Obama supports same-sex marriage

DodgeFB · May 11, 2012

myp said:
It is a matter of the system. No matter who is in Congress or the White House- even if it was you- you would have to care about votes if you wanted to stay there for more than a term or in many cases even if you wanted to pass anything substantial. Politicians always compromise and have to balance between winning votes and getting their agenda through. Obama is no different.

As for why you find him phony... why? Especially in the context of this gay marriage thing- would it really surprise you if he really supported gay marriage?

Exactly! The only job they have is getting reelected! There should be a two term limit on all of them. It should be about service not a career.

As it is they are not getting a lot done now. Watch the dust if BO is reelected and and the republicans get control of the senate and keep the house. BO will turn faster than a quarter horse at the rodeo. After all he is evolving daily, moment to moment.

No it would not surprise me if he was against it last year and is for it this year. He has changed his opinion more than once going back to the late nineties. Of course that depended on which way the wind was blowing and who he was talking to.

Sometimes it seems like you think I just crawled from under a rock. But this is not my first president, senate, or house election. Heck they even taught civics in Kentucky when I went to school. So I know how it has worked, and that it is not working now.

As to my opinion on him being phony, I stand by my statement and leave it to history to prove me right or wrong.

myp · May 11, 2012

DodgeFB said:
Exactly! The only job they have is getting reelected! There should be a two term limit on all of them. It should be about service not a career.

It is a balance that they all try to strike. Either way though, BO has a term limit

DodgeFB said:
No it would not surprise me if he was against it last year and is for it this year. He has changed his opinion more than once going back to the late nineties. Of course that depended on which way the wind was blowing and who he was talking to.

Do you have proof he flip flops more than anyone else? And again, sometimes they all need to compromise to get anything done.

DodgeFB said:
Sometimes it seems like you think I just crawled from under a rock. But this is not my first president, senate, or house election. Heck they even taught civics in Kentucky when I went to school. So I know how it has worked, and that it is not working now.

You seem to think that things have changed or that politicians today are evil and the past weren't. You seem to have an oversimplified view of how things work and get done in DC. And unfortunately these lead you to thinking certain things are easier than they really are. It is all about incentives, always has been. What has changed for you and me if that you have a media today that can tell you every breath of what the politicians say the second they say it. The politicians have always done what they felt was best whether it be the best for themselves, the best for the country and their constituents, or more likely some mixture of the two.

DodgeFB · May 11, 2012

myp said:
It is a balance that they all try to strike. Either way though, BO has a term limit

Do you have proof he flip flops more than anyone else? And again, sometimes they all need to compromise to get anything done.

You seem to think that things have changed or that politicians today are evil and the past weren't. You seem to have an oversimplified view of how things work and get done in DC. And unfortunately these lead you to thinking certain things are easier than they really are. It is all about incentives, always has been. What has changed for you and me if that you have a media today that can tell you every breath of what the politicians say the second they say it. The politicians have always done what they felt was best whether it be the best for themselves, the best for the country and their constituents, or more likely some mixture of the two.

Well it is a long time until the election for president. I feel like I have wasted enough time on both of them. I may take a vacation from politics for a while. It is just going to be more of the same.

David · May 11, 2012

myp said:
It is a matter of the system. No matter who is in Congress or the White House- even if it was you- you would have to care about votes if you wanted to stay there for more than a term or in many cases even if you wanted to pass anything substantial. Politicians always compromise and have to balance between winning votes and getting their agenda through. Obama is no different.

As for why you find him phony... why? Especially in the context of this gay marriage thing- would it really surprise you if he really supported gay marriage?

The flaw of liberal-democracy. It sounds good on paper, giving everyone a say but then you run into this issue of having to pander to the lowest common denominator to get things done.

myp · May 11, 2012

David said:
The flaw of liberal-democracy. It sounds good on paper, giving everyone a say but then you run into this issue of having to pander to the lowest common denominator to get things done.

Still better than the alternative, especially over the long run

mogur · May 11, 2012

I am celebrating my fiftieth wedding anniversary this week with my girlfriend. It took me four marriages to get there, but I'm proud.

Reagan was in favor of compulsory morality. As a liberal, I was scared, and rightfully so, as he took the top tax bracket from seventy percent to less than thirty. But compared to the hard right that we see now, I was simply scared of the guy that turned all the insane out of hospitals into our streets. Little did I know that corporations would become people, with all the rights given to our citizens.

Corporations, for those that don't know, are entities that are set up for the express purpose of protecting personal assets from legal action. Yet, the supreme court decided that while corporations are protected from financial attack, they are accorded every right under the constitution, including the ability to influence elections with their wealth. Not personal wealth, but corporate wealth. That means that the officers of a corporation have the freedom 'of speech' to spend the assets of the entire corporation on whatever they choose, whether in conflict with the interests of the majority of the contributors to that corporation. In other words, not a democracy where everyone has an equal say. But then, I know nothing, I see nothing, I'm sergeant Shultz, and this stalag is our own fault.

David · May 11, 2012

myp said:
Still better than the alternative, especially over the long run

I don't know, Thailand's absolute monarchy and the UKs constitutional monarchy seem to be doing pretty well. Rome's oligarchic democracy built a republic that lasted for almost 200 years and established a millenia old civilization. Granted you're thinking of Nazi Germany or Myanmar, I'm just pointing out there are meany alternatives.

myp · May 11, 2012

David said:
I don't know, Thailand's absolute monarchy and the UKs constitutional monarchy seem to be doing pretty well. Rome's oligarchic democracy built a republic that lasted for almost 200 years and established a millenia old civilization. Granted you're thinking of Nazi Germany or Myanmar, I'm just pointing out there are meany alternatives.

I don't know much about Thailand's government. The UK is effectively not a monarchy (and they have the same logistical issues we have in passing things- parties ally all the time and compromise).

Either way, even the "good" monarchies weren't that good. Especially when it comes to civil rights. And that is something that I do not think should be overlooked in any circumstance- things could be a lot worse right now.

David · May 11, 2012

myp said:
The UK is effectively not a monarchy.

Ya, the Queen only has the authority to declare war (in 16 different nations), dismiss the PM and Parliament and grant/revoke titles of nobility. Not an effective monarchy at all.

Don't confuse a monarch not being a powermonger with being a figurehead.

myp · May 11, 2012

David said:
Ya, the Queen only has the authority to declare war (in 16 different nations), dismiss the PM and Parliament and grant/revoke titles of nobility. Not an effective monarchy at all.

Don't confuse a monarch not being a powermonger with being a figurehead.

You really have an issue with understanding the reality of things vs. the literal (historical) definitions don't you? Go look up what "effective" means

myp · May 15, 2012

And there you have it, it has not helped in votes: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/15/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE84E14C20120515

amirex111 · Jun 11, 2012

The law should be changed in line with Europe

reader · Nov 4, 2012

I think, these things shouldn't have been subject of political debate. Abortion also. Everyone should be able to take their own decisions on these issues with respect to the personal demands.

myp · Nov 4, 2012

reader said:
I think, these things shouldn't have been subject of political debate. Abortion also. Everyone should be able to take their own decisions on these issues with respect to the personal demands.

But there will be some law on it either way and that brings in the politics. Either you ignore the issue and let whatever happen or it is banned. That makes it more than a personal issue only.

reader · Nov 4, 2012

myp said:
But there will be some law on it either way and that brings in the politics. Either you ignore the issue and let whatever happen or it is banned. That makes it more than a personal issue only.

Law should be about determining of medical conditions for abortion, not for affecting people's choice. İf some poeple have religious sensitivities on these issues, they can freely live their religion and take their own decisions too. But the topic of same-sex marriage could be an exception because that is something still not legal and people may would like know which candidate is going to make it possıble and legal.

tecoyah · Nov 4, 2012

reader said:
Law should be about determining of medical conditions for abortion, not for affecting people's choice. İf some poeple have religious sensitivities on these issues, they can freely live their religion and take their own decisions too. But the topic of same-sex marriage could be an exception because that is something still not legal and people may would like know which candidate is going to make it possıble and legal.

.......+1......

myp · Nov 4, 2012

reader said:
Law should be about determining of medical conditions for abortion, not for affecting people's choice. İf some poeple have religious sensitivities on these issues, they can freely live their religion and take their own decisions too. But the topic of same-sex marriage could be an exception because that is something still not legal and people may would like know which candidate is going to make it possıble and legal.

You are for having both be legal. I am too. But my point is even that act of letting them happen involves politics at this point because people argue the definition of marriage in the law (and unfortunately marriage is very linked to the law right now in terms of taxes, government benefits, rights, etc.) and when it comes to abortion people argue the definition of what is and is not murder when it comes to fetuses.

Dirk · Nov 6, 2012

DodgeFB said:
I don't think he believes "strongly" in anything except "pandering" for votes. But he is just one of many doing the same thing.

Aren't they both?

Oh wait, you already said so. My mistake.

clax · Nov 8, 2012

The beauty of a two party system is that each party supports different things. I am a conservative generally speaking. I however support personal liberty, and the only right I see being denied by legalizing equal marriage for same sex couples, is the right of the religious doctrine to dictate the boundaries of marriage. That was never their right to begin with. Being that marriage is a civil matter only, you can go to the justice of the peace and get married, the church isn't involved. If people want to add a religious component to it, that is your p prerogative, but it is nobodies right to apply religious meaning to anybody else's marriage. Your religion is your own.

As far as Obama's opinion on gay marriage, I think he is against it, but politically he is for it, that issue is all I am concerned with.

I voted for Romney but I am alright with Obama, not my first choice

=Zoomer= · Nov 9, 2012

clax said:
I voted for Romney but I am alright with Obama, not my first choice

Wow Clax....didn't think there were any sensible people left

For me it wasn't so much about Romney or Obama (although I voted for Obama in 08 and 12). Neither one of them is really an extremist (mo), and I believe both men would govern closer to the middle. What worried me about Romney was his propensity to do or say whatever was expedient at the time in order to get elected. The problem with that being he would have simply "towed" the political line instead of leading it. Too easy for the right-wing extremists to pull his strings.

=Z=

Obama supports same-sex marriage

Similar threads