Ha, this is great!
Links to all those things at the blog.
He has been president for 110 days and his greatest detractors can’t argue he’s had a bit of a full plate. Only the most virulent and rabid of gay marriage activists (the ones who exist in the imaginations of NOM) see gay marriage and DADT as taking priority over the mortgage crisis, selecting a cabinet, and the million other fires that are raging.
Now if two years from now, perhaps even 1 year from now, he hasn’t done anything to overrule DOMA or DADT, I might agree with you.
I’m glad to hear you say that. President Obama can multi-task very well, but he can’t do everything at the same time, and though I too want gay rights NOW, I think he’s holding off just a little longer to let the military and the country (those who aren’t wacko loonballs) catch up to a more enlightened point of view. It’s happening. Look at Iowa, and Maine. Who would have thought those states, especially Iowa, would have gay marriage so soon? Enlightenment is accelerating, much to the chagrin of those powerless to stop it (like NOM), and will continue to accelerate. DOMA and DADT are done for, everybody knows it, it’s just a matter of time. If there are some things that President Obama has to hold back until after the midterms (when the Republicans will lose even more seats) then we just have to be patient.
President Obama plays chess. Everyone else is playing checkers.
When I was in about 5th grade in the early 70s I recall seeing a movie in class where famous speakers were shown and each time they said “errr” or "something like that, there was a “bzzzzt” Batman style. Stuck with me to this day.
It is not the White House who hires the talent, but the WH Correspondents Assoc. I remember reading after Colbert’s performance that the organizers were only vaguely familiar with him as someone younger people like. If you watch the tape of Colbert’s performance, the person introducing him pronounces the T in Colbert Report, a sure sign they are not in on the joke.
All of which begs the question of why Obama wasn’t reviled immediately, as Prejean was, upon stating his views, which, if I remember correctly, he stated prior to the election. Hillary Clinton has taken the same stance and there has been no press or gay community attack on her, either. Reminds me a lot of how silent feminists were in the wake of revelations regarding Clinton and Kennedy’s behavior toward women.
No wonder so many people are liberals - you guys are automatically off the hook for just about anything that anyone else gets reviled for!
Everybody knows Obama doesn’t really mean it, that’s why. If he said he was for gay marriage, he couldn’t have gotten elected.
Any, Little miss Phobey-phobe wasn’t “reviled imediately,” or much at all. That whole story was driven by the right, not the left. If the right wing media hadn’t decioded to make one of their manufactured outrages of the week, no one would have ever heard of her. Most of the left never gave a shit. So she came in second in a beauty pageant. Somebody call the wahhhh-mbulance.
It really doesn’t raise that question at all. The answer is obvious to anyone who isn’t being deliberately obtuse. Obama has a lot of good to offer and people are capable of being concerned about multiple issues at once. There is no pro-gay-rights alternative.
I have never heard anyone who favors equal rights for gays say that it’s ok that Obama is opposed to them, and it’s not ok. The reason we don’t revile him is because we believe he’s doing a lot of good overall for the country in spite of his incorrect position on gay rights. Prejean gets reviled because she has never offered the country anything except intolerance. Even her tits are fake, and she didn`t even pay for them. She’s got nothing.
Liberals are letting Obama slide on gay marriage because they want him to fix health care, education, and our energy crisis. It makes no sense for Obama to lose political capital taking a stance on this issue when there are a lot others that are more important.
I know it sucks not to get married, but it would suck even more if you get stuck with $100,000 worth of medical bills.
Besides, the younger generations support gay marriage at around 64%. All we have to do is wait for the older voters to die out and the inevitable will happen.
I’m sorry to hear you say this. I truly thought he was better than Hillary Clinton. I’m reminded of the occasion during Bill Clinton’s first run for the presidency when he was caught in a lie, and his defenders more or less said “*Of course *he’s lying…he’s running for president!”
So if Carrie Prejean were to suddenly start lobbying for universal health care, she’d be off the hook for ‘phobing’?
I’m not being obtuse at all. How is anyone not a leftie supposed to think that a boss chasing a woman around his desk, or not favoring gay marriage, are so horrible that they deserve the loss of their jobs and public revilation, when you let your own off the hook so easily?
In other words, it’s hard to take your angry assertions (not you personally, FD) so seriously when you excuse your own so readily.
It appears to me that if being a ‘homophobe’ or expressing ‘homophobic’ (the quotes are because actual phobias rarely enter into the equation) attitudes are as horrible as one is led to believe by the left, it seriously negates that argument when your own are let off the hook so readily for the so-called ‘greater good’ (which coincidentally not everyone agrees is the greater good to begin with, and this too can undermine your argument because it looks like you’re letting them off the hook for no good reason :D).
Either predatory sexism or disapproval of gay marriage is the scourge of the planet, or they’re not. And when you behave as though they are, but then utter not a peep when your own do it, it does not look like you are biting the bullet for the greater good. Instead it makes you look like gigantic hypocrites who don’t believe your own rhetoric yourselves.
[Reagan]There you go again![/Reagan]You don’t seem to understand that 1) Carrie Prejean is nothing. Nothing. Nobody. A Zero. A Ziltch. A Nada. A Zippo. A NOBODY. A beauty queen with fake hair, a fake smile, fake boobs, and not too bright. So what else is new? Oh and, she’s against gay marriage and upset Parez Hilton (quite a faker in his own right). Yawn. Very very few people gave a shit beyond “ok, whatever” until, as Dio points out, Fox and the Freaks made a big deal out of it, and THEN she hooked up with NOM. That’s what perked people’s ears up. NOM was already a laughingstock and now here was this bimbo doing an ad for them? Ok, interesting. Let’s look at this woman a little bit closer. Oooh, liar liar pants (when she’s wearing them) on fire. Then she became really interesting (in a creepy, sad, sordid, trainwreck sort of way). She would have been forgotten about in another week if she hadn’t hooked up with the premiere loonball-of-the-moment anti-gay faction.
and
- Bill Clinton had a lot to offer the country. He did a little bit of very good (the economy and the surplus), a lot of somewhat good (if nothing else, kept the country out of the hands of trampling Republicans for 8 years) and not a whole lot of bad (we all have our beefs with Bill about this or that, but he didn’t cause too much damage, at the time anyway). Many people, especially many feminists, DID scorn him for his sexual weaknesses, but most sane people realized that his sex drive and life was between him, Hillary and whoever he might be banging at the moment. I consider myself a feminist and I sure scorned Bill, but it wasn’t my business, just like George H.W. Bush’s mistress wasn’t my business. Bill lied under oath about it, and I hate him for that,to this very day, because he should have just said “yeah, I did have sexual relations with that woman, and it’s between me, Hillary and the woman in question and is none of your business” and then shut up. Why he didn’t I’ll never know, but I went from mildly scornful to “watta jerk” but STILL thought it ultimately wasn’t my business. I hated that he lied, but I kinda understood why (he was and had been being badgered for the length of his presidency), even if I disagreed with it, because, again ultimately,
- NOBODY GAVE A FUCK ABOUT BILL CLINTON’S DICK EXCEPT FOR REPUBLICANS! You (the general you) perverted bastards spent tens of millions of dollars of the taxpayer’s money investigating Bill every which way from Sunday and found NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. He was just about as clean a whistle as any president ever, aside from having a weakness for women. You were desperate. Monica Lewinsky fell into your laps like a gift from heaven and the skies opened up and poured Monica Monica Monica Monica Monica Monica Monica MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA 24/frickin7/365 for months and months and months. Even to this day, we can’t get away from Monica. It just drives Republicans batshit insane that no one else besides them seems to be too concerned. It’d be hilarious if it all hadn’t caused very real damage to the country. Not the shenanigans with Monica, but the witchhunt by Republicans.
and
- I fully realize that you guys wouldn’t know integrity and decency if it bit you in the face, but many tens of millions of people in this country do, and realize that President Obama is the poster boy for integrity and decency, and he’s intelligent, and clever, and has a lot of good ideas, and as a package is exactly what the country needs right now, so if the man is flawed, we can accept that. I consider being against gay marriage a character flaw, but I’m willing to accept that in President Obama because there wasn’t a choice between two decent men with integrity where one believed in gay marriage. Plus, it doesn’t matter anyway, because the country is moving toward a greater acceptance of gay rights/gay marriage, and it’s going to happen no matter what President Obama (or Miss Prejean, or some redneck in Kansas) personally believes. It’s not worth getting (too) worked up over when considering everything else President Obama has to deal with at the moment.
I don’t know, maybe you’re right about some pro-gay-rights people. I tend to think about only myself. I certainly don’t give him a pass. It’s really sad that he’s opposed to equal rights for gays. I think that in 25 years, young people or people with bad memories will have a very difficult time believing Obama’s position on gay rights, assuming he doesn’t change them during his presidency.
“Seriously? Obama was opposed to equal rights for gays? What the fuck?!”
The thing is he’s a complicated person with positions are virtually everything, because he’s president. Most of his positions are admirable. Also, there aren’t any pro-gay-rights candidates for president and if they were, it’s unlikely they’d have been better than Obama when you factor in everything. An Obama clone who is exactly the same but believes equal rights means equal rights whether you’re straight or gay? Fuck yes. Some other candidate who believes in gay rights but lacks Obama’s ability to effectively improve the country? Sorry, I’m not a one issue voter. I’m not even gay; I’m just someone who believes that freedom means freedom for everybody.
Prejean on the other hand is basically a cardboard cutout with no substance on any issue except her intolerance of gays. I have no idea what she thinks about anything else in the world and I don’t care to. Because she’s a beauty pageant contestant. And there are a lot of beauty pageant contestants who don’t espouse intolerance.
If Carrie Prejean were to go into politics with the same position she has on gay marriage, but otherwise the rest of Obama’s positions or similar, she’d be a pretty good candidate. Fact is, she’s not a politician with anything to offer, she’s a failed beauty pageant contestant.
I do think Obama’s position is sincerely held, but held in the knowledge that things are changing. I don’t think Obama would stand in the way of efforts for gay marriage, and I see no evidence of him doing so.
I wouldn’t let anyone who isn’t a politician slide on this issue. And that doesn’t mean I would let all politicians slide on this.
For the record, it should be noted that, in THIS thread, it’s the people who love Obama most who are asserting confidently that he’s a cowardly liar.
And they’re saying that in his DEFENSE!!!
To compare apples to apples, the first WH Correspondents Dinner of Bush’s administration was headlined by Darrell Hammond, who mostly did Clinton and Gore jokes.
One person said that (Dio), it was just his opinion, and he could be and probably is very very wrong. For myself, I believe that President Obama believes that “marriage” is between a man and a woman, but that he believes in states rights, and the will of the people. States, and the people, are slowly catching up to the future, and President Obama will not interfere. He could, just like millions of people, even change his mind about his definition of marriage. That wouldn’t make him wishy-washy or a flip-flopper, it would just make him like millions of other people.
And still, he’s not a pathological liar like Carrie Prejean, and that (among a million and two other reasons) makes him better than her, even though they hold the same opinion on gay marriage.
I’ll agree with this statement. I think Pres. Obama is too much of a humanitarian to exclude gays and lesbians. I think that politically, unfortunately, right now he has to chill on the issue, however. Our country has a lot on its plate (speaking as one of the unfortunate unemployed) and we’ve got to get our shit together. I also agree with the posters that say that the issue of gay marriage is a snowball that is just gonna keep on rollin’ and gathering momentum and will eventually be a non-issue.
I still wish Ms. Sykes would have gotten a little dig in there somewhere, though. Just a reminder to the Pres that to be truly democratic he needs to address the issue…if not marriage at least with the military. There are gay people in the military, and there always have been, I mean, hello already.
There’s nothing wrong with Hillary Clinton’s character.
Obama’s position on SSM is one of semantic nuance only. He favors civil unions, he has said he would not support any active federal legislation or Constitutional Amendment against SSM, and he does not oppose individual states legalizing it. All he’s really said he’s personally opposed to is the use of the word “marriage,” but he supports no state or federal government action to stop it. It’s absolutely meaningless semantic posturing. He has to say what he has to say. There has never been a POTUS who didn’t. Even Lincoln had to posture for a while against outright abolition.