice. But I believe you meant to say you couldn't care less about this issue. So let me know if you misspoke, or just uneducated. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Says the man who wont educate himself. Nicely done.
 
Jerry Lundegaard said:
This should be a one and done President for sure, but compared to the other choices he's the obvious choice. But I believe you meant to say you couldn't care less about this issue. So let me know if you misspoke, or just uneducated. Thanks.
Click to expand...

That's just the crack talking. Get back to me when Lawson is a top 5 PG..... So in other words, never.
 
trigg3r said:
That's just the crack talking. Get back to me when Lawson is a top 5 PG..... So in other words, never.
Click to expand...


Jerry and I talked about this in his other thread. jesus freaks cannot be top 5 PGs.
 
Nice that Obama's done this, but I'm not under any illusions that he did it for any other reason than that we've finally reached a tipping point where more people are for gay marriage than against it. Not by much, but just enough, at least in the view of their party strategists. And they also know that approval for gay marriage is only going to keep rising as the old conservative bigots die off. The only question was when the Democrats came out for gay marriage at the highest levels of the party, not if. Well, they decided it's now. Only question now is whether it was too soon or not.

It wouldn't surprise me if this was designed to encourage more younger voters to make it out to the polls. We all know the turn-out for elections sucks. The more young people the Democrats can lure out of their homes to cast their votes, the more people out there who will be for gay marriage, and hence more votes overall for Obama.

Oh, and consider me a +1 for the idea that bipartisanship sucks, and it's probably the biggest thing wrong with this country right now. Think for yourselves, people, and stop towing your ridiculous party lines.
 
Although I don't always agree with your viewpoints AP, you're a heck of a poster and a very smart guy. You remind me a lot of GVC. Mad respect for you both.

Just wanted to share the love.
 
AtheistPreacher said:
Nice that Obama's done this, but I'm not under any illusions that he did it for any other reason than that we've finally reached a tipping point where more people are for gay marriage than against it. Not by much, but just enough, at least in the view of their party strategists. And they also know that approval for gay marriage is only going to keep rising as the old conservative bigots die off. The only question was when the Democrats came out for gay marriage at the highest levels of the party, not if. Well, they decided it's now. Only question now is whether it was too soon or not.

It wouldn't surprise me if this was designed to encourage more younger voters to make it out to the polls. We all know the turn-out for elections sucks. The more young people the Democrats can lure out of their homes to cast their votes, the more people out there who will be for gay marriage, and hence more votes overall for Obama.

Oh, and consider me a +1 for the idea that bipartisanship sucks, and it's probably the biggest thing wrong with this country right now. Think for yourselves, people, and stop towing your ridiculous party lines.
Click to expand...

That I can agree with .. completely. But politics will always be about votes.
 
AtheistPreacher said:
Nice that Obama's done this, but I'm not under any illusions that he did it for any other reason than that we've finally reached a tipping point where more people are for gay marriage than against it. Not by much, but just enough, at least in the view of their party strategists. And they also know that approval for gay marriage is only going to keep rising as the old conservative bigots die off. The only question was when the Democrats came out for gay marriage at the highest levels of the party, not if. Well, they decided it's now. Only question now is whether it was too soon or not.

It wouldn't surprise me if this was designed to encourage more younger voters to make it out to the polls. We all know the turn-out for elections sucks. The more young people the Democrats can lure out of their homes to cast their votes, the more people out there who will be for gay marriage, and hence more votes overall for Obama.

Oh, and consider me a +1 for the idea that bipartisanship sucks, and it's probably the biggest thing wrong with this country right now. Think for yourselves, people, and stop towing your ridiculous party lines.
Click to expand...

For clarification purposes, he said that he believed in same-sex marriage, but thought it was a state issue/decision. So your post was spot on as far as that. He wasn't supporting it to the point that he was pushing for it.
 
Hantlers said:
Although I don't always agree with your viewpoints AP, you're a heck of a poster and a very smart guy. You remind me a lot of GVC. Mad respect for you both.

Just wanted to share the love.
Click to expand...

Right back at you.

PKM said:
That I can agree with .. completely. But politics will always be about votes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sad but true. Doesn't mean we all can't bitch and moan about it.


BTW, since I'm thinking about it, here's a crazy idea, one that I'm sure will never happen, but why not post it anyway.

One of the main reasons we're so stuck with two parties is that no one will vote for a 3rd-party candidate because it will take votes away from the major-party candidate who actually has a chance. So if I dislike both the D and R candidates, and like a 3rd-party more, I'm still going to vote R or D so I can help install the lesser of two evils. Voting for the 3rd-party guy is just like throwing away my vote.

Why not have a system like France's, where there's a first and second round? First round you get to vote for any candidate you want, and when the second round narrows it to two candidates, you still get to vote for the lesser of two evils. That would actually make third parties viable.

But of course, that's why this will never happen. The R's and D's like their power, and aren't about to install new voting structures that will serve only to lessen their party's power.

A guy can dream, though.
 
trigg3r said:
For clarification purposes, he said that he believed in same-sex marriage, but thought it was a state issue/decision. So your post was spot on as far as that. He wasn't supporting it to the point that he was pushing for it.
Click to expand...

You're right, that's true. More support than we've yet seen, though, obviously. I'm sure they want to be as uncommitted as possible so they can keep swaying with wherever the breeze is going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top