The country was less divisive when Bush was in office as hard as that is to believe. That is not a credit to Bush by any stretch, just more of an indictment on Obama.
I just think he's soft. As are people today. But that doesn't mean he isn't inspirational. Because he truly is. I like hearing him speak.
I would say this is more of an indictment on the media and the general public's failure to pay attention to politics these past 8 years. There was a concerted effort by mitch mcconnell et al to keep Obama from getting a second term by filibustering and not letting any policies through, and the most popular news agency in the country has done what they could to suppress Obama's opinions and spin any problem at any level to being Obama's fault.
As it stands now I think I would vote for Hillary. I have to see these debates. I expect a good showing from Trump. It seems like a lot of people are writing him off when he has seemed to have focused his campaign.
The bulk of Trump's policies have been flip flopped, so its hard to judge him on any objective measure. I want to hear his policies in the debate, because his campaign hasn't really focused on that. Any questions to Hillary's character could just as easily be echoed at Trump, and more.
Ideologically I don't agree with his stances on abortion, immigration, climate change, video games, vaccines. I don't know what his policies on economics or health care reform are. I hope this debate they actually discuss things. I fear I won't get my wish though.
Joined: 28 Nov 2007 Posts: 11277 Location: Bay Area
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:29 pm Post subject:
lakersken80 wrote:
lakerjoshua wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
lakerjoshua wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
This poll doesn't mean much considering most of the people that vote are from California. So we already know what the result will be.
Not true at all. We have posters from all around the United States and even Globe. That's the benefit of being such a large, diverse fan base. Now if this were a Clippers board I'd agree.
Most of them post in the Lakers forum. Very few of them venture onto the off topic forums.
That's a huge leap to automatically assume that. But hey, whatever, did you cast a vote?
Just general observation seeing as how I post in off topic more than the Lakers forum. No I haven't voted yet.
Didn't participate and questioning the validity of the poll......hmmm. lol Jk all good man, Its just for fun anyway. I wouldn't bet money based on the LG poll.
The country was less divisive when Bush was in office as hard as that is to believe. That is not a credit to Bush by any stretch, just more of an indictment on Obama.
I just think he's soft. As are people today. But that doesn't mean he isn't inspirational. Because he truly is. I like hearing him speak.
I would say this is more of an indictment on the media and the general public's failure to pay attention to politics these past 8 years. There was a concerted effort by mitch mcconnell et al to keep Obama from getting a second term by filibustering and not letting any policies through, and the most popular news agency in the country has done what they could to suppress Obama's opinions and spin any problem at any level to being Obama's fault.
As it stands now I think I would vote for Hillary. I have to see these debates. I expect a good showing from Trump. It seems like a lot of people are writing him off when he has seemed to have focused his campaign.
The bulk of Trump's policies have been flip flopped, so its hard to judge him on any objective measure. I want to hear his policies in the debate, because his campaign hasn't really focused on that. Any questions to Hillary's character could just as easily be echoed at Trump, and more.
Ideologically I don't agree with his stances on abortion, immigration, climate change, video games, vaccines. I don't know what his policies on economics or health care reform are. I hope this debate they actually discuss things. I fear I won't get my wish though.
Probably because Obama was the combo breaker.....when you have somebody who doesn't resemble people's idea of what the President should look like there is of course backlash.
The country was less divisive when Bush was in office as hard as that is to believe. That is not a credit to Bush by any stretch, just more of an indictment on Obama.
I just think he's soft. As are people today. But that doesn't mean he isn't inspirational. Because he truly is. I like hearing him speak.
Using vague terms like divisive and soft, without any backdrop, tells us little.
Regardless, the country was divided before Obama took his oath. When Bush's Iraq folly was thrust upon the world, and the countless mistakes thereafter that just destroyed the fabric of that country, there were many Americans who, justifiably, had great anger at such recklessness, and the anger and divisiveness grew from there. Bush's popularity went from 90% to 32% as a result. Obama's favorability, now, is one point below Reagan's at the same time in September, 53% - 54%. In other words, he is over 20 points more popular than when Bush left office.
But Bush didn't have an adversarial congress, determined, from day one, to stop him. Even with the 110th Congress at the end of Bush's term, Democrats weren't acting like drama queens, threatening this and that, unyielding because an un-elected anti-tax zealot, Grover Norquist, wouldn't allow compromise, or wanting to shut down the government, or denying votes for a SCOTUS nominee. The Republicans and Bush did not have three cable networks devoted to being anti-Republican everything, especially anti-Bush, and did not have the AM hosts, up and down the dial, spewing hatred, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week against their president and their party.
As to being soft, are you another member of the Putin fan club, lovin' the guy who just kills his enemies, and aids a mass murderer? Does this being soft mean Obama should be more aggressive with Syria (therefore Russia), North Korea, Russia directly, Iran and everywhere else? What, we need more war and conflict? Just how many wars do we need?
There are other ways to resolve conflict besides attacking innocent countries or shooting people with their hands up. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
The country was less divisive when Bush was in office as hard as that is to believe. That is not a credit to Bush by any stretch, just more of an indictment on Obama.
I just think he's soft. As are people today. But that doesn't mean he isn't inspirational. Because he truly is. I like hearing him speak.
I would say this is more of an indictment on the media and the general public's failure to pay attention to politics these past 8 years. There was a concerted effort by mitch mcconnell et al to keep Obama from getting a second term by filibustering and not letting any policies through, and the most popular news agency in the country has done what they could to suppress Obama's opinions and spin any problem at any level to being Obama's fault.
As it stands now I think I would vote for Hillary. I have to see these debates. I expect a good showing from Trump. It seems like a lot of people are writing him off when he has seemed to have focused his campaign.
The bulk of Trump's policies have been flip flopped, so its hard to judge him on any objective measure. I want to hear his policies in the debate, because his campaign hasn't really focused on that. Any questions to Hillary's character could just as easily be echoed at Trump, and more.
Ideologically I don't agree with his stances on abortion, immigration, climate change, video games, vaccines. I don't know what his policies on economics or health care reform are. I hope this debate they actually discuss things. I fear I won't get my wish though.
Trump has shown he'll say what he thinks the group he's speaking to wants to hear.
He's a con man. Trump University was a con. He duped construction company's in Atlantic City building his casino. Leaving many in or close to bankruptcy. He brags about UOPM (Use Other Peoples Money) Allegedly used money from his foundation to pay bribes and law suits.
He's a homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, narcissistic person. I search to find something positive to say about The Donald. I can't find any positives that would qualify him to sit in the Oval Office.
I reiterate Michael Moore, Dumbed Down America. I'm harboring serious angst that he will con the country into putting him into office.
@Shlumpledink If he says anything to sway you IMO you'll be falling for the con. Not meant to be insulting. JMHO. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
The choice of one is no choice at all. Clinton FTW. Even in the "Weekend at Bernie's" scenario. Anyway, this seems so much like another recent poll ...
This is the worst choice of candidates that I can recall, going back to the 70's.
I will also tell you that I will not be voting in the next election, I am absolutely positive Clinton is going to win and I am just as confident that she will be one of (if not THEE) worst president we have ever had.
Not that I think Trump would be any better due to his wacky nature..
Woe is us... _________________ “Always remember... Rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots.”
The country was less divisive when Bush was in office as hard as that is to believe. That is not a credit to Bush by any stretch, just more of an indictment on Obama.
I just think he's soft. As are people today. But that doesn't mean he isn't inspirational. Because he truly is. I like hearing him speak.
There's a significant population in the US who hated Barack from the jump because of his skin color. Bush didn't have to worry about that.
Sounds too simple to be true, but you can draw a straight line between the Tea Party--->Donald Trump ----> Birtherism ----> GOP candidate.
Also at this time in Bush's presidency, he united the country by everyone realizing how terrible of a President he was.
It's like saying the Joker united Gotham... Ya, he united people....against him!
Well maybe Cheaney should be the Joker in the metaphor. Bush was more of a puppet and less of a mastermind. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
The country was less divisive when Bush was in office as hard as that is to believe. That is not a credit to Bush by any stretch, just more of an indictment on Obama.
I just think he's soft. As are people today. But that doesn't mean he isn't inspirational. Because he truly is. I like hearing him speak.
There's a significant population in the US who hated Barack from the jump because of his skin color. Bush didn't have to worry about that.
Sounds too simple to be true, but you can draw a straight line between the Tea Party--->Donald Trump ----> Birtherism ----> GOP candidate.
Also at this time in Bush's presidency, he united the country by everyone realizing how terrible of a President he was.
It's like saying the Joker united Gotham... Ya, he united people....against him!
Well maybe Cheaney should be the Joker in the metaphor. Bush was more of a puppet and less of a mastermind.
There's something that significant population won't own. They're closet racists. That same group is still duping the American public. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
The country was less divisive when Bush was in office as hard as that is to believe. That is not a credit to Bush by any stretch, just more of an indictment on Obama.
I just think he's soft. As are people today. But that doesn't mean he isn't inspirational. Because he truly is. I like hearing him speak.
Using vague terms like divisive and soft, without any backdrop, tells us little.
Regardless, the country was divided before Obama took his oath. When Bush's Iraq folly was thrust upon the world, and the countless mistakes thereafter that just destroyed the fabric of that country, there were many Americans who, justifiably, had great anger at such recklessness, and the anger and divisiveness grew from there. Bush's popularity went from 90% to 32% as a result. Obama's favorability, now, is one point below Reagan's at the same time in September, 53% - 54%. In other words, he is over 20 points more popular than when Bush left office.
But Bush didn't have an adversarial congress, determined, from day one, to stop him. Even with the 110th Congress at the end of Bush's term, Democrats weren't acting like drama queens, threatening this and that, unyielding because an un-elected anti-tax zealot, Grover Norquist, wouldn't allow compromise, or wanting to shut down the government, or denying votes for a SCOTUS nominee. The Republicans and Bush did not have three cable networks devoted to being anti-Republican everything, especially anti-Bush, and did not have the AM hosts, up and down the dial, spewing hatred, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week against their president and their party.
As to being soft, are you another member of the Putin fan club, lovin' the guy who just kills his enemies, and aids a mass murderer? Does this being soft mean Obama should be more aggressive with Syria (therefore Russia), North Korea, Russia directly, Iran and everywhere else? What, we need more war and conflict? Just how many wars do we need?
There are other ways to resolve conflict besides attacking innocent countries or shooting people with their hands up.
Obama strikes me as a people pleaser. That's what I mean by being soft. Do you think he is not a people pleaser?
Here is an example? He was originally opposed to gay marriage. Polls showed majority of people were also opposed to gay marriage at the time. Then in 2012, he flip flops and comes out in support of it. I can't recall exactly the timing but I'm pretty sure it was DAYS (maybe weeks) after poll results revealed that for the first time in history, the majority of people were in favor of gay marriage.
He's a thing of beauty working off a prompter. Struggles off the cuff.
Anyway, to me, leadership is not about licking your finger and seeing which way the wind blows. Anyone can do that. That aside, I like the man but it's not like he is the perfect human or anything.
By the way, a great example of someone who isn't and wasn't soft? Kobe Bean Bryant since we're on LG. See the distinction?
The country was less divisive when Bush was in office as hard as that is to believe. That is not a credit to Bush by any stretch, just more of an indictment on Obama.
I just think he's soft. As are people today. But that doesn't mean he isn't inspirational. Because he truly is. I like hearing him speak.
Using vague terms like divisive and soft, without any backdrop, tells us little.
Regardless, the country was divided before Obama took his oath. When Bush's Iraq folly was thrust upon the world, and the countless mistakes thereafter that just destroyed the fabric of that country, there were many Americans who, justifiably, had great anger at such recklessness, and the anger and divisiveness grew from there. Bush's popularity went from 90% to 32% as a result. Obama's favorability, now, is one point below Reagan's at the same time in September, 53% - 54%. In other words, he is over 20 points more popular than when Bush left office.
But Bush didn't have an adversarial congress, determined, from day one, to stop him. Even with the 110th Congress at the end of Bush's term, Democrats weren't acting like drama queens, threatening this and that, unyielding because an un-elected anti-tax zealot, Grover Norquist, wouldn't allow compromise, or wanting to shut down the government, or denying votes for a SCOTUS nominee. The Republicans and Bush did not have three cable networks devoted to being anti-Republican everything, especially anti-Bush, and did not have the AM hosts, up and down the dial, spewing hatred, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week against their president and their party.
As to being soft, are you another member of the Putin fan club, lovin' the guy who just kills his enemies, and aids a mass murderer? Does this being soft mean Obama should be more aggressive with Syria (therefore Russia), North Korea, Russia directly, Iran and everywhere else? What, we need more war and conflict? Just how many wars do we need?
There are other ways to resolve conflict besides attacking innocent countries or shooting people with their hands up.
Obama strikes me as a people pleaser. That's what I mean by being soft. Do you think he is not a people pleaser?
Here is an example? He was originally opposed to gay marriage. Polls showed majority of people were also opposed to gay marriage at the time. Then in 2012, he flip flops and comes out in support of it. I can't recall exactly the timing but I'm pretty sure it was DAYS (maybe weeks) after poll results revealed that for the first time in history, the majority of people were in favor of gay marriage.
He's a thing of beauty working off a prompter. Struggles off the cuff.
Anyway, to me, leadership is not about licking your finger and seeing which way the wind blows. Anyone can do that. That aside, I like the man but it's not like he is the perfect human or anything.
By the way, a great example of someone who isn't and wasn't soft? Kobe Bean Bryant since we're on LG. See the distinction?
What I despise more than anything are blatant lies and you my lying friend are are liar.
The country was less divisive when Bush was in office as hard as that is to believe. That is not a credit to Bush by any stretch, just more of an indictment on Obama.
I just think he's soft. As are people today. But that doesn't mean he isn't inspirational. Because he truly is. I like hearing him speak.
Using vague terms like divisive and soft, without any backdrop, tells us little.
Regardless, the country was divided before Obama took his oath. When Bush's Iraq folly was thrust upon the world, and the countless mistakes thereafter that just destroyed the fabric of that country, there were many Americans who, justifiably, had great anger at such recklessness, and the anger and divisiveness grew from there. Bush's popularity went from 90% to 32% as a result. Obama's favorability, now, is one point below Reagan's at the same time in September, 53% - 54%. In other words, he is over 20 points more popular than when Bush left office.
But Bush didn't have an adversarial congress, determined, from day one, to stop him. Even with the 110th Congress at the end of Bush's term, Democrats weren't acting like drama queens, threatening this and that, unyielding because an un-elected anti-tax zealot, Grover Norquist, wouldn't allow compromise, or wanting to shut down the government, or denying votes for a SCOTUS nominee. The Republicans and Bush did not have three cable networks devoted to being anti-Republican everything, especially anti-Bush, and did not have the AM hosts, up and down the dial, spewing hatred, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week against their president and their party.
As to being soft, are you another member of the Putin fan club, lovin' the guy who just kills his enemies, and aids a mass murderer? Does this being soft mean Obama should be more aggressive with Syria (therefore Russia), North Korea, Russia directly, Iran and everywhere else? What, we need more war and conflict? Just how many wars do we need?
There are other ways to resolve conflict besides attacking innocent countries or shooting people with their hands up.
Obama strikes me as a people pleaser. That's what I mean by being soft. Do you think he is not a people pleaser?
Here is an example? He was originally opposed to gay marriage. Polls showed majority of people were also opposed to gay marriage at the time. Then in 2012, he flip flops and comes out in support of it. I can't recall exactly the timing but I'm pretty sure it was DAYS (maybe weeks) after poll results revealed that for the first time in history, the majority of people were in favor of gay marriage.
He's a thing of beauty working off a prompter. Struggles off the cuff.
Anyway, to me, leadership is not about licking your finger and seeing which way the wind blows. Anyone can do that. That aside, I like the man but it's not like he is the perfect human or anything.
By the way, a great example of someone who isn't and wasn't soft? Kobe Bean Bryant since we're on LG. See the distinction?
What I despise more than anything are blatant lies and you my lying friend are are liar.
2008
I think you're the liar here pal.
He said he does not promote gay marriage, believes marriage is between a man and woman and that God plays a role in that, but that he is for civil unions. Thats what he said in your own video. LMAO.
In Oct 2010, he said this as well...
Quote:
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
Anyway, whatever, the point is really more on the conspicuous timing of it when he finally changed course.. Mid 2012 and right after the poll numbers were released.
Joined: 28 Nov 2007 Posts: 11277 Location: Bay Area
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:34 pm Post subject:
You're rebuttal sounds a little familiar. Did you think you could just make a post and people wouldn't click the link?
Let's listen again to Senator Obama's stance on marriage and his thoughts on equal rights for gay couples in 2008.
Ring, try and keep your attention span long enough to digest the entire statement beyond the first sentence.
Your statement is as asinine as saying Hillary started the birther movement. We already know you are intellectually dishonest, don't make yourself look stupid as well.
You're rebuttal sounds a little familiar. Did you think you could just make a post and people wouldn't click the link?
Let's listen again to Senator Obama's stance on marriage and his thoughts on equal rights for gay couples in 2008.
Ring, try and keep your attention span long enough to digest the entire statement beyond the first sentence.
Your statement is as asinine as saying Hillary started the birther movement. We already know you are intellectually dishonest, don't make yourself look stupid as well.
I think you're confusing gay rights with gay marriage. Posting the same video twice doesn't change the fact.
He has always been pro gay rights, but wasn't fully pro gay marriage until 2012.
I don't know if you're just lying or confused. This fact is well established and has been for years now.
ABC broke into its daytime lineup May 9, 2012, to announce a historic shift: the president of the United States declaring his personal support for gay marriage.
"I've been going through an evolution on this issue," President Barack Obama told ABC News.
In Nov 2008, he told an MTV audience that he does not support gay marriage. His entire timeline of his stance on this issue is documented in the link I provided.
You best let this particular one go or at least admit you confused pro civil rights for gays with my comment specific to marriage. I'll let you off the hook if that was the case.
Joined: 28 Nov 2007 Posts: 11277 Location: Bay Area
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:39 am Post subject:
You're going to let me off the hook?
First of all your presenting it as Obama was "against" gay marriage when he wasn't. You cannot be against something that you do not oppose and offer no opposition to. It did not agree with his christian beliefs which he states however, in the very next sentence he clearly states he would oppose an amendment classifying marriage as solely between a man and woman.
Opposing the amendment is his political stance.
Having an opinion that his christian marriage is a holy union between a man and woman is his personal religious belief and he may still hold that to this day.
I think what your confusing here is that not agreeing with something morally does not you oppose it politically.
So it is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest for you to use this an an example of his supposed "flip-flopping". Truth is, Obama has been one of history's greatest champions for the gay community and for you to insinuate otherwise is insulting.
Last edited by lakerjoshua on Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:43 am; edited 1 time in total
You're going to let me off the hook? Your spin is as pathetic as your rhetoric, which I might add has hit an all time low, even for you.
I'm sure you also conveniently forget he publicly denounced DOMA in 2011 which assuredly does not fit your timeline.
Interesting that you try and trash Obama on gay rights/marriage as he has been the one leading the charge. You picked a terribly false example to prove your weak opinion.
Your lies, rebuttals and rhetoric all have a distinctly Trump-ish smell to them. Fortunately there are people who actually remember the facts not the Fox news spin.
I have no political allegiances to either party. So there is no motivation for me to spin. You sound very, very motivated however.
In any case, since you might be the only Obama supporter who apparently knows next to nothing about his timelines on this issue ... here is Barack Obama, May 2012, in the historic ABC interview he gave that everyone but you seems to remember.
Quote:
Well, you know, I have to tell you, as I've said, I've been going through an evolution on this issue. I've always been adamant that — gay and lesbian — Americans should be treated fairly and equally. And that's why in addition to everything we've done in this administration, rolling back Don't Ask, Don't Tell — so that, you know, outstanding Americans can serve our country. Whether it's no longer defending the Defense Against Marriage Act, which tried to federalize what has historically been state law.
I've stood on the side of broader equality for the LGBT community. And I had hesitated on gay marriage — in part, because I thought civil unions would be sufficient. That that was something that would give people hospital visitation rights and other elements that we take for granted. And I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, you know, the word marriage was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs, and so forth.
But I have to tell you that over the course of several years, as I talk to friends and family and neighbors. When I think about members of my own staff who are incredibly committed, in monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together. When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet, feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is gone, because they're not able to commit themselves in a marriage.
At a certain point, 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.
But good try on spinning DOMA. But he didn't announce his support for gay marriage then. He has long been for gay rights, but was not a supporter of gay marriage until this interview in 2012. You should know this. He said so himself to the world in that historic interview.
Do you really believe Obama is a flawless politician? Or do we just disagree that his tendency to be a people-pleaser is one of them?
Joined: 28 Nov 2007 Posts: 11277 Location: Bay Area
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:46 am Post subject:
See edited post above and apologies for my harsh words. However, I am all to familiar with the gay rights issues and Obama's stance on them throughout his presidency as I was a volunteer in both campaigns, 08" and 12" here in the Bay Area as well as trips to Nevada. So am I biased when it comes to President Obama? Hell yes I am.
We both live in the Bay area but trust me we are worlds apart in terms of culture.
Quote:
Do you really believe Obama is a flawless politician? Or do we just disagree that his tendency to be a people-pleaser is one of them?
If by being a champion for equal rights for all, ensuring people cannot be denied healthcare for prior existing conditions, dragging us out of the worst recession in 70 years. Yes I agree he's a people pleaser.
And yes, I get highly insulted when people try and use one his greatest achievement to insult him or make an off handed point about him being weak, flip-flopping or having no substance or as you call it "people pleasing".
See edited post above and apologies for my harsh words. However, I am all to familiar with the gay rights issues and Obama's stance on them throughout his presidency as I was a volunteer in both campaigns, 08" and 12" here in the Bay Area as well as trips to Nevada. So am I biased when it comes to President Obama? Hell yes I am.
We both live in the Bay area but trust me we are worlds apart in terms of culture.
Quote:
Do you really believe Obama is a flawless politician? Or do we just disagree that his tendency to be a people-pleaser is one of them?
If by being a champion for equal rights for all, ensuring people cannot be denied healthcare for prior existing conditions, dragging us out of the worst recession in 70 years. Yes I agree he's a people pleaser.
And yes, I get highly insulted when people try and use one his greatest achievement to insult him or make an off handed point about him being weak, flip-flopping or having no substance or as you call it "people pleasing".
Then you should know that in Nov 2008, he told an MTV audience, and I'm quoting here...
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
Do you, as a campaign volunteer that has intimate knowledge with facts about Obama, confirm that he said this -- in 2008? I can supply a URL and a video but assume, as someone with inside information, you knew this already.
You're getting upset because there is no way around this one via the path you're taking. I think it's better if we just disagree on whether this is a good example of Obama pandering to the poll results. That is, at the very least, debatable. It seems silly for you to post videos that prove my point and still remain adamant otherwise.
Joined: 28 Nov 2007 Posts: 11277 Location: Bay Area
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:25 am Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
lakerjoshua wrote:
See edited post above and apologies for my harsh words. However, I am all to familiar with the gay rights issues and Obama's stance on them throughout his presidency as I was a volunteer in both campaigns, 08" and 12" here in the Bay Area as well as trips to Nevada. So am I biased when it comes to President Obama? Hell yes I am.
We both live in the Bay area but trust me we are worlds apart in terms of culture.
Quote:
Do you really believe Obama is a flawless politician? Or do we just disagree that his tendency to be a people-pleaser is one of them?
If by being a champion for equal rights for all, ensuring people cannot be denied healthcare for prior existing conditions, dragging us out of the worst recession in 70 years. Yes I agree he's a people pleaser.
And yes, I get highly insulted when people try and use one his greatest achievement to insult him or make an off handed point about him being weak, flip-flopping or having no substance or as you call it "people pleasing".
Then you should know that in Nov 2008, he told an MTV audience, and I'm quoting here...
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
Do you, as a campaign volunteer that has intimate knowledge with facts about Obama, confirm that he said this -- in 2008? I can supply a URL and a video but assume, as someone with inside information, you knew this already.
You're getting upset because there is no way around this one via the path you're taking. I think it's better if we just disagree on whether this is a good example of Obama pandering to the poll results. That is, at the very least, debatable. It seems silly for you to post videos that prove my point and still remain adamant otherwise.
Your still confusing his personal religious beliefs with his political views and agenda. He's been on the record since 2008 saying he would not support a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. Clear as day....He's been in direct opposition to gay marriage ban since day one. As for his "evolution" it was a personal evolution not a political one as you suggest.
Unless you're saying someone can't hold personal religious beliefs without injecting them into their politics? Because that's the context you are ignoring when using the links and quotes you've used.
And yes I remember that MTV interview quite well as well do I remember the context in which the question was asked and answered....
Here let me finish the quote from MTV you chopped in half - "But we should be respectful of all people".
See edited post above and apologies for my harsh words. However, I am all to familiar with the gay rights issues and Obama's stance on them throughout his presidency as I was a volunteer in both campaigns, 08" and 12" here in the Bay Area as well as trips to Nevada. So am I biased when it comes to President Obama? Hell yes I am.
We both live in the Bay area but trust me we are worlds apart in terms of culture.
Quote:
Do you really believe Obama is a flawless politician? Or do we just disagree that his tendency to be a people-pleaser is one of them?
If by being a champion for equal rights for all, ensuring people cannot be denied healthcare for prior existing conditions, dragging us out of the worst recession in 70 years. Yes I agree he's a people pleaser.
And yes, I get highly insulted when people try and use one his greatest achievement to insult him or make an off handed point about him being weak, flip-flopping or having no substance or as you call it "people pleasing".
Then you should know that in Nov 2008, he told an MTV audience, and I'm quoting here...
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
Do you, as a campaign volunteer that has intimate knowledge with facts about Obama, confirm that he said this -- in 2008? I can supply a URL and a video but assume, as someone with inside information, you knew this already.
You're getting upset because there is no way around this one via the path you're taking. I think it's better if we just disagree on whether this is a good example of Obama pandering to the poll results. That is, at the very least, debatable. It seems silly for you to post videos that prove my point and still remain adamant otherwise.
Your still confusing his personal religious beliefs with his political views and agenda. He's been on the record since 2008 saying he would not support a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. Clear as day....He's been in direct opposition to gay marriage ban since day one. As for his "evolution" it was a personal evolution not a political one as you suggest.
Unless you're saying someone can't hold personal religious beliefs without injecting them into their politics? Because that's the context you are ignoring when using the links and quotes you've used.
And yes I remember that MTV interview quite well as well do I remember the context in which the question was asked and answered....
Here let me finish the quote from MTV you chopped in half - "But we should be respectful of all people".
And that's fine. I never said he hated them. Or disrespected them. I simply said that he was opposed to gay marriage. And he was.
That doesn't mean he didn't do things, good things, to further the civil rights for gays in this country. Because he did. But doing those things, as YOU pointed out, doesn't mean he was a promoter of gay marriage.
In fact, he said himself quite literally around 2008, that he is NOT a promoter of gay marriage. In the same year, he told the MTV audience and you, an insider with details few have access to, confirmed that he was NOT in favor of it.
But the fact still, despite all of these internet posts, continues to remain. It wasn't until May 2012, not long after poll results showed that for the first time ever, more people were for gay marriage than against, that Obama too finally came out in full, personal support of it. Those are facts that cannot be disputed.
So he seems to go the way the wind blows there. Doesn't make him an awful person. Doesn't define his presidency. But just because you like him, and are admittedly biased in his favor (your own admission), doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90305 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:26 pm Post subject:
greenfrog wrote:
Doe anyone really believe that, deep in his heart, Obama was ever against gay marriage?
No. Obama understood the political ramifications of his candidacy and presidency, and the need to keep himself as mainstream as possible. Fortunately, Biden tipped his hand early. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:22 pm Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Doe anyone really believe that, deep in his heart, Obama was ever against gay marriage?
No. Obama understood the political ramifications of his candidacy and presidency, and the need to keep himself as mainstream as possible. Fortunately, Biden tipped his hand early.
That's just as bad, really. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Doe anyone really believe that, deep in his heart, Obama was ever against gay marriage?
I do think there is a distinction, a subtle one, between being "against" something as opposed to being "not in favor" of it. Some people might argue they are the same thing but I don't believe that to be the case.
I think that's probably a position most people share on something like... taxation? I don't think any of us are particularly in favor of taxation in the sense that we'll hold the position of "tax me, tax me, I love being taxed, the more the better!" But we also recognize the need for varying levels of taxation so we're not against the concept either.
On the same train of thought, I don't believe Obama is, or was ever, "against" gay marriage in the way you see that manifested from the extreme right. But there was certainly a time he was not advocating for it. And he did say so himself when he said he did not "promote" gay marriage and that he was "not in favor" of it. (Until 2012 that is).
That said, if you take some of his statements on gay marriage, exchange "gay marriage" for say "immigrants" and put the statement on a white person, it doesn't really sound ok. "I don't promote immigrants" or "I am not in favor of immigrants".
At the end of the day, this is why it really bothers me when people from the extreme left are so quick to label someone a bigot or a racist or whatever. Just because you don't like something, doesn't necessarily mean you dislike it because there's also the position of being indifferent to it. I'd say that's probably where Obama was for most of pre-2012.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
I think you're the liar here pal.
