The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

While Obama promised a million things he won't deliver, I don't remember gay-rights being a huge part of that. Isn't he against gay marriage (at least by the time he started running for president?)

Obama's 'don't ask, don't tell' pledge questioned - USATODAY.com

Obama called on Congress to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act, which limits how state, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits. He called for a law to extend benefits to domestic partners.

He expressed strong support for the HRC agenda of ending discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people but stopped short of laying out a detailed plan for how to get there.

"My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will look back and see a time when we put a stop against discrimination ... whether in the office or the battlefield," Obama said.

[panerd]

Don't ask, don't tell never made much sense to me anyways. Wouldn't the military industrial complex want as many people as possible to continue to police the world and fight their endless war in the Middle East?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Don't ask, don't tell never made much sense to me anyways. Wouldn't the military industrial complex want as many people as possible to continue to police the world and fight their endless war in the Middle East?

this is true. i guess their thinking is that gays aren't people.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Don't ask, don't tell never made much sense to me anyways. Wouldn't the military industrial complex want as many people as possible to continue to police the world and fight their endless war in the Middle East?

And would the moral right be more excited if:

-A gay person shot a terrorist
-A terrorist shot a gay person

??????

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Don't ask, don't tell never made much sense to me anyways. Wouldn't the military industrial complex want as many people as possible to continue to police the world and fight their endless war in the Middle East?

But it makes bigots and closeted gays angry.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

this is true. i guess their thinking is that gays aren't people.

As a subset of liberalism would be the only reason anybody would think that!

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And would the moral right be more excited if:

-A gay person shot a terrorist
-A terrorist shot a gay person

??????

is the Gay person a doctor that would be willing to perform legal abortions?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I thought it was a good speech, but he's given good speeches before. It's time for some leadership. I voted for him because I thought he'd be a pragmatist and reach out to both sides. It's time for him to start doing that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But political reality stands in the way. I think he can get DADT ended because Congress is going to hear from a lot of military leaders that the end won't effect combat readiness. He'll also be able to pull in some Republicans, maybe even Ted Olsen, to help bolster the argument. I think, but I'm not certain, that there's enough pressure there to get to sixty in the Senate. (Because the GOP will undoubtedly filibuster)

In my opinion, they should worry about the filibuster less. As long as the initiative that's proposed has some broad support, send it through. If the GOP wants to filibuster it, use that against them come election time (both on the issue in question and the "GOP are do-nothing obstructionists" line). After all, those who support the GOP's filibuster on this and similar issues aren't going to vote Democrat anyway, and at least you give the base something for which to cheer.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

In my opinion, they should worry about the filibuster less. As long as the initiative that's proposed has some broad support, send it through. If the GOP wants to filibuster it, use that against them come election time (both on the issue in question and the "GOP are do-nothing obstructionists" line). After all, those who support the GOP's filibuster on this and similar issues aren't going to vote Democrat anyway, and at least you give the base something for which to cheer.

On gay marriage I disagree. I think there are a lot of people that might favor the Dems on economic issues, but if the election is about gay marriage they'll stay home or vote GOP. Now if Congress could pass it, I wouldn't care. I'd say do it and stand on the historic achievement as history will treat you kindly. But, since it won't pass and will take the focus off of everything else that might be able to get done, I think it's foolish to go down that path.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I thought it was a good speech, but he's given good speeches before. It's time for some leadership. I voted for him because I thought he'd be a pragmatist and reach out to both sides. It's time for him to start doing that.

How could you look at his voting record and believe that was going to happen?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by King of New York

So the White House has announced a three-year freeze on discretionary spending.

I'm disappointed in what looks to be a panicky gimmick--the sort of stunt that John McCain pulled when he canceled the campaign and rushed to Washington to save the economy. I know that Obama is trying to reassure people, but by so suddenly distancing himself from the Keynesian approach of his first year, he risks an even more massive erosion of people's confidence in his White House.

I don't think you have a lot to worry about. Just from today... (but whats $2,280,000,000+?, a supreme court justice shook his head no to part of Obama's speech!!!! )

White House doles out $8 billion for fast trains - Yahoo! News

Senate permits gov't to borrow an additional $1.9T - Yahoo! News

FOXNews.com - Pelosi Pushes $300 Billion 'Fix' to Senate Health Care Bill

FOXNews.com - White House Rejects Pelosi's Push to Freeze Defense Spending

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

In my opinion, they should worry about the filibuster less.

For god's sake yes.

The Civil Rights Acts were filibustered the crap out of. It delayed passage a couple days, but we still talk about the filibustering and who did it. If your bill works, which I assume they believe it will, the filibusters will look like morons.

Unless the fear is just that the whole thing fails, and they don't want to be solely responsible.

[JPhillips]

There's a hell of a difference between civil rights and healthcare or jobs. But even if you want to look at them as equal, the filibuster rules have changed. After civil rights both parties agreed that filibusters are too disruptive and made it so that what we think of as a filibuster doesn't really exist. On side can declare a filibuster and never have to stand in front of the public to "look like morons". It's all done behind the scenes now.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't push forward on what they believe in, they certainly should, but unless two-thirds of the senate agrees to change the rules they have to worry about the filibuster.

[larrymcg421]

To me, that's the biggest problem. This "gentleman's agreement" filibuster nonsense is crap. For a filibuster, you should have to sit there 24/7. Any time someone gives up and leaves and you no longer have enough people to sustain the filibuster, then it is over. That means giving up free time. Giving up sleep. Giving up time with your family. That would ensure it is only used at important times.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

To me, that's the biggest problem. This "gentleman's agreement" filibuster nonsense is crap. For a filibuster, you should have to sit there 24/7. Any time someone gives up and leaves and you no longer have enough people to sustain the filibuster, then it is over. That means giving up free time. Giving up sleep. Giving up time with your family. That would ensure it is only used at important times.

yup!

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

To me, that's the biggest problem. This "gentleman's agreement" filibuster nonsense is crap. For a filibuster, you should have to sit there 24/7. Any time someone gives up and leaves and you no longer have enough people to sustain the filibuster, then it is over. That means giving up free time. Giving up sleep. Giving up time with your family. That would ensure it is only used at important times.

My fingers are having trouble typing these words, but I agree with Larry and DT.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

My fingers are having trouble typing these words, but I agree with Larry and DT.

hehe

[JPhillips]

I agree. I'd be fine with the filibuster if there was a cost for using it. As long as it's pain free it's hard see any downside for using it as the GOP is doing.

[JPhillips]

dola

I haven't searched a lot for this answer, but why would every member of the GOP delegation in the Senate vote against pay as you go rules?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

I haven't searched a lot for this answer, but why would every member of the GOP delegation in the Senate vote against pay as you go rules?

because they're voting against everything. they've adopted a nihilistic stand...i can't imagine it will play well come voting-time.

[flere-imsaho]

I disagree. When they were the majority party in the Senate the GOP made a lot of hay lambasting Democrats for not allowing "up-or-down votes", either in the context of threatened filibusters, or stuff getting held up in committees. The public didn't need to understand the mechanics of the obstruction, they just had to know that one party wasn't letting the "group of elected representatives" just "do their job". It's a simple message.

[miked]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But does he do it at the risk of losing any hope of having enough votes to pass anything else the rest of his term?

This was the key point of his speech on the AJC web edition overnight & this morning, a nod I believe to the reality that, barring something huge in either direction on national security or the economy, it will be the galvanizing issue in a number of districts. Yes Jim Marshall (D-GA8) I'm looking at you, and even John Barrow (D-GA12) has to think long & hard about what to do if he wants to return to DC.

It almost seems like a go for broke move by Obama.

Yes, we all know in the South you get elected by beating blacks and gays, not helping them!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Yes, we all know in the South you get elected by beating blacks and gays, not helping them!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Some good news on the economic front. I'm sure everyone and their dead grandmother will take credit for it.

Economy soars 5.7 percent, fastest in 6 years - Yahoo! Finance

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Some good news on the economic front. I'm sure everyone and their dead grandmother will take credit for it.

Economy soars 5.7 percent, fastest in 6 years - Yahoo! Finance

so what - now he's supposed to take the blame but not the credit? you're insane. it's laughable.

[molson]

(non-economist disclaimer) That's a nice number and good news, but I don't think we can declare a verdict on the stimulus package until we see if we can maintain solid growth without depending on it. I mean, the economy is definitely going to grow if you artifically put $800 billion into it, right? That's a no-brainer. Just like I can have a lot of nice stuff in my house if I go nuts on credit cards for a few months.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

so what - now he's supposed to take the blame but not the credit? you're insane. it's laughable.

I think the part that cracks me up is the idea that people are going to look at these numbers and things this will lead to long term success and then parlay that into spending more. People just aren't appreciating the long term problems all of this is going to present because all anybody cares about is the present.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by rowech

I think the part that cracks me up is the idea that people are going to look at these numbers and things this will lead to long term success and then parlay that into spending more. People just aren't appreciating the long term problems all of this is going to present because all anybody cares about is the present.

Consumer and business spending are what drive the growth of the economy. If there is no more spending, there is no more growth. If spending stops, the economy crashes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

Yes, we all know in the South you at least stand a chance to get elected by refusing to legitimize the morally indefensible

Fixed your bullshit post for you.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

so what - now he's supposed to take the blame but not the credit? you're insane. it's laughable.

I was talking about both sides of the aisle. There's plenty of spin to be portrayed all around. And I'm annoyed that we'll have to hear it all weekend.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Fixed your bullshit post for you.

Homosexuality is morally indefensible? According to YOUR morals maybe, but then again we're (very deliberately) not a country with a national religion or any other body to promulgate a national "Code of Morals."

And therein lies the problem. The "Bible-thumping" brigade (for lack of a better term, yes i recognize it's a gross generalization) would like for this to be a non-secular nation where we all agree to live by Christian values or GTFO - call it a "fundamentalist Christian state," but unfortunately this country was founded on religious freedom and toleration not bigotry and intolerance and forcing one's views on another.

If you want a fundamentalist Christian nation...GTFO yourself and go found one somewhere.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cartman

Consumer and business spending are what drive the growth of the economy. If there is no more spending, there is no more growth. If spending stops, the economy crashes.

Forget Obama and the contrived war between the GOP and the Democrats. (Anyone without a huge partisan chip knows they are both full of shit) Let's just take your last statement and rationally discuss it. Is there ever a situation when a huge debt and deficit is not good? When do you stop spending? I know people who were talking about the debt in the 70's were told... let's get out of this crisis and worry about the debt later. In the 80's, same thing. Clinton actually took action. The came Bush and now Obama with the let's get out of this crisis and worry about spending later. Doesn't anyone ever wonder why these crisis’s keep happening? I hate to burst your bubble (pun intended) but this isn't all the ills of capitalism. These same problems happen in socialist and communist countries where the spending gets completely out of control. I don't put it all on Obama, hell a lot of the blame goes to W Bush, but something has to change soon or we are all fucked. And sorry continually spending is not the solution that I was looking for.

The war on poverty is in year 46. The war on drugs is in year 40. The war on terror is in year 9. The crisis of the economy is year 3. These are problems that are just made worse by the government spending shitloads of money (both Democrats and Republicans). Maybe it’s time to admit that government can’t solve some of these problems. (if you think we are solving the current economic problem by creating artificial growth in the stock market than explain it is so hard to find a job. This bubble will burst soon and maybe this time we will actually try a different approach. Fiscal responsibility? We would need a new political party though to take this serious, the Democrats and Republicans know nothing about this)

[cartman]

Originally Posted by panerd

Forget Obama and the contrived war between the GOP and the Democrats. (Anyone without a huge partisan chip knows they are both full of shit) Let's just take your last statement and rationally discuss it. Is there ever a situation when a huge debt and deficit is not good? When do you stop spending? I know people who were talking about the debt in the 70's were told... let's get out of this crisis and worry about the debt later. In the 80's, same thing. Clinton actually took action. The came Bush and now Obama with the let's get out of this crisis and worry about spending later. Doesn't anyone ever wonder why these crisis’s keep happening? I hate to burst your bubble (pun intended) but this isn't all the ills of capitalism. These same problems happen in socialist and communist countries where the spending gets completely out of control. I don't put it all on Obama, hell a lot of the blame goes to W Bush, but something has to change soon or we are all fucked. And sorry continually spending is not the solution that I was looking for.

The war on poverty is in year 46. The war on drugs is in year 40. The war on terror is in year 9. The crisis of the economy is year 3. These are problems that are just made worse by the government spending shitloads of money (both Democrats and Republicans). Maybe it’s time to admit that government can’t solve some of these problems. (if you think we are solving the current economic problem by creating artificial growth in the stock market than explain it is so hard to find a job. This bubble will burst soon and maybe this time we will actually try a different approach. Fiscal responsibility? We would need a new political party though to take this serious, the Democrats and Republicans know nothing about this)

You missed the part where I only mentioned consumer and business spending. If those two groups stop spending, then the only other source of spending for the economy is the government.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Fixed your bullshit post for you.

How dare they be born with a darker skin color or attraction to the same gender.

Isn't it blasphemy to call your own God morally indefensible?

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

If you want a fundamentalist Christian nation...GTFO yourself and go found one somewhere.

I think they tried that once. We didn't let them.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

I think they tried that once. We didn't let them.

Our mistake. We should have IMO.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

I think they tried that once. We didn't let them.

I'm still waiting for all the Hollywood stars to move overseas. You'd think they would have moved by now. That's 6 years ago.

[RainMaker]

Well running a country based on religion is working out well in the Middle East.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well running a country based on religion is working out well in the Middle East.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Our mistake. We should have IMO.

Hot damn, we agree on something. Would have left us both happier.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

GTFO yourself and go found one somewhere.

I'm not real big on surrendering a just cause, I'd prefer to die fighting for it.

And at the rate the country has been regressing, I may live long enough to get a good chance to do that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Our mistake. We should have IMO.

Basically would be like moving the Mexican border up a couple thousand miles. Not something you necessarily want.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not real big on surrendering a just cause, I'd prefer to die fighting for it.

And at the rate the country has been regressing, I may live long enough to get a good chance to do that.

So you believe that the legalization of gay marriage is a bad thing (and I'm assuming you're not a fan of any homosexual relationships at all). What do you see as a worst-case scenario if it were legalized nationally? Or is it more a general concern regarding a moral compass of the country?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So you believe that the legalization of gay marriage is a bad thing (and I'm assuming you're not a fan of any homosexual relationships at all). What do you see as a worst-case scenario if it were legalized nationally? Or is it more a general concern regarding a moral compass of the country?

Obviously the gays would infiltrate our homes and next thing we know we'll all be homosexuals.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Basically would be like moving the Mexican border up a couple thousand miles. Not something you necessarily want.

But the actual Mexican border would be down South...they'd have to deal with them all. Might make our lives easier.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hot damn, we agree on something. Would have left us both happier.

We've agreed on that before, remember?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I'm not sure exactly why you're inviting a Jon-screed that will just get everyone up in arms. This episode is a repeat.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Homosexuality is morally indefensible? According to YOUR morals maybe, but then again we're (very deliberately) not a country with a national religion or any other body to promulgate a national "Code of Morals."

And therein lies the problem. The "Bible-thumping" brigade (for lack of a better term, yes i recognize it's a gross generalization) would like for this to be a non-secular nation where we all agree to live by Christian values or GTFO - call it a "fundamentalist Christian state," but unfortunately this country was founded on religious freedom and toleration not bigotry and intolerance and forcing one's views on another.

If you want a fundamentalist Christian nation...GTFO yourself and go found one somewhere.

Accept our tolerance or GTFO!!!!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not real big on surrendering a just cause, I'd prefer to die fighting for it.

And at the rate the country has been regressing, I may live long enough to get a good chance to do that.

LMAO at you calling it a "just cause"