President Obama Declares Support for Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

[TulsaSaint]

Originally Posted by El Caliente

Harry Reid's too.

And your point is? Last I checked Harry Reid isn't running around trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He's not running around prattling on about the sacredness of one man, one woman marriage.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by SaintStephen

Just like he was going to veto NDAA because it included American citizens then covertly signed it on New Years Eve? Then it came out the white house added the part about detaining citizens...And link me to where Republicans stopped Guantanamo from being closed. Never heard that, even though I never made a party statement as its obvious both parties are virtually identical and are funded by the same people: Bankers, big pharma/Agra, and health care companies...
Sopatrack - Check how Congress Votes with the Money

And your Afghanistan comment is laughable as I voted for the man BECAUSE he said he would get us out IMMEDIATELY on multiple occasions. It was a campaign speaking point with him. And no wars without congress approval cough Libya cough. Stated that as well many times

I think getting us out of Afghanistan in 3 years is darn near immediate given the circumstance and calling Libya a war is about like calling Roger Goodell fair.

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by TulsaSaint

And your point is? Last I checked Harry Reid isn't running around trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He's not running around prattling on about the sacredness of one man, one woman marriage.

Apparently Reid isn't running around trying to pass anything at all!

[El Caliente]

Originally Posted by TulsaSaint

And your point is? Last I checked Harry Reid isn't running around trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He's not running around prattling on about the sacredness of one man, one woman marriage.

No, point is WTH does his religion have to do with the price of tea in China? There is a guy against same sex and a guy for same sex rights and they share the same religion. Who cares?

[dtc]

Originally Posted by TulsaSaint

My favorite part was Romney's response, talking about how marriage is only supposed to be between one man and one woman. Coming as it did from a guy whose religion's second leader had 55 wives, I just found this hilarious.

If D's were R's they'd be jumping up and down calling this a political stunt to give Romney more cred with the far right fundamentalists who sure as hell don't consider him a Christian. Moreover, a man who's a member of a religion with such a deep and rich history of polygamy standing tall for 1 man and one woman would be decreed as selling out his history.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by El Caliente

No, point is WTH does his religion have to do with the price of tea in China? There is a guy against same sex and a guy for same sex rights and they share the same religion. Who cares?

One is respecting the separation of his own religious views in favor of Constitutional indifference while the other is pandering by saying what his base wants to hear when he's clearly been in favor of domestic partnerships and homosexual rights in the past.

What's laughable is trying to paint Obama as a flip flopper of convenience in the same thread where Romney is being praised for his position.

[El Caliente]

You lost me when you said somebody changed their opinion to pander to their party. Are we talking about Barry or Mitt?

I can call Barry a flip flopper because he is, the media just makes a bigger deal about Mitt because it is more obvious and comical.

Not to steal your running gag, but if D's were R's they would tell probably tell people to move on after another failed same sex amendment.

[SaintStephen]

Originally Posted by dtradin

I think getting us out of Afghanistan in 3 years is darn near immediate given the circumstance and calling Libya a war is about like calling Roger Goodell fair.

Yeah it was great how our "peacekeeping mission"/kenetic action went! Good thing it wasn't a war or else the media may have actually covered how Al Queda did the UNs dirty work. It's cool though, PRESIDENT Obama is head of the security council and that's more important than Congress and our Constitution anyway. It was the same with Bush and I was a fool for thinking things would be different under Obama. I was brainwashed too. Woohoo! Arab Spring!
Love our 1984, doublespeak mentality now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ourthouse.html

[SaintStephen]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

No he did not. Laughable indeed.
He campaigned on moving more resources to Afghanistan. He was very clear on that. Extremely clear.
Can Obama Make Good On Promises About Wars? : NPR

Obama


Refocusing on Afghanistan was one of his key campaign promises on foreign policy. If you couldn't even figure that out, I'm not sure what to say. Can't spoon feed idiots everything.

I liked when this conversation was civil and the word idiot wasn't being thrown around. I hope I'm mistaking your rudeness for passion correctly. I listened to pretty much every O campaign speech in '08 on POTUS XM (and hung on his every word like a schoolgirl) and I may be wrong on the word "immediately", but quickly was my impression. On my phone but I'll search for sound bites. Curious to know his exact promise on Afghanistan now. Either way, I voted for Bush 2.0 expecting change and next term will be 3.0 regardless. I'm sure many will be having these same ridiculous discussions about who was right and who was wrong while they are still guarding the opium in Afghanistan.

[SaintStephen]

Originally Posted by dtradin

I think getting us out of Afghanistan in 3 years is darn near immediate given the circumstance and calling Libya a war is about like calling Roger Goodell fair.

How is occupying a country for a decade not a war also? You do realize who our military answers to now don't you? Nice attempt at humor but treason is beyond funny in my book....
Obama is head of UN Security Council = High Treason

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Originally Posted by SaintStephen

How is occupying a country for a decade not a war also? You do realize who our military answers to now don't you? Nice attempt at humor but treason is beyond funny in my book....
Obama is head of UN Security Council = High Treason

so now Obama is guilty of treason?? What a ****ing moronic post.

you are someone who has already admitted sucking from the govt teat by sharing with us that you work for GM, a company that has recieved billions in taxpayer subsidies, and now you come up with this weak **** about treason?? Please.

[Cosmic201]

Originally Posted by SaintStephen

I liked when this conversation was civil and the word idiot wasn't being thrown around. I hope I'm mistaking your rudeness for passion correctly. I listened to pretty much every O campaign speech in '08 on POTUS XM (and hung on his every word like a schoolgirl) and I may be wrong on the word "immediately", but quickly was my impression. On my phone but I'll search for sound bites. Curious to know his exact promise on Afghanistan now. Either way, I voted for Bush 2.0 expecting change and next term will be 3.0 regardless. I'm sure many will be having these same ridiculous discussions about who was right and who was wrong while they are still guarding the opium in Afghanistan.

I throw out the word idiot when someone must clearly be one misunderstanding such a critical plank in someone plan and than claiming you were his most faith full follower.
He never gave any impression that he planned to pull troops out of Afghanistan, immediately or not when running in 2008. It was key part of his foreign policy that he stressed early and often.

For someone who shows up today claiming to 'hang on his speeches like a schoolgirl'; to get something so mind boggling wrong either means you are being purposely dishonest or that you have that much trouble comprehending simple statements made repeatedly.


You don't get civil when making snide comments about the utterly stupid theory that breitbart was killed by Obama.
You don't get civil by making stuff up whole scale to make your point.

[SaintStephen]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

I throw out the word idiot when someone must clearly be one misunderstanding such a critical plank in someone plan and than claiming you were his most faith full follower.
He never gave any impression that he planned to pull troops out of Afghanistan, immediately or not when running in 2008. It was key part of his foreign policy that he stressed early and often.

For someone who shows up today claiming to 'hang on his speeches like a schoolgirl'; to get something so mind boggling wrong either means you are being purposely dishonest or that you have that much trouble comprehending simple statements made repeatedly.


You don't get civil when making snide comments about the utterly stupid theory that breitbart was killed by Obama.
You don't get civil by making stuff up whole scale to make your point.

Never said Obama killed Breitbart. That was a tongue-in-cheek CISPA-style joke. And I decided to take part in some political discussion last night, that is all. I was being very genuine. Maybe it's the fact that the speeches were 4 yrs ago, but I was under the impression we would be out of both wars by now when I voted, period. As for treason, read the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9. Pretty cut and dry to me. And what exactly did I make up? Bottom line is economically, everyone but the top 25% has suffered under ALL Presidents since the 80s since "financialism" became the order of the day. They can act like they care about the disenfranchised all they want, look at the #s. Bush led us off a cliff and Obama has pacified people while sticking with virtually the same policies.

[SaintStephen]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue Sky

so now Obama is guilty of treason?? What a ****ing moronic post.

you are someone who has already admitted sucking from the govt teat by sharing with us that you work for GM, a company that has recieved billions in taxpayer subsidies, and now you come up with this weak **** about treason?? Please.

Article 1 Section 9..... And selling fricking cars does not give up my right to be unhappy with my country's direction as a whole. Y'all can get pretty myopic when defending Obama/anything political. I guess that kind of reasoning is to be expected with the kind of leadership we've had the last 7.5/11.5/32yrs aaagghh since JFK?

I'm guessing by your response you either don't care about/understand our founding document, didn't watch the video, or truly believe the UN and NATO should run our government. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with B...

[saintfan-n-alex]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

He tried to close Guantanamo. He couldn't get it past Republicans.

What about Afghanistan. He is doing exactly what he promised to do when running for president in regards to the war there.

the dems didnt support closing of gitmo - note in the last quote they wouldnt approve funding till obama provided detailed plan which appearently where it all stopped as obama was challanged with comming up with a workable paln



"I can't make it any more clear," Reid said. "We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States."

Democrats Pull Funding For Guantanamo Closure

_______________________

The move by Senate Democrats to strip the $80 million from a war-spending bill and the decision to bar, for now, transfer of detainees to the United States, raised the possibility that Mr. Obama’s order to close the camp by Jan. 22, 2010, might have to be changed or delayed.

“Guantánamo makes us less safe,” the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada,

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/us...pagewanted=all


____________________________________

In a major setback for President Obama, Senate Democrats have removed funding to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba from the emergency war spending bill. They said no money will be considered until the president sends Congress a detailed plan on where the prison's 240 detainees would go.

Democrats Block Funding To Close Guantanamo : NPR