So Obama can "evolve" on issues; But Romney "flip flops"?? Just...wow.

[Trajan]

Well, I kind of think there was collusion that Obama picks now to do this, and the WaPo runs a story that Little Willard liked to beat up the ghey kids. Hmmmm..

That said, I think what has changed is public opinion.

In 2004, 60% were against legalizing gay marriage. It's now down to 43% and declining. We as a nation are changing our mind, because we see the states where it has already happened and all the horrible things they said would happen haven't. God has not wiped us from the face of the Earth like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yet, for some reason, the issue keeps losing when it goes to a vote.

I can actually explain that, can you?

it's because minority rights always lose. if we put desegregation up for a vote in the same places, it would lose, too.

that's why rights shouldn't be the subject of a vote. and why this type of thing is the raison d'etre of the supreme court. (not that they're doing their job right now).

did you see that QW? what she did there? isn't she clever? .....Not.


for god sakes, 2 state bars. .... I wouldn't hire you to file a pet license....

 

[Trajan]

Would Romney really have killed Bin Ladin? In 2008 he chastized Obama for saying he would kill Bin Ladin without Pakistans approval. And Bush said he wasn't all that concerned with Bin Ladin. He disbanded the Get Bin Ladin Task Force.

And since Romney is no different from Bush, we can only assume his flip flop is hogwash.

P.S. Think about how the GOP said they were good at the economy and then REALLY fucked it up, and then they say they are good at national security and international issues but then they get hit on 9-11 and then can't win Iraq or Afganistan.

Are the GOP good at anything? Who's buying anything they say? They suck!

Thanks for the hilarious read! Do you really believe this nonsense? I don't know if I should laugh, or be concerned. If I'm not mistaken a little bit more than the GOP got hit on 9/11, and the cause of it went well back to the first failed attempt on the WTC in 1993 under a certain Democrat's watch. It is absurd to even speculate how Romney would, or wouldn't have acted in a hypothetical situation he will never face in the first place. As far as "winning" in Iraq, and Afghanistan I shudder to think what your interpretation of what "winning" is in those two examples... Maybe a Burger King in downtown Baghdad?

before the first WTC attack, there was no reason to suspect that they would try to hit us there.

before 9/11, they ignored intel saying that bin laden wanted to attack the US using our planes. they had intel saying that there were people of arab descent taking flying lessons where they said they didn't want to learn to take off and land, but only to steer, big jets.

as for dems getting on board, yes, but not for an attack... if you actually read the resolution, it was solely to give bush the means to assert himself DIPLOMATICALLY. he was obligated to come back to congress before any attack.

he didn''t.

he was obligated to abide by the final reports of the observers about whether iraq was cooperating with inspections.

he didn't.

hans blix' final report said that iraq was being cooperative and there were no signs of WMD's.

so i'm not quite sure what your point is... are you trying to say that the pointless iraq war, which de-stabilized the entire middle east and has allowed iran to become an unprecedented danger to its neighbors, was somehow a success?

really?

facts are your friends.

they had intel saying that there were people of arab descent taking flying lessons where they said they didn't want to learn to take off and land, but only to steer, big jets.

who WAS that again?

facts are your friends.

well, then let me help, cuze you need it...-

http://zoompal.com/?gclid=CNezu5-8-K8CFQtThwodSA3CRA

http://www.makefriendsonline.com/

http://www.meetyourfriends.com/

I guess you live on your facebook account....but hey, we'll always be here for you jilly...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Has anyone else noticed the liberals, Hollywood elite, media, etc, etc, are all in step with celebration of Obama's new flip flop on the gay marriage issuee, but they say the president "evolved", not "flip flopped"? Romney is accused of "flip flopping" on the issues. But Obama does a complete 180 degree change, and they say he "evolved"?????

So....what the fuck? Is there just no shame in liberals? No limit to how far they'll sell their souls for this man? He announces, on the eve of a liberal hollywood elitist fundraiser, that he is NOW in favor of gay marriage. And they say he "evolved". Hypocrites.

Obama could not say he was for gay marriage in 2008. You righties wish. But he was probably ok with it. But who can blame him. He was calculated and wise.

Big difference between this flip flop and Romney's.

Will Romney or won't he take us to war with Iran? Will he continue to send jobs overseas? Will he deregulate the banks again? Would he kill unions and collective bargaining and social security and medicare?

Who can trust Romney. Better the devil we know than the devil we don't know.

Why couldn't he say it? Was he afraid of offending the racists that wouldn't vote for him even if he bleached his skin?

The only difference between this flip flop and Romney's is the color of the skin of the person who is flip flopping.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, I kind of think there was collusion that Obama picks now to do this, and the WaPo runs a story that Little Willard liked to beat up the ghey kids. Hmmmm..

That said, I think what has changed is public opinion.

In 2004, 60% were against legalizing gay marriage. It's now down to 43% and declining. We as a nation are changing our mind, because we see the states where it has already happened and all the horrible things they said would happen haven't. God has not wiped us from the face of the Earth like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yet, for some reason, the issue keeps losing when it goes to a vote.

I can actually explain that, can you?

You mean it keeps losing in places where you can marry your cousin, Clem?

Like California, Oregon, and Wisconsin?

Why don't you just admit that you can't explain it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, I kind of think there was collusion that Obama picks now to do this, and the WaPo runs a story that Little Willard liked to beat up the ghey kids. Hmmmm..

That said, I think what has changed is public opinion.

In 2004, 60% were against legalizing gay marriage. It's now down to 43% and declining. We as a nation are changing our mind, because we see the states where it has already happened and all the horrible things they said would happen haven't. God has not wiped us from the face of the Earth like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yet, for some reason, the issue keeps losing when it goes to a vote.

I can actually explain that, can you?

it's because minority rights always lose. if we put desegregation up for a vote in the same places, it would lose, too.

that's why rights shouldn't be the subject of a vote. and why this type of thing is the raison d'etre of the supreme court. (not that they're doing their job right now).

If minority rights always loose why did most states pass laws allowing interracial marriage before the Supreme Court decided Loving? If minority rights always loose why was consensual sex among consenting adults legal in most states before the Supreme Court decided Lawrence? Why do a majority of states have laws against same sex marriage when it is pretty obvious from history that states are perfectly willing to give minorities their rights before the federal government has to step in?

Your bigotry is showing again, you should get over your hate and look at the real world.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Now if we could just get Papa Obama to
evolve to the higher level of free market
economics

 

[JoeB131]

Yet, for some reason, the issue keeps losing when it goes to a vote.

I can actually explain that, can you?

You mean it keeps losing in places where you can marry your cousin, Clem?

Like California, Oregon, and Wisconsin?

Why don't you just admit that you can't explain it?

Oregon had a vote 8 years ago, and California had it 4 years ago.

If those votes were held today, they'd lose.

And that's the point. The ground is shifting very quickly on this issue. Obama is nimble enough to realize it. Romney is too beholden to religious nutbags to make the leap.

and WaPo just buried him.

 

[Seawytch]

"It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided...and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history." ~ Barack Obama from The Audacity of Hope

But he won't be on the wrong side of history. Despite what it may cost him politically, President Obama came down firmly and courageously on the right side of history. He evolved to a position where he fully supports marriage equality.

 

[editec]

SURE its a flipflop. That's really just a less pleasant way of saying "changed his mind"

It was a FF when Romeny did it, and its a FF when Obama does it.

 

[SniperFire]

But he won't be on the wrong side of history. Despite what it may cost him politically, President Obama came down firmly and courageously on the right side of history.

Oh, horseshit.

He could change his mind again in September to cash in on another lucrative fundraiser.

 

[Katzndogz]

You mean it keeps losing in places where you can marry your cousin, Clem?

Like California, Oregon, and Wisconsin?

Why don't you just admit that you can't explain it?

Oregon had a vote 8 years ago, and California had it 4 years ago.

If those votes were held today, they'd lose.

And that's the point. The ground is shifting very quickly on this issue. Obama is nimble enough to realize it. Romney is too beholden to religious nutbags to make the leap.

and WaPo just buried him.

If the vote were held today, those propositions would pass by even larger margins. When homosexual activists tried to get the issue back on the ballot, they couldn't get enough signatures to qualify. Support for the normalization of homosexuality is one of those issues that exists primarly among the young and white. That is a demographic that is leaving and being replaced by the more traditional thinking non-white foreigners as well as native blacks and hispanics.

 

[Katzndogz]

But he won't be on the wrong side of history. Despite what it may cost him politically, President Obama came down firmly and courageously on the right side of history.

Oh, horseshit.

He could change his mind again in September to cash in on another lucrative fundraiser.

For anyone who has actually studied history, it is clear that support for the normalizations of same sex relationships is on the wrong side of history. It isn't like same sex marriage just appeared today. It has had periodic support in many civiilzations throughout time. Out of all of the values that each civilization has passed down, the normality of same sex relationships has never survived. If it were on the right side of history, we would have had it long before this. We would have gotten it from the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, any one of a number of civilizations that have crumbled away yet left behind what we now think of as traditions and values. The normalization of same sex relationships was accepted in each one of them, usually right before that civilization fell.

 

[California Girl]

Well, I kind of think there was collusion that Obama picks now to do this, and the WaPo runs a story that Little Willard liked to beat up the ghey kids. Hmmmm..

That said, I think what has changed is public opinion.

In 2004, 60% were against legalizing gay marriage. It's now down to 43% and declining. We as a nation are changing our mind, because we see the states where it has already happened and all the horrible things they said would happen haven't. God has not wiped us from the face of the Earth like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yet, for some reason, the issue keeps losing when it goes to a vote.

I can actually explain that, can you?

it's because minority rights always lose. if we put desegregation up for a vote in the same places, it would lose, too.

that's why rights shouldn't be the subject of a vote. and why this type of thing is the raison d'etre of the supreme court. (not that they're doing their job right now).[/QUOTE]

Any time you disagree, the court is not doing their job.

 

[Mac1958]

Has anyone else noticed the liberals, Hollywood elite, media, etc, etc, are all in step with celebration of Obama's new flip flop on the gay marriage issuee, but they say the president "evolved", not "flip flopped"? Romney is accused of "flip flopping" on the issues. But Obama does a complete 180 degree change, and they say he "evolved"?????

So....what the fuck? Is there just no shame in liberals? No limit to how far they'll sell their souls for this man? He announces, on the eve of a liberal hollywood elitist fundraiser, that he is NOW in favor of gay marriage. And they say he "evolved". Hypocrites.

Correct.

Standard partisan hypocrisy, practiced regularly by both "sides", always more intense and easily identified during a campaign season.

I'd put this very near the top of the examples why neither end of the political spectrum has or deserves any credibility whatsoever.

Partisan Politics = Intellectual Dishonesty


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you people want to call Obama a flip flopper on the gay marriage issue, no one is stopping you. Unfortunately then, if you have a shred of intellectual honesty,

you have to admit that Romney is a flip flopper on the same issue.

You also have to admit that Ronald Reagan, who was for years an FDR Democrat,

was a flip flopper on pretty much everything.

Do you admit that?

 

[Seawytch]

Fine, call it a flip-flop. Thankfully I've known a lot of people that have "flip flopped" on gay marriage. President Obama's "flip flop" went consistently forward towards full marriage equality.

President Obama
1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,”

2004: “I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, ‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,’ they would say, ‘absolutely.’ And then if you talk about, ‘should they get married?’, then suddenly…”

2006: "It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided...and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."


2007: “The government has to treat all citizens equally. I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same-sex union are compatible. When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same-sex couples, I think that’s unacceptable.”

2008: “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.”

2009: “I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I’ve made that clear.”

2010: “I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”

2011: “Every single American — gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transgender — every single American deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of our society. It’s a pretty simple proposition.”

2012: “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”


How many positions has Willard held on gay and lesbian equal rights? Where's the progression in going from being more pro gay than Ted Kennedy (like he claimed he would be in a letter to Log Cabin Republicans) to being wishy washy in a day on gay adoption?

Even on this the GOP wants to play the Wheel of False Equivalences? So sad...

 

[Sunni Man]

Obama = America

When Obama evolves

America evolves.

 

[paulitician]

The Liberal Press is embarrassing. Goebells would be very proud of them.

 

[naturegirl]

Fine, call it a flip-flop. Thankfully I've known a lot of people that have "flip flopped" on gay marriage. President Obama's "flip flop" went consistently forward towards full marriage equality.

President Obama
1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,”

2004: “I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, ‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,’ they would say, ‘absolutely.’ And then if you talk about, ‘should they get married?’, then suddenly…”

2006: "It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided...and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."


2007: “The government has to treat all citizens equally. I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same-sex union are compatible. When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same-sex couples, I think that’s unacceptable.”

2008: “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.”

2009: “I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I’ve made that clear.”

2010: “I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”

2011: “Every single American — gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transgender — every single American deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of our society. It’s a pretty simple proposition.”

2012: “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”


How many positions has Willard held on gay and lesbian equal rights? Where's the progression in going from being more pro gay than Ted Kennedy (like he claimed he would be in a letter to Log Cabin Republicans) to being wishy washy in a day on gay adoption?

Even on this the GOP wants to play the Wheel of False Equivalences? So sad...

This is what he's always belived:

1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,”

This was so he could get votes and media support in 2008.

008: “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.”

This is so he can get votes and media support in 2012:

“I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

Yea, he evolved.

 

[SniperFire]

Fine, call it a flip-flop. Thankfully I've known a lot of people that have "flip flopped" on gay marriage. President Obama's "flip flop" went consistently forward towards full marriage equality.

President Obama
1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,”

2004: “I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, ‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,’ they would say, ‘absolutely.’ And then if you talk about, ‘should they get married?’, then suddenly…”

2006: "It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided...and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."


2007: “The government has to treat all citizens equally. I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same-sex union are compatible. When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same-sex couples, I think that’s unacceptable.”

2008: “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.”

2009: “I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I’ve made that clear.”

2010: “I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”

2011: “Every single American — gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transgender — every single American deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of our society. It’s a pretty simple proposition.”

2012: “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”


How many positions has Willard held on gay and lesbian equal rights? Where's the progression in going from being more pro gay than Ted Kennedy (like he claimed he would be in a letter to Log Cabin Republicans) to being wishy washy in a day on gay adoption?

Even on this the GOP wants to play the Wheel of False Equivalences? So sad...

This was so he could get votes and media support in 2008.

2

008: “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.”

This is so he can get votes and media support in 2012:

“I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

Yea, he evolved.

Interesting that the day after his 'evolution' he cashed in at a Hollywood fundraiser.