Another take on Obama's gay marriage stance.

[taichiliberal]

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!

You may want to actually read some of my posts more closely before telling such a lie.

I've never been a part of, and have attacked, the "he's not my President" crowd.

You may want to try and sell your BS to someone who has trouble getting their GED, chuckles....because your intellectualy dishonest here can be spotted by an 9th grader.

Taking a part of a sentence out of context to back your contentions is foolish when the rest of the sentence is there in plain sight.....which puts the excerpt into a context different from the one you're trying to sell.

But then this thread isn't about your BS, chuckles....you want to repeat it ad nauseum to avoid acknowledging the ramifications of your vindictive attitude, have at it. The chronology of the posts will always be there to keep you honest.

Unless you've got something new and worthwhile to add, I'll just let you carry on alone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Not quite, because if Ron Paul is "for", that means Ron Paul is "for" the implication that somewhere down the line there would be a vote to have a federal law passed to ENFORCE full "marriage" rights (outside of religious institutions) to gay people across the 50 states. Given Ron Paul's libertarian mantras AGAINST federal gov't intrusion into citizen's lives, he would run into a bit of a schizoid mindset to justify his "just this once" endorsement....and THAT would not sit well with his libertarian constituency, I believe.

Obama isn't for that either. By the way, there would be no way to justify a law like that under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[taichiliberal]

Ron Paul is for, so, if he ran, he would be taking votes from Obama. I think your friend is wrong.

Not quite, because if Ron Paul is "for", that means Ron Paul is "for" the implication that somewhere down the line there would be a vote to have a federal law passed to ENFORCE full "marriage" rights (outside of religious institutions) to gay people across the 50 states. Given Ron Paul's libertarian mantras AGAINST federal gov't intrusion into citizen's lives, he would run into a bit of a schizoid mindset to justify his "just this once" endorsement....and THAT would not sit well with his libertarian constituency, I believe.

Obama isn't for that either. By the way, there would be no way to justify a law like that under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

True, but given that he is the "leader" of the party, he can "campaign" to try and convince other members of the Dem party should they try to get some type of amendment passed in their individual states. Ron Paul, by the convictions, would be forbidden to do so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not quite, because if Ron Paul is "for", that means Ron Paul is "for" the implication that somewhere down the line there would be a vote to have a federal law passed to ENFORCE full "marriage" rights (outside of religious institutions) to gay people across the 50 states. Given Ron Paul's libertarian mantras AGAINST federal gov't intrusion into citizen's lives, he would run into a bit of a schizoid mindset to justify his "just this once" endorsement....and THAT would not sit well with his libertarian constituency, I believe.

Obama isn't for that either. By the way, there would be no way to justify a law like that under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

True, but given that he is the "leader" of the party, he can "campaign" to try and convince other members of the Dem party should they try to get some type of amendment passed in their individual states. Ron Paul, by the convictions, would be forbidden to do so.

Funny that.

When he was asked about making that a party platform he punted.

WH won't push gay marriage into party platform | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

You really have no idea who you are trying to defend, do you. You would thing that 3 years of the same crap would have taught you something.

 

[logical4u]

Yes....you the professed Republican who's seen the light.

I saw the light in 2007, when my Romney loving boss decided to change my job duties so he could create a job for the daughter of a company bigwig's friend. Couldn't fire me outright, because I'd have sued the shit out of them. When I pointed out this was stupid and wrong, his only response was "Well, that's why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union".

Yup, someone might actually question your bad decisions, bud. That company went from 66 employees to 20 today.

There's their interest and my interest.

When the GOP starts looking out for my interests again, I'll support them.

Romney ain't the guy. He's on the side of the bosses, not the guys on the line.

Wonder if he fired the people with Obama bumper stickers....

 

[logical4u]

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...



Obama: Yeah, we’ve 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.

He has blundered back into the right position on this and this is the posit that he held while running for the state offices in Illinois.

He has no beliefs and no moral code. He just adapts whatever lie he thinks will work to serve his purpose at any particular moment.

The good thing about voting for Obama is that he will agree with whatever you say you want. He's funny that way. Of course, he'll agree with the guy that disagrees with you the moment you leave the room or he feels that it will provide greater advantage.

And he will do it all so passionately and with such conviction.

Yeah! Let's vote for him again, eventually Bernie Madoff was caught. If we vote for fraud, eventually he will take everything from the citizens, like, it would be historical!

 

[logical4u]

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!

Okay, so we vote for the man that embraces corruption EVERY chance he has: Black Panther voter intimidation, New England police versus man breaking into own house, Arizona citizens against illegals, drug cartels against border patrol, LBGT against voters' will? Yes, I can see how you would be so frightened of a man that married, raised a family and worked productive jobs (and yes I am aware that employees suffered because their management was not strong enough to 'fix' their company), and is involved with local communities and his faith's community. It is easy to see where he stands, he IS dangerous. Lets vote for the man that will not release any documentation of his "achievements", and believe him when he says he is on the up and up, after he has broken all his campaign promises. Frauds are so much more entertaining than the hard working individual!

 

[taichiliberal]

Obama isn't for that either. By the way, there would be no way to justify a law like that under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

True, but given that he is the "leader" of the party, he can "campaign" to try and convince other members of the Dem party should they try to get some type of amendment passed in their individual states. Ron Paul, by the convictions, would be forbidden to do so.

Funny that.

When he was asked about making that a party platform he punted.

WH won't push gay marriage into party platform | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

You really have no idea who you are trying to defend, do you. You would thing that 3 years of the same crap would have taught you something.

See, we were having a nice discussion, and then you had to go and get nasty the second you thought you had conclusive, winning point.

From the source YOU provided: "...."Well, party platform issues are for the party to decide," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said when asked if Obama would call for the repeal of DOMA and endorsement of pro-gay marriage language in the party platform. "That process is underway, and I refer you to the DNC on the question about the platform."


Now, go back and read what I wrote, genius. I stated that, ".....he (Obama) can "campaign" to try and convince other members of the Dem party should they try to get some type of amendment passed in their individual states. "

In other words, the PARTY has to be the instigator, and NOT the President. Should the Party decide to try that amendment, THEN the President is able to campaign his personal opinion, and NOT before.

Got that now, bunky? Or are you going to continue to be a dumbass neocon Quantum Windbag?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

True, but given that he is the "leader" of the party, he can "campaign" to try and convince other members of the Dem party should they try to get some type of amendment passed in their individual states. Ron Paul, by the convictions, would be forbidden to do so.

Funny that.

When he was asked about making that a party platform he punted.

WH won't push gay marriage into party platform | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

You really have no idea who you are trying to defend, do you. You would thing that 3 years of the same crap would have taught you something.

See, we were having a nice discussion, and then you had to go and get nasty the second you thought you had conclusive, winning point.

From the source YOU provided: "...."Well, party platform issues are for the party to decide," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said when asked if Obama would call for the repeal of DOMA and endorsement of pro-gay marriage language in the party platform. "That process is underway, and I refer you to the DNC on the question about the platform."


Now, go back and read what I wrote, genius. I stated that, ".....he (Obama) can "campaign" to try and convince other members of the Dem party should they try to get some type of amendment passed in their individual states. "

In other words, the PARTY has to be the instigator, and NOT the President. Should the Party decide to try that amendment, THEN the President is able to campaign his personal opinion, and NOT before.

Got that now, bunky? Or are you going to continue to be a dumbass neocon Quantum Windbag?

We were having a nice discussion? I was mocking you every step of the way, now you want to pretend we were being friendly when I scored a decisive point. Obama isn't going to do anything that he thinks will negatively impact his chance to sleep in the White House next year. Believe it or not, 67% of people in this country actually see this the same way I do, which makes anything you argue even more idiotic.

Go talk to yourself and pretend that you are having a nice conversation with people who are mocking you if your doctors think it will help, just don't expect me to go along with you.

 

[MaxCha]

Well, having multiple wives wasn't wrong in the Old Testament, which cons love to quote.

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....

I agree with the majority of what you say here but for one point: I look at being gay as just part of the human genome....like people born with astigmatism that need glasses or asthma. Being born with a sexual urge that belies your biological standing is just a little abnormality you can live with...nothing to lose one's mind over.

While Obama's stance may garner more votes or deter more votes remains to be seen. If he's re-elected, it will be interesting if he stands by his conviction.

By saying being gay "belies" gay people's biological function, the implication seems to be being gay is not natural. But, as scientists have shown time and time again, all mammals engage in homosexual activity, and often at the same ratio as is seen with humans.

(No, I'm not saying we should do everything animals do like eat their young, but in regards to the biological regulation of major traits, it is definitive proof of its role in animal life).

And when you say "just a little abnormality you can live with", it is far from abnormal as it is seen frequently in nature (beyond the fact that every bit of unbiased research shows so, as well as every major psychological association. I mean theres so much evidence how anyone believes people choose to be gay is downright ridiculous).

And saying it's "nothing to lose one's mind over" is insane. So gay people should just ignore the fact that they can never have the chance to fall in love or have a relationship just because some people think it's weird?

Same sex relations do not harm anybody, so there are zero reasons to object on that ground. People have been hard pressed and unsuccessful trying to find "evidence" of negative repercussions in the nations that already legalized SSM. Why must there always be people who take great effort to demean, isolate and stereotype a minority of people who pose no harm and have absolutely no control over their genetics? How will the relationship between two adults who love each other be of threat to anyone?

The racists and the sexist people of the past all tried to make great cases against equal rights. They all warned of the "terrible harm" that never ended up happening.

Overall, I just wanna be left alone to be happy and love who I want just as I was made by the creator, and not have millions of people dislike me, insert themselves into my life, act hostile and concern themselves with my sex life way more than I do. And none of these people see the irony in trying to mistreat a group of people and relentlessly try convince them they are flawed, unnatural, sick minded and morally bankrupt because of their innate desire to form a relationship with another human being who happens to be the same gender.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes....you the professed Republican who's seen the light.

I saw the light in 2007, when my Romney loving boss decided to change my job duties so he could create a job for the daughter of a company bigwig's friend. Couldn't fire me outright, because I'd have sued the shit out of them. When I pointed out this was stupid and wrong, his only response was "Well, that's why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union".

Yup, someone might actually question your bad decisions, bud. That company went from 66 employees to 20 today.

There's their interest and my interest.

When the GOP starts looking out for my interests again, I'll support them.

Romney ain't the guy. He's on the side of the bosses, not the guys on the line.

Wonder if he fired the people with Obama bumper stickers....

No, but he did refer to Obama once by the "N-Word".

Then he tried to play it off like he was "just kidding".

 

[taichiliberal]

Funny that.

When he was asked about making that a party platform he punted.

WH won't push gay marriage into party platform | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

You really have no idea who you are trying to defend, do you. You would thing that 3 years of the same crap would have taught you something.

See, we were having a nice discussion, and then you had to go and get nasty the second you thought you had conclusive, winning point.

From the source YOU provided: "...."Well, party platform issues are for the party to decide," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said when asked if Obama would call for the repeal of DOMA and endorsement of pro-gay marriage language in the party platform. "That process is underway, and I refer you to the DNC on the question about the platform."


Now, go back and read what I wrote, genius. I stated that, ".....he (Obama) can "campaign" to try and convince other members of the Dem party should they try to get some type of amendment passed in their individual states. "

In other words, the PARTY has to be the instigator, and NOT the President. Should the Party decide to try that amendment, THEN the President is able to campaign his personal opinion, and NOT before.

Got that now, bunky? Or are you going to continue to be a dumbass neocon Quantum Windbag?

We were having a nice discussion? I was mocking you every step of the way, now you want to pretend we were being friendly when I scored a decisive point. Obama isn't going to do anything that he thinks will negatively impact his chance to sleep in the White House next year. Believe it or not, 67% of people in this country actually see this the same way I do, which makes anything you argue even more idiotic.

Go talk to yourself and pretend that you are having a nice conversation with people who are mocking you if your doctors think it will help, just don't expect me to go along with you.

Typical neocon/teabagger Windbag.....I logically and factually proved him wrong on a point, and this Quantum Windbag doesn't have the courage to just concede the point. Instead, we get more of his trying to pass his supposition and conjecture off as fact.

You're just a damned joke, you Quantum Windbag. Now, blow hard as usual!

 

[taichiliberal]

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....

I agree with the majority of what you say here but for one point: I look at being gay as just part of the human genome....like people born with astigmatism that need glasses or asthma. Being born with a sexual urge that belies your biological standing is just a little abnormality you can live with...nothing to lose one's mind over.

While Obama's stance may garner more votes or deter more votes remains to be seen. If he's re-elected, it will be interesting if he stands by his conviction.

By saying being gay "belies" gay people's biological function, the implication seems to be being gay is not natural. But, as scientists have shown time and time again, all mammals engage in homosexual activity, and often at the same ratio as is seen with humans.



(No, I'm not saying we should do everything animals do like eat their young, but in regards to the biological regulation of major traits, it is definitive proof of its role in animal life).

Big deal....it STILL doesn't alter this little fact of life......two same sex creatures CANNOT reproduce. Period. So to have the sexual equipment that is set up to solely reproduce with the opposite sex, but have a mental drive that gears you to be aroused by the same sex is an abnormality, or defect. Like I said, it's akin to needing eye glasses or having asthma...you can live with it.


And when you say "just a little abnormality you can live with", it is far from abnormal as it is seen frequently in nature (beyond the fact that every bit of unbiased research shows so, as well as every major psychological association. I mean theres so much evidence how anyone believes people choose to be gay is downright ridiculous).

Frequency does NOT automatically equate normality. Astigmatism is a frequent occurence in the human genome, but it's not "normal". As is asthma. And for the record, I didn't say that people choose to be gay.

And saying it's "nothing to lose one's mind over" is insane. So gay people should just ignore the fact that they can never have the chance to fall in love or have a relationship just because some people think it's weird?

Well, they've made it this far....they've been gay folk since the dawn of civilization, and my statement is for both gay and non-gay folk. The problem is trying to force a bogus mindset that being gay is an equivalent of being non-gay in every way is silly, as gay folk left to their own devices cannot reproduce. Other than that, I don't give a damn who "marries" who, works at what job, etc., etc. Just don't sell me bullshit and expect me to nod my head and pretend otherwise.

Same sex relations do not harm anybody, so there are zero reasons to object on that ground. People have been hard pressed and unsuccessful trying to find "evidence" of negative repercussions in the nations that already legalized SSM. Why must there always be people who take great effort to demean, isolate and stereotype a minority of people who pose no harm and have absolutely no control over their genetics? How will the relationship between two adults who love each other be of threat to anyone?

See above response.

The racists and the sexist people of the past all tried to make great cases against equal rights. They all warned of the "terrible harm" that never ended up happening.

Big difference....there is no "gay" race. Period. If a black guy walks into a "white only" bar in America, who's going to notice he's gay unless he tells them? But people sure as hell will know he's black.

Overall, I just wanna be left alone to be happy and love who I want just as I was made by the creator, and not have millions of people dislike me, insert themselves into my life, act hostile and concern themselves with my sex life way more than I do. And none of these people see the irony in trying to mistreat a group of people and relentlessly try convince them they are flawed, unnatural, sick minded and morally bankrupt because of their innate desire to form a relationship with another human being who happens to be the same gender.

See above responses.

 

[hjmick]

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!

Unless you're Gary Johnson who believes it is an issue of Civil Rights and should not be left to the states...

 

[taichiliberal]

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!

Unless you're Gary Johnson who believes it is an issue of Civil Rights and should not be left to the states...

Wouldn't that violate the Libertarian credo of very little gov't interference in our lives?

 

[logical4u]

I saw the light in 2007, when my Romney loving boss decided to change my job duties so he could create a job for the daughter of a company bigwig's friend. Couldn't fire me outright, because I'd have sued the shit out of them. When I pointed out this was stupid and wrong, his only response was "Well, that's why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union".

Yup, someone might actually question your bad decisions, bud. That company went from 66 employees to 20 today.

There's their interest and my interest.

When the GOP starts looking out for my interests again, I'll support them.

Romney ain't the guy. He's on the side of the bosses, not the guys on the line.

Wonder if he fired the people with Obama bumper stickers....

No, but he did refer to Obama once by the "N-Word".

Then he tried to play it off like he was "just kidding".

I thought that word was "cool" to use when actin' gangsta.

 

[Avatar4321]

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!

So you think that he evolved to support gay marriage because he wanted to empower Ron Paul in the Republican primary rather than see Ron Paul become a third party candidate?

You do realize that Romney has the delegates without Ron Paul's to get the nomination, right? I would certainly welcome him supporting Romney (Though im not sure he ever would) but even if he did, he wouldnt be a Kingmaker. Romney already has the needed delegates and the primaries arent over. He will pick up more.

And isnt the big theory that Ron Paul going third party hurts Romney? Are you suggesting that Obama worries about it more?

 

[Avatar4321]

Wouldn't that violate the Libertarian credo of very little gov't interference in our lives?

So you think they are going to support government regulating homosexual relationships?

 

[hjmick]

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!

Unless you're Gary Johnson who believes it is an issue of Civil Rights and should not be left to the states...

Wouldn't that violate the Libertarian credo of very little gov't interference in our lives?

Making sure a group of people enjoy the same rights as others? Hmmmm... I don't think so...

 

[JoeB131]

Wonder if he fired the people with Obama bumper stickers....

No, but he did refer to Obama once by the "N-Word".

Then he tried to play it off like he was "just kidding".

I thought that word was "cool" to use when actin' gangsta.

Oh, are we back to that tired excuse for racism?