Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A 401k isn't the same as a pension plan.
In my last company they had a pension plan and a 401k plan. When I left the company I converted my 401k plan to an IRA which is federally protected. The company stole my pension.
Instead of ranting you need to get your talking-points right.
pensions were better, especially when run by the unions.
401K, you are stuck for whatever wild ride they put you on.
That was part of the painful lesson I learned at my last job.
Amazing. The man states in no uncertain terms that he "evolved" regarding this issue, and came to his conclusion. Part of that included discussion with his kids who go to school with kids of gay parents.
In other words, he contemplated and then changed his position.
But of course, neocons/teabaggers immediately cast doubt on the man's integrity by insinuation. Not surprising, given that they have a GOP majority just blocking everything, and then blaming a stalled gov't on Obama.
But yet, progress has been made. And this latest announcement may or may not bring back all the Independents that sat out the 2010 election. Time will tell.
Congrats, it only took Obama a year and a half to evolve into Dick Cheney on the issue of gay marriage. At least he landed on the correct side IMHO. And not for nothing but using the BS term "evolve" is pretty disingenuous since Obama was pro-gay marriage in the 90's and only changed to run for higher office in the first place.
And how is this for leading from behind...
And for all of those who cheered this flip-flop, heres a question: wouldnt it have been more effective in North Carolina had Obama made this announcement before Amendment One went to the polls? According to Obama himself, hed already changed position on same-sex marriage. An announcement last week or the week before that, with a personal plea to African-American voters, might have made a difference. Instead, Obama hid, the White House fibbed, and Amendment One won easily in a state that Obama carried in 2008. Regardless of whatever else this might be called, leadership isnt among the terms that come to mind.
Obama: Yeah, weve been fibbing about my position on same-sex marriage for a while now, or something « Hot Air
Que sirrah sirrah. While it lacked both bravery and leadership and stunk of political skeevieness(sp?), at least Obama landed eventually in a decent place. As long as the State involves itself in marriage, it ought to do so equally for all citizens.
FWIW this is not a big enough issue to move the political needle in any noticeable direction.
A lot of "what if's" in your source material...but the bottom line is that this may ring significantly with the Independent voters that sat out the 2010 election....DESPITE the cries of "flip-flop" and "liar" from the neocons and teabaggers.
The anti gay American crowd rings horrendous bells:
Paragraph 175 (known formally as §175 StGB; also known as Section 175 in English) was a provision of the German Criminal Code from 15 May 1871 to 10 March 1994. It made homosexual acts between males a crime, and in early revisions the provision also criminalized bestiality. All in all, around 140,000 men were convicted under the law.
The statute was amended several times. The Nazis broadened the law in 1935; in the prosecutions that followed, thousands died in concentration camps. East Germany reverted to the old version of the law in 1950, limited its scope to sex with youths under 18 in 1968, and abolished it entirely in 1988. West Germany retained the Nazi-era statute until 1969, when it was limited to "qualified cases"; it was further attenuated in 1973, and finally revoked entirely in 1994 after German reunification.
Paragraph 175 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I already said the POTUS backing an issue is a bigger deal than that of a VP. Stands to reason. Here's an irony alert for ya, looks like this time the "puppet master" was bumbling VP Joe Bite-Me... if you can believe the New York Times that is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/u...age-issue.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
So the VP had to apologize for forcing the hand of the White House into the "we were totally going to say that before the election anyway" defense. Very noble Mr. President. Very noble indeed.
So you agree with me but initially you allude to the opposite? And how do you derive a "puppet master" analogy from the NYT article, as it's just a simple case of spilling the beans? Hmmm, you're sounding more and more like these silly neocon commentators who think their rhetoric is actually fooling someone. Just saying.
I agree that gays should have the right to marry, that's about where our agreement ends I think.
Personally, I don't really care...the whole thing is silly to me because you cannot force a church to "marry" anyone they don't want to. So the "institution" from that perspective, remains intact. As far as common law "marriages" are concerned, it comes down to economics regarding partnerships in this society. Gay people can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want, but it will NEVER been 100% on par with heterosexual couples, as gay couples CANNOT NATURALLY REPRODUCE. The eternal argument as to a tax paying citizen being able to do whatever they want within the boundary of law won't be solved in my lifetime on this issue.
I got bubbling puppet master from Biden's forcing of the issue. I don't believe for a second that the POTUS was going to make the right call on gay marriage before the election. Obama's entire term has been one of the clowns running the circus.
The VP saying he may have upstaged the President is merely a protocol thing....you're reading too much into it. You're biased presumption that Obama has made NO decisions on his own belies the FACTS, case in point the call to go ahead with the plan to get Bin Ladin, the push for the Healthcare Reform bill.
A real leader does not "lead from behind" (Libya), or wait for "more latitude after the election" (Russia) or change his opinion from pro-gay marriage to anti-gay marriage to get elected to high office then "evolve" until he is a lame duck to his default position.
Oh spare me this Rovian bullshit! His call regarding Libya DID NOT GET AN AMERICAN SOLDIER KILLED, and got Qadaffi (spl) ousted. There is NO weakness in abiding by treaties with your Allies. The "cowboy" bullshit you expouse is reminiscent of GW Bush's foreign policy...and we all know how THAT turned out! And you can push your supposition and conjecture all you want, but the FACT that this statement may COST him the election is a factor that belies the neocon/teabagger wails of "phony" and "flip-flop".
I do give Obama credit for making the right decision but I don't give him extra credit for making the right call for the wrong reason. (being be-clowned by VP doofus)
I stopped reading when you mention Ron Paul. I wanted him to win; but his followers need to stop being conspiracy theorists about everything. This has nothing to do with Ron Paul.
So let me get this straight.....you hate the GOP enough to go along with Obama's fraud just because your boss, who is of unknown political persuasion, is an evil rich guy, and he screwed you out of a job because of his penchant for nepotism.
So let me get this straight.....you hate the GOP enough to go along with Obama's fraud just because your boss, who is of unknown political persuasion, is an evil rich guy, and he screwed you out of a job because of his penchant for nepotism.
No stupid, because Romney will enact and encourage the evil of his boss by stripping away this guy's ability to legal recourse.
the neocon mudwhistle screws up again!
translation: seems my analysis struck a nerve with our resident neocon/teabagger bullhorn, because all he's done is pour his vindictive supposition and conjecture over what I've written....but as usual hortysir is just full of hot air.
"Neocon/teabagger"?
Too dumb to know how opposite those two terms are, hunh?!
Also too dumb to see that nowhere in my post did I call the President's statement/position a bad move.
The first 2 groups I mentioned may outnumber the third. I hope and pray that the 3rd is really the majority.
It was a pretty brilliant political strategy, if badly timed....or maybe, just maybe WELL timed.
TIME will tell.
6 months to be almost exact.
I'm not trying to ruin your high, man....
Sorry to inform you bunky, but you're not fooling anyone or impressing anyone with your smug attitude.
I never said that you called the President's move bad, now did I bunky? I merely pointed out that you used the opportunity to spew invectives at the people who support him....liberals, progressives and independents.
YOU don't have the guts to take an honest stance, do ya chuckles? So essentially you make moot statements akin to the OP, but shower it with your partisan dreck. Man, a jr. high school kid can see through your silliness.
Neocons and teabaggers......the flip side of a right wingnut coin....one is just more willfully ignorant than the other.
Laugh, clown, laugh.
So let me get this straight.....you hate the GOP enough to go along with Obama's fraud just because your boss, who is of unknown political persuasion, is an evil rich guy, and he screwed you out of a job because of his penchant for nepotism.
No stupid, because Romney will enact and encourage the evil of his boss by stripping away this guy's ability to legal recourse.
the neocon mudwhistle screws up again!
I like my take on it.
You're makes no sense at all.
"Neocon/teabagger"?
Too dumb to know how opposite those two terms are, hunh?!
Also too dumb to see that nowhere in my post did I call the President's statement/position a bad move.
The first 2 groups I mentioned may outnumber the third. I hope and pray that the 3rd is really the majority.
It was a pretty brilliant political strategy, if badly timed....or maybe, just maybe WELL timed.
TIME will tell.
6 months to be almost exact.
I'm not trying to ruin your high, man....
Sorry to inform you bunky, but you're not fooling anyone or impressing anyone with your smug attitude.
I never said that you called the President's move bad, now did I bunky? I merely pointed out that you used the opportunity to spew invectives at the people who support him....liberals, progressives and independents.
YOU don't have the guts to take an honest stance, do ya chuckles? So essentially you make moot statements akin to the OP, but shower it with your partisan dreck. Man, a jr. high school kid can see through your silliness.
Neocons and teabaggers......the flip side of a right wingnut coin....one is just more willfully ignorant than the other.
Laugh, clown, laugh.
I can't help it.
Your posts just have that effect on me.
How more plain do you want me to say that you're an idiot for believing that Obama's proclamation changes any-damned-thing?
One of my brothers had an interesting take on President Obama's "evolving" to endorse gay marriage: making this announcement goes to prevent a third party candidate from forming, as the issue essentially sets up a "for or against" wedge with no middle ground. So you already have Romney's "against" and Obama's "for".....and that puts Ron Paul between a rock and a hard place as a potential "king maker" in the GOP (releasing his delegates to Romney at the upcoming GOP Caucus), as the "against" crowd would depend upon State government to alter their Constitutions to prevent gay marriage, and the "for" crowd would depend upon the Federal government to override individual State rulings.
But I note that the kicker is the President's statement means little, being that any pro-gay marriage bills would stall in either the House or the Senate, and the Democrats are NOT united on this issue. Since there is no bill to date on Capitol Hill that would ban gay marriage in America, Obama has nothing to veto.
At most, Obama may solidify enough votes to off set the 30 states that have passed anti-gay marriage laws on this issue.....and I seriously doubt that he's going to lose significant voting numbers because of this. Time will tell....and indeed we are witnessing interesting times!
Obama is merely coming out and saying what he privately believes anyway. And has probably always privately believed. It might be the most honest moment in his administration.
But if it anyone thinks it will rescue his sinking administration they are sadly mistaken.
Well, having multiple wives wasn't wrong in the Old Testament, which cons love to quote.Romney stance against human rights hurt HIM in November?
Marrying your sister isn't a human right. Neither is having 845 wives.
Both identical claims to legitimacy using your lame 'human right' argument.
Well, having multiple wives wasn't wrong in the Old Testament, which cons love to quote.Romney stance against human rights hurt HIM in November?
Marrying your sister isn't a human right. Neither is having 845 wives.
Both identical claims to legitimacy using your lame 'human right' argument.
Sorry to inform you bunky, but you're not fooling anyone or impressing anyone with your smug attitude.
I never said that you called the President's move bad, now did I bunky? I merely pointed out that you used the opportunity to spew invectives at the people who support him....liberals, progressives and independents.
YOU don't have the guts to take an honest stance, do ya chuckles? So essentially you make moot statements akin to the OP, but shower it with your partisan dreck. Man, a jr. high school kid can see through your silliness.
Neocons and teabaggers......the flip side of a right wingnut coin....one is just more willfully ignorant than the other.
Laugh, clown, laugh.
I can't help it.
Your posts just have that effect on me.
How more plain do you want me to say that you're an idiot for believing that Obama's proclamation changes any-damned-thing?
Your opinion is based solely on your own myopic bias.....I state plainly in the OP that this latest statement of his may LOSE crucial votes as well...and most likely will. The catch is whether or not it will re-vitalize the Independent vote that sat out the 2010 election and put the teabaggers into power in the House.
While YOU chuckle like a clueless clown, you fail to hide your disdain for the President via your attack on his supporters. Typical neocon/teabagger BS.
Laugh, my Hortysir clown, laugh!
One of my brothers had an interesting take on President Obama's "evolving" to endorse gay marriage: making this announcement goes to prevent a third party candidate from forming, as the issue essentially sets up a "for or against" wedge with no middle ground. So you already have Romney's "against" and Obama's "for".....and that puts Ron Paul between a rock and a hard place as a potential "king maker" in the GOP (releasing his delegates to Romney at the upcoming GOP Caucus), as the "against" crowd would depend upon State government to alter their Constitutions to prevent gay marriage, and the "for" crowd would depend upon the Federal government to override individual State rulings.
But I note that the kicker is the President's statement means little, being that any pro-gay marriage bills would stall in either the House or the Senate, and the Democrats are NOT united on this issue. Since there is no bill to date on Capitol Hill that would ban gay marriage in America, Obama has nothing to veto.
At most, Obama may solidify enough votes to off set the 30 states that have passed anti-gay marriage laws on this issue.....and I seriously doubt that he's going to lose significant voting numbers because of this. Time will tell....and indeed we are witnessing interesting times!
Ron Paul is for, so, if he ran, he would be taking votes from Obama. I think your friend is wrong.
Obama is merely coming out and saying what he privately believes anyway. And has probably always privately believed. It might be the most honest moment in his administration.
But if it anyone thinks it will rescue his sinking administration they are sadly mistaken.
Yet politically he believes exactly the same as Mitt Romney- It's a states rights issue. In other words all he's doing is playing lip service to get votes.
Well, having multiple wives wasn't wrong in the Old Testament, which cons love to quote.Marrying your sister isn't a human right. Neither is having 845 wives.
Both identical claims to legitimacy using your lame 'human right' argument.
Agreed. People throw the bible in gay people's face - "it just ain't right! A man has a penis and a woman has a vagina! The bible says homosexuality is wrong!"
Yeah, the bible also depicts polygamy and incest among the holiest of early christians (jews?), and is also in favor of slavery, against the equality of women, and demands extremely harsh (and often fatal) punishments for things such as buying something or socializing on a Sunday and for even wearing a shirt with more than two fibers.
And of course during the battle for women's suffrage people quoted the bible and insisted gender equality was unholy and unnatural.
Then those people said the same thing during the civil rights movement. Seriously, look up letters of people objecting to racial equality, interracial marriage and blacks in the army only 70 years ago. They use word for word the same arguments anti-gay crusaders use now.
But of course, in retrospect we all realize that those times in the past the bible thumpers were mistaken. Perhaps some things in the bible (everything if you ask me) were only relevant to a certain society thousands of years ago when man was far more primitive.
But when it comes to gay rights? "We may have always been wrong before, but not this time! Being gay is clearly unnatural and harmful to society at large."
Yeah, I'm sure....
