Support NeoGAF

[Talka]

It's easy to get pessimistic about racists preventing any sort of national Obama victory, but I really doubt that's the case. For every bigot declaring he'd "never vote for a n****r," there's going to be five people in earshot who are repulsed enough by that sentiment to show up in support for Obama on election day.

Remember that winning elections in America is more about getting your side to show up than convincing the other side to vote for you. Closet racism probably still exists in America, but I doubt it's going to be a positive motivator. It'd keep social conservatives at home, not drive them to the polls. The racists that do go to the polls wouldn't have voted Democrat no matter who's running on either side. Closet racism is just that--racism you don't broadcast publicly and you don't drive 25 minutes out of your way to act out on.

 

[APF]

But he still cultivated some of the latent racism. And I wasn't referring to him, I was referring to George 'Macaca' Allen.

GTF outta here, *you* cultivate latent racism. And try to follow what you're responding to in the first place, it had nothing to do with Allen.

 

[Flaming Duck]

Is it impossible to work with someone towards a common goal that you both believe in even if you don't agree with them on every other issue?

Look, it might not have been the smartest move he or his campaign have made, but the guy was there to sing, not to be a spokesperson. People have different opinions and points of view and yet, miraculously, sometimes we can still find things to agree upon. McClurkin's view on homosexuality is unfortunate, but I'm also sure that there is more to him than just not liking gay people and I'm not going to judge him based on one thing. Do I disagree with him? Yes, but that doesn't mean he should be automatically irrelevant in everything else he does.

Here is an interview with Obama regarding this issue. I'm sure most people will just see it as an attempt at spin, but there it is, anyway.

 

[APF]

Look I'm just hanging around with Satan for the security. I don't agree with his whole "torture for all eternity policy" or anything.

 

[kame-sennin]

Admission of the possibility that one is wrong is a reason to be moderate on an issue.

Absolutely, but I was reading in between the lines (in a really arrogant way). Feel free to call me a jerk, but I think any intelligent person knows that being against gay marriage is wrong. I'm sure I'll get flak for that, but that's how I see it. So my point is that Obama is aware of this as well, and comes dangerously close to admitting that he knows he's wrong. Ergo, his moderate stance is dishonest. I'll save you the trouble of telling me that I can't know what Obama really believes, because it doesn't matter to me. Civil unions is a cowardly position to take, which is why I resent the democrats in general.

Of course it is political expediency. Look . . . if you want to be an activist for something, go raise hell over your issue. But if you want to become president, you can't take extreme views.

I agree that he knows the position is wrong but he also knows that he can't take the right position and get elected. But any opponent of his will likely be far more homophobic, so Obama is the better choice.

Yeah, it is cynical Clinton-esque triangulation. But he somehow manages to do it in a way that doesn't seem extremely transparent & manipulative (as Hillary often does).

And my admiration of him has gone up.

When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil.

Spoiler

I don't think Barrack or the repubs are actually "evil", but I think my point is clear.

 

[Phoenix]

I think leaving gay marriage up to the states is the right choice. The fed doesn't give you a marriage license your state does.

But then you have issues with benefits and rights that apply at the federal level where the state designation of whether or not your gay-marriage is acknowledged won't matter at all.

So while it sounds like the good thing to do, it actually complicates greatly the gay marriage situation.

 

[Phoenix]

Slightly OT, but related to the Obama question on funding, how does one go about tracing the campaign finance contributions behind these candidates to see who is really providing the money behind these campaigns?

Its all in the public record. You could go to your local Obama-Campaign HQ and ask someone (in control) there and they could tell you where it is filed. Every person who contributes - EVERYONE it tracked. Even if all you donated was $1, you're on their list.

 

[kame-sennin]

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that he was for federally recognized civil unions but would not stand in the way of a state deciding something regarding gay marriage.

The problem with that is that a state could decide on giving gays more rights, or less rights. This is not an acceptable stance.

Next, I don't think Obama's response to the question or my initial post ever indicated that legal gay marriage would force gays into churches. I'm not sure why you even brought that up, actually.

I brought it up because you said this:

While I wouldn't agree with it, if a church wants to refuse to perform a religious ceremony for a couple why shouldn't they be able to?

I'm perfectly willing to drop the issue, however.

The legal contract of marriage that you talk about is exactly what would be given to gay couples entering civil unions.

No it isn't. As it stands, civil unions do not provide the same rights as marriages, and the fact that Obama wants them to doesn't make it so. As I said in my previous post, many laws require that the person in question be married in order for that person to receive the benefits. For civil unions to grant all the rights of marriage would require a lot of laws to be changed. More importantly, as you stated, Obama isn't even going to make civil unions national policy. That means that people will have unions in one state that are meaningless in another. This is an obvious sham that isn't going to help gay people a whole lot.

Obama's whole point of view is that, good or bad, marriage does have certain social and religious connotations. While some people might view marriage as only a legal contract, there are many people who see the religious and social components of a marriage to be just as large if not larger than the legal rights and benefits.

And? Lots of people can have misconceptions about lots of things. It doesn't mean the executive branch of the United States government has to cater to their ignorance. Marriage existed before judeo-christianity and in the United States it is a legal contract, period. If you want to attach other meanings to it, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't give you the right to interfere with the rights of others.

Obama himself happens to be one of those people who attaches a larger meaning to the idea of a marriage, and so he is uncomfortable supporting the idea of a gay marriage. At least he is honest enough to admit this and honest enough to admit that he could be wrong on this. But what is also important to note is that he is not allowing his religious views to get in the way of offering the same legal rights and benefits to gay couples.

Except that he is allowing his religious views to get in the way of giving gay people the right to get married, which does prevent them from having the same legal rights and benefits as other Americans, despite what proponents of civil unions say.

Obviously anything other than him announcing full support for gay marriage is going to leave some people cold. I see cries of, "Separate is inherently unequal!" but at the end of the day, he is all for letting gay couples receive those same rights and benefits. Does it honestly matter that much what it's called?

Kind of. But what's more important is that I don't see gay people getting equal rights under an Obama administration because he hasn't demonstrated the political courage it would take to enact something like that.

Also, not to be a jerk or anything, but his first name is spelled "Barack". It only has one R.

You're not a jerk at all, thank you for correcting me.

 

[Flo_Evans]

But then you have issues with benefits and rights that apply at the federal level where the state designation of whether or not your gay-marriage is acknowledged won't matter at all.

So while it sounds like the good thing to do, it actually complicates greatly the gay marriage situation.

Well he said he would veto any attempt to outlaw it. I mean Bush wanted to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage...

I am not married or gay so to me this issue is waaaay at the bottom of my list.

 

[kame-sennin]

Yeah, if in the end delegates decide who they want to go to, whats the point in having people vote in the first place?

thisisamericadude.gif

I also think voting for troop funding was the right call. They are there, give them what they need to do whatever it is they are supposed to be doing. He is the only candidate AFAIK that voted against the war in the first place.

1) Cutting off the funding would still leave millions (billions?) of dollars in the hands of the military which they could use to ship home every last soldier safely. 2) Obama wasn't in the Senate when the Iraq vote came up. He was a state senator and he gave a speech expresing his anti-war position. Not really a bold political move given his office.

As for racists, yeah some people will just not vote for him. But I think that number of mouth-breathers is lower than the number of people who will just not vote for a woman. esp. a BITCH like hillary.

Irony?

 

[siamesedreamer]

I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all people – gay or straight – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.

However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. I think the President should do all he or she can to advance strong families. Whatever the make-up of the family, it is the President’s role to provide policies and leadership that enable the family to thrive.

Classic fence straddling.

He's against gay marriage....yet he would oppose any type of bill/amendment banning it
and he wouldn't stand in the way of states deciding their own laws (which as Phoenix said is chaos). This goes back to my thread about his "chronic avoidance of tough issues".

Pathetic...

 

[Stoney Mason]

Classic fence straddling.

He's against gay marriage....yet he would oppose any type of bill/amendment banning it
and he wouldn't stand in the way of states deciding their own laws (which as Phoenix said is chaos). This goes back to my thread about his "chronic avoidance of tough issues".

Pathetic...

It's politics.

It's no more pathetic than all the waffling or changes of position or nuanced stances that any candidate takes on tough issues. ex. Mccain on immigration.

Not saying I like it or that I agree with Obama but I think sometimes people hold certain candidates to oddly high standards and then not so much with others.

 

[Frank the Great]

it is the President’s role to provide policies and leadership that enable the family to thrive.

lol wtf?

 

[Atrus]

I mean I understand that he is a very religious person and that some people like that but I prefer my candidates to be somebody who is basically neutral on religion and from the digging I've been doing Obama doesn't seem like he's that kind of guy.

Perhaps you need to listen to his faith and politics speech:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid463869411?bctid=416343938

As far as the anti-gay gospel preachers goes, they were obviously chosen because they were prominent singers not because they were anti-gay. Context offers a depth that is missed in these types of situations.

Even if he simply brought in the Pope or another Christian leader, it would have still had the same result but you'd still have to work with them in some capacity. How many state leaders shake the hands with religious leaders despite their views? No matter who the leader is they would still have to work with people of differing views because at the end of the day they are also people of the state. What differentiates the position is whether or not he stands in support of them on the issue.

If he had to stop associating with anti-homosexuals, he'd have to stop communicating with a large portion of Americans.

 

[Flaming Duck]

The problem with that is that a state could decide on giving gays more rights, or less rights. This is not an acceptable stance.

I don't know if Obama is planning on making federally recognized civil unions or not. I'll admit that right now. His response to the question doesn't make that clear. If, however, he did, that would indicate that across all of the states there would be a bare minimum of rights that would be recognized. Then, each state could decide for themselves about whether it should remain a civil union or be called a gay marriage. Yes, this would make things slightly confusing across states and no, it is not ideal, but that core set of rights, which Obama states should be equal to whatever a straight couple gets, will always be there no matter where they live.

No it isn't. As it stands, civil unions do not provide the same rights as marriages, and the fact that Obama wants them to doesn't make it so. As I said in my previous post, many laws require that the person in question be married in order for that person to receive the benefits. For civil unions to grant all the rights of marriage would require a lot of laws to be changed. More importantly, as you stated, Obama isn't even going to make civil unions national policy. That means that people will have unions in one state that are meaningless in another. This is an obvious sham that isn't going to help gay people a whole lot.

Of course the fact that he wants them to doesn't make it so. But he does want them to and he is willing to work in that direction. That's the whole point. He recognizes that the way things are right now is not right and he is willing to move in a direction that, while maybe not ideal, is certainly much, much better than what is there right now. I've already quoted the literature stating that he wants to change those laws and extend more than 1,000 federalrights and benefits to gay couples. And since those are federal rights, it leads me to believe that he would be supportive of introducing a federally recognized civil union.

This is the second time you've replied saying that just because Obama wants this doesn't mean it's going to happen because there are laws that need to be changed. And this is the second time I'm telling you, he knows this and he supports changing those laws!

And? Lots of people can have misconceptions about lots of things. It doesn't mean the executive branch of the United States government has to cater to their ignorance. Marriage existed before judeo-christianity and in the United States it is a legal contract, period. If you want to attach other meanings to it, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't give you the right to interfere with the rights of others.

Oh, come on. Attaching some significance beyond "oh, legal rights, yay!" to marriage does not make someone ignorant. It's a huge step for people, of course they're going to see it as more than entering a binding legal contract. There is never going to be any movement on this issue if people don't realize that while marriage might have originally been intended as solely a legal contract (I am not familiar with the history of marriage, so I don't know of its origins) the fact of the matter is that it is seen as so much more than that today by millions of people. Call people who attach more meaning to a marriage ignorant if you must, but not everyone has such a black and white view of things. It may seem painstakingly obvious to you that marriage is only a legal contract but that doesn't mean how other people view it is unimportant or meaningless or that anyone is catering to ignorance by recognizing these opposing views and trying to work something out that can make both sides happy.

Except that he is allowing his religious views to get in the way of giving gay people the right to get married, which does prevent them from having the same legal rights and benefits as other Americans, despite what proponents of civil unions say.

If (and yes, it is a big if) Obama becomes President and he successfully changes all those laws and he can offer a gay couple the same rights as a straight couple, he is not denying gay people anything. According to you, marriage is only a contract which gives people legal rights and benefits. According to Obama, he wants to offer gay couples a contract that would give them those same legal rights and benefits. So... he's pretty much offering them marriage, yeah?

I don't know anything about you, but it seems like you've constructed some ideal world where everyone should have the same beliefs you do. Obviously you know this isn't the case, so instead of decrying any kind of progress as "not good enough" why not instead focus on the fact that there is a real chance for some real progress to be made on this issue under Obama's leadership? It may not be ideal, but it's better than anything that has come before. Change is sometimes slow and sometimes we have to embrace that fact and realize it isn't going to happen nearly as quickly as we would like.

Look, I hate when threads get derailed like this. I know you aren't going to change your mind and you probably know I'm not going to change yours. And while it is interesting to see other points of view, this isn't what this thread is about. Can we just agree to disagree about this?

 

[perfectchaos007]

thisisamericadude.gif

basically. We try to be a democracy, but in the end its all fucked up.

 

[siamesedreamer]

Of course the fact that he wants them to doesn't make it so. But he does want them to and he is willing to work in that direction.

Gay marriage/Civil unions is a wedge issue. Obama may talk like he wants to engage it, but there's no way he's touching it.

I've always contended that it will be settled by the Supreme Court with a case involving a couple from Massachussetts/Hawaii/Vermont(?) not having their rights recognized in a state that has banned it.

 

[kame-sennin]

Look, I hate when threads get derailed like this. I know you aren't going to change your mind and you probably know I'm not going to change yours. And while it is interesting to see other points of view, this isn't what this thread is about. Can we just agree to disagree about this?

Sure.

But I want to answer one point since it's kind of personal and it gets at why I constantly shit on Hillary, Biden, Obama, and the rest.

I don't know anything about you, but it seems like you've constructed some ideal world where everyone should have the same beliefs you do. Obviously you know this isn't the case, so instead of decrying any kind of progress as "not good enough" why not instead focus on the fact that there is a real chance for some real progress to be made on this issue under Obama's leadership? It may not be ideal, but it's better than anything that has come before. Change is sometimes slow and sometimes we have to embrace that fact and realize it isn't going to happen nearly as quickly as we would like.

When it comes to gay rights or civil rights in general, yes, I am very intolerant of opposing beliefs. I don't think there's any wiggle room on equality. When it comes to other issues however, I think it's really important that opposing sides be equally represented so that the nation isn't pulled too far too fast in one direction.

As per the second bolded statement, I think that it is important that we (liberals) hold democrats to as high a standard as possible. If we let them off the hook on things like gay marriage or the Iraq war, then nothing gets done. They just capitulate to the republicans time after time. We have to keep the pressure on the democrats so that they will be respectable candidates. And if we do that, people will vote for them. More importantly, when they actually get into office, they'll know who got them there and they'll do the right thing. If liberals go easy on the democrats, the dems won't do a damn thing for us because they know we won't hold them accountable.

 

[speculawyer]

When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil.

Spoiler

I don't think Barrack or the repubs are actually "evil", but I think my point is clear.

It is ALWAYS a vote for the lesser of evils the way our broken democracy is set up.

Let's get instant run-off voting going and proportional representation balloting like more recent creations of democracy and then we can all vote for people that more closely align with out views. But to vote vote for people that can't get elected is just naive and pointless. I'm a pragmatist.

 

[Phoenix]

It is ALWAYS a vote for the lesser of evils the way our broken democracy is set up.

Let's get instant run-off voting going and proportional representation balloting like more recent creations of democracy and then we can all vote for people that more closely align with out views. But to vote vote for people that can't get elected is just naive and pointless. I'm a pragmatist.

I wouldn't say that its naive or pointless actually, because at the end of the day if enough people support candidate X for reason 1-3, the remaining field of candidates notice that this is a position that is important to some people and actively adopt policies to try and accommodate those people as much as possible.

 

[thekad]

On Gay Marriage: Well, Obama does offer to extend the legal benefits of marriage to gays, though I'm not really sure how he plans to exactly do that. I wish someone would press him on the issue, but yeah, that is very unlikely.

I disagree with him on the issue of gay marriage, by the way.

 

[Cheebs]

The thing is Obama isn't an ISSUE candidate. He isn't about giving out policy positions. He is a movement candidate, about idealism not policy.

 

[thekad]

The thing is Obama isn't an ISSUE candidate. He isn't about giving out policy positions. He is a movement candidate, about idealism not policy.

Well, I think we have a good idea where he stands(anti-iraq war, pro-uhc, pro-intervention like everyone else). We just don't know what exactly he is going to do with his ideas.

 

[Cheebs]

Well, I think we have a good idea where he stands(anti-iraq war, pro-uhc, pro-intervention like everyone else). We just don't know what exactly he is going to do with his ideas.

And I dont expect you'll ever hear him say them until the general if he continues winning. The idealism narrative is working for now.

 

[thekad]

And I dont expect you'll ever hear him say them until the general if he continues winning. The idealism narrative is working for now.

Yup, we're stuck with politicians whether we like it or not. Obama, to me, just seems more genuine than the other two.

 

[siamesedreamer]

The idealism narrative is working for now.

That's an understatement.

 

[Cheebs]

That's an understatement.

we need to see NH's results before we can be 100% sure that it is more than a understatement.

 

[Incognito]

* Obama beat Clinton among women 35% to 30%
* Obama beat Edwards among voters in union households 30%-24%
* Obama beat Clinton and Edwards among voters of almost every income level (Obama and Clinton tied among voters who make $15-30,000)
* As many voters age 17-29 as voters 65 and older participated last night -- in previous years senior participation has been 5-times greater than younger voters.
* Obama beat Edwards and Clinton among voters who want change (51%-20%-19%)
* Despite countless attacks and hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative mail, TV, and radio, Obama beat Clinton and Edwards (34%-30%-27%) among voters who say health care is the most important issue
* Obama won among those who said the economy was the most important issue (36%-26%-26%)
* Obama won over Clinton and Edwards (35%-26%-17%) among those who said Iraq was the most important issue
* Won across the ideological spectrum – winning among liberals, moderates and conservatives
* Won among high income and lower income voters among voters with household income below $50,000 (34%-32%-19%) and among those over $50,000 (41%-19%-28%)
* Also won among the 82% of voters who said Pakistan was “very or somewhat important”

Well it looks as though the mandate attacks on Obama didn't hurt. Those numbers basically dovetail with numbers from NH that people aren't too keen on the idea on mandates and thus support Obama's plan. Much to the chagrin of Krugman....

 

[Incognito]

I hardly seeing that happening considering, among other things, a) Obama hasn't "butchered" anyone and seemingly refuses to and b) Huckabee, with all his flaws, is a more charismatic figure than Obama. I suspect that confrontation would be a lot more close than you might expect.

I don't know. I think a 8 and 9pt spread, respectively, against a former Vice Presidential nominee who for all intents and purposes has lived in Iowa the past four years and a former First Lady who had her president husband campaigning tirelessly for her would classify as a "butchering".

What's more amazing is the amount of new people (mostly progressive democrats) Obama managed to turn out. He also scored a sizable independent #. As someone from the Clinton campaign said before the caucuses on Thursday, if Obama managed to really bring out these people then he deserves to be the nominee.

 

[APF]

Krugman is only attacking poor Obameh because his non-existent children want a Clinton WH cabinet position.

 

[NWO]

Perhaps you need to listen to his faith and politics speech:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid463869411?bctid=416343938

I'm not going to listen to a 40 minute speech to get to his faith and politics view. Sum it up a lot faster than that please.

This also irked me:

Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase “under God.” I didn’t.

Under God was added after 1954 and this country wasn't a devil worshiping place before it. Now you have people who believe in multiple gods, 1 god, and no god. There really isn't a point in keeping it there other than the same people who use it to justify how their religion is the correct one now. The same thing goes for it being on our money.

Also I am *shocked* that a born again Christian didn't have a problem reciting under God over and over again.

As far as the anti-gay gospel preachers goes, they were obviously chosen because they were prominent singers not because they were anti-gay. Context offers a depth that is missed in these types of situations.

Yeah and after people protested Obama's response was not to get rid of him but instead it was to add an openly gay minister. That's a shitty response. Gay people protested and instead of letting the guy go (he could have found a ton of normal singers to replace him) he just said I don't care I'm keeping him. Hey guys ignore the guy who is saying that he can pray the gay away because I have a gay friend. So much for change huh? I'd expect that kind of response out of somebody like Bush.

If he had to stop associating with anti-homosexuals, he'd have to stop communicating with a large portion of Americans.

Right because everyone in America says that gays can choose who they are attracted to and by praying they can remove the evil from themselves and go around preaching this. You people are crazy to think this guy is normal. Donnie McClurkin is a NUT JOB.

 

[Macam]

I don't know. I think a 8 and 9pt spread, respectively, against a former Vice Presidential nominee who for all intents and purposes has lived in Iowa the past four years and a former First Lady who had her president husband campaigning tirelessly for her would classify as a "butchering".

Perhaps I misunderstood Phoenix's use of the word, but for whatever reason I assumed he was talking about in a debate & campaigning context, not a voting turnout one. Regardless, it was specifically in reference to an Obama vs. Huckabee presidential run. That said, in spite of the results, I still don't view the Obama win as a "butchering", just an upset, however tough the competition may have been.

 

[jakncoke]

Don't flame me too badly for not knowing this but wtf is the Iowa caucus? could someone explain.

 

[Macam]

Don't flame me too badly for not knowing this but wtf is the Iowa caucus? could someone explain.

Wikipedia can.

 

[jakncoke]

your a dick, any member?

 

[Cheebs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

 

[Macam]

your a dick, any member?

And you're really, really lazy. You ask an obvious question and an hour later, you don't even take 5 seconds to use the Internet to even attempt to find an answer.

 

[jakncoke]

No your an ass for not giving me a simple 1 line answer on what it is, that's the point of a forum . To help others when questions come up, not go " well theres the internet.. you have it.. so get to searching the web for your answer"

 

[Incognito]

Gonna have to side with Macam on this one.

 

[Kildace]

No your an ass for not giving me a simple 1 line answer on what it is, that's the point of a forum . To help others when questions come up, not go " well theres the internet.. you have it.. so get to searching the web for your answer"

No, the point of a forum is to discuss specific topics among people educated about that topic. GAF is not your personal Wikipedia, you can't expect to come in 2 days late into the Iowa Caucus thread, ask what the Iowa Caucus is and not be sent to search Wikipedia. It would have taken you less time to search google for it than it took you to bicker about Macam's answer in this thread, btw.

 

[Macam]

No your an ass for not giving me a simple 1 line answer on what it is, that's the point of a forum . To help others when questions come up, not go " well theres the internet.. you have it.. so get to searching the web for your answer"

Actually, I gave you exactly that: a simple 1 line answer on exactly where you could find the answer to your question (and much more); Cheebs did the exact same thing. Hell, my initial reply wasn't even insulting and it wasn't intended to be. Don't blame me if you took offense to it.

 

[Souldriver]

No your an ass for not giving me a simple 1 line answer on what it is, that's the point of a forum . To help others when questions come up, not go " well theres the internet.. you have it.. so get to searching the web for your answer"

It's not easy to explain in a single line.

This should help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxESw0lY0CE

Very informative.

 

[Hootie]

It's easy to get pessimistic about racists preventing any sort of national Obama victory, but I really doubt that's the case. For every bigot declaring he'd "never vote for a n****r," there's going to be five people in earshot who are repulsed enough by that sentiment to show up in support for Obama on election day.

Remember that winning elections in America is more about getting your side to show up than convincing the other side to vote for you. Closet racism probably still exists in America, but I doubt it's going to be a positive motivator. It'd keep social conservatives at home, not drive them to the polls. The racists that do go to the polls wouldn't have voted Democrat no matter who's running on either side. Closet racism is just that--racism you don't broadcast publicly and you don't drive 25 minutes out of your way to act out on.

I'm also glad to know that Abraham Lincoln won the Election of 1860 without even being on the Southern ballot. Now that's awesome...and quite reassuring

 

[ToxicAdam]

Romney wins in Wyoming.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TVV7RO0&show_article=1

 

[Atrus]

I'm not going to listen to a 40 minute speech to get to his faith and politics view. Sum it up a lot faster than that please.

Your laziness is not my problem. Either you can educate yourself or remain ignorant on it, I'm not here to spoon feed strangers.

This also irked me:


Under God was added after 1954 and this country wasn't a devil worshiping place before it. Now you have people who believe in multiple gods, 1 god, and no god. There really isn't a point in keeping it there other than the same people who use it to justify how their religion is the correct one now. The same thing goes for it being on our money.

Also I am *shocked* that a born again Christian didn't have a problem reciting under God over and over again.

Again what is missing here is context. Obama didn't have the sudden rapture of born-again Christians, he saw through the community participation of the Church that it was a good enough thing to be a part of. He has been rather quiet about whether or not a religious revelation about god had anything to do with it, his turn to Christianity as he cites it was from its humanitarian community works.

Obama mentioned he had no problem with it because prior to being a Christian he was a functional agnostic/atheist. His father became an atheist but was not around, his step-father didn't care about religion and his mother had no leanings to religiosity either. Therefore in school he had no problem saying 'under God' in school and considers it an irrelevant matter in the greater context of the problems of the president.

I don't see this framing Obama as some religious right-winger when if elected, the only president who would be less of an ardent believer would likely be Thomas Jefferson.

Yeah and after people protested Obama's response was not to get rid of him but instead it was to add an openly gay minister. That's a shitty response. Gay people protested and instead of letting the guy go (he could have found a ton of normal singers to replace him) he just said I don't care I'm keeping him. Hey guys ignore the guy who is saying that he can pray the gay away because I have a gay friend. So much for change huh? I'd expect that kind of response out of somebody like Bush.

So you would prefer a US president avoided associating with everyone who was a racist, xenophobe, homophobe, and misanthrope?

In the current environment of that exists in the US it would mean being unable to be elected President and being unable to work with members of Congress.

It's also an extremely incompetent world view to have. Do scientists have to stop watching Chuck Norris movies because he's an advocate of Creationism? Or does one disagreement relegate other human beings to non-citizen status?

Right because everyone in America says that gays can choose who they are attracted to and by praying they can remove the evil from themselves and go around preaching this. You people are crazy to think this guy is normal. Donnie McClurkin is a NUT JOB.

No, but a key portion of America is homophobic and to completely stop interacting with them in every way is an inefficient and incompetent way to go about life. The reverse is similarly true. My former co-worker was a Seventh Day Adventist who was extremely homophobic, yet whenever the lesbian security guard came by he shut up and was able to work with her because he was there for his required role, not to advocate his homophobia. Should we have fired him? Should we have barred him from office events?

A disagreement over an issue does not mean that an individual cannot contribute to society in other ways while detracting in one. In this scenario their capacity was required for his gospel singing not his homophobic ideas.

The problem with attaining a proper secular state is that on the one hand, you have religious incompetents who cannot distinguish the differences from a secular state and an atheistic one. On the other, people like you cannot realize that disagreements over an issue does not invalidate people of their status as a citizen and a member to be worked with and not against. The idea that in absolutely no way could a secular state work with the religious unless they disband their beliefs is utter nonsense.

 

[siamesedreamer]

your a dick, any member?

Come on dude...

 

[Tim the Wiz]

No your an ass for not giving me a simple 1 line answer on what it is, that's the point of a forum . To help others when questions come up, not go " well theres the internet.. you have it.. so get to searching the web for your answer"

You asked for someone to explain. They directed you to a resource that could explain in a succinct, easy to comprehend manner. That person was not doing you a disservice, you're doing yourself one. Your attitude belies that of someone who expects people to wait hand and foot on them for no reason at all. FYI, that's annoying.

Didn't get that? No, I expected that you wouldn't. To put it otherwise, you just asked GAF for soup, and GAF said, "NO SOUP FOR YOU!" Everyone here is a soup nazi hardass, and are out to get you. Watch you back, brother. The conspiracy is real.

we need to see NH's results before we can be 100% sure that it is more than a understatement.

The polling looks good thus far. It's quite amazing how one result in Iowa leads to Obama leap-frogging Hillary in the polling for NH - especially when you consider how large her lead was beforehand.