Powerful Video

  • studflyboy87

    Posts: 194

    Jan 22, 2012 10:41 PM GMT
    I thought this video was pretty powerful.



    I have been going back and forth on who I want to vote for president. I'm fiscally conservative, socially more liberal. I think politically, I am leaning more toward one candidate. But having recently been accepting gay society, I have a real hard time voting for a candidate who is not the most pro gay rights out there. What is more important to you? Overall politics or your rights as a gay individual?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2012 10:44 PM GMT
    I am fiscally conservative, socially more liberal, HOWEVER, I would rather be dirt poor and HAPPY then gamble on any of the current crop of GOP nuts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2012 11:19 PM GMT
    The issue is no candidate or party can often be consistent with all your views. There are guys whose sexual orientation is the most important thing to them, and they don't follow politics too much, so voting for the most gay friendly politician is obvious.

    Others are liberal/progressive so their decision is also easy.

    This is where I stand:

    1) I found the booing of the soldier disgraceful. The candidates lost an opportunity to condemn it at the time, but that doesn't hold sway with me. Look at Obama's record, and it is clear the video is nothing but politics. The slick editing did not include Obama stating his position about marriage being between a man and a woman. Also, keep in mind Republican organizations were actively involved in repeal of DADT.

    2) I think the current policies of this Administration are extremely damaging to the country, both economically and politicly. Making a change is the most important thing to me.

    3) As a whole, the Democrats tend to be more gay friendly, especially considering some of the homophobes on the right. But much of it is lip service, as there are large constituencies within the Democratic Party that favor only traditional marriage, and the Democrats have not seen the need to jeopardize their standing with these large blocks. The Democrats can pretty much count on a large percentage of gay voters, so they can be more readily taken for granted.

    4) Some of the moderates, such as Romney, did sign that pledge. Can't be denied, but I think it was to not alienate the right. Politics is politics. I don't think in office attacking gay rights would be a primary issue for him.

    5) Much of the gay issues are at the state level. In California you can work for measures such as Prop 8 regardless of your national politics.

    6) There are groups within the Republicans such as Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud, so being gay and supporting a Republican are not inconsistent. The groups are not as effective now as things have become so polarized that the extremes on both parties have more influence than the moderates, but this can change.

    7) If Obama were reelected, not having to worry about an upcoming election, I think he would be more divisive, and the country would continue to suffer.

    8 ) If Romney were elected, and I realize he is not guaranteed to be the nominee, he would tend to work across the aisles, as he did in Massachusetts when most in their legislature were Democrats. I think there could be a broad coming together, and we would have a person in office who understands the private sector.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2012 11:55 PM GMT
    Thank you for posting that video. The President stated it well.

    I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, AND I believe that we can have social programs AND a balanced (or surplus) budget to pay down the national debt.

    I applaud the President's handling of the current mess he inherited. He's done well and I look forward to another 4 more years of President Obama's administration.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3271

    Jan 23, 2012 12:06 AM GMT
    GAMRican saidThank you for posting that video. The President stated it well.

    I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, AND I believe that we can have social programs AND a balanced (or surplus) budget to pay down the national debt.

    I applaud the President's handling of the current mess he inherited. He's done well and I look forward to another 4 more years of President Obama's administration.


    How does Obama help you look forward to a fiscal conservative agenda?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 12:36 AM GMT
    Thank you!!! for that very powerful video.

    2012... the next president will nominate 1 to 3 SCOTUS justices.

    The past two gay related cases, (Texas v Lawrence and Bowers v. Hardwick) all the Anti-Gay votes came from Republican nominated justices and all the Democratic nominated justices voted Pro-Gay. Romney and Gingrich both openly promised to only nominate Anti-Gay judges. The Republican nominated judges dissented, believing that gays have no Constitutional right to consensual sex in their own homes.

    SCOTUS justices are on the court for a lifetime, so we need justices who are forward thinking. We already have 4 anti-gay reactionaries on the court now, and one more gives them a majority voting bloc. If you want to cap that number....then Obama is your only option.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 1:58 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe issue is no candidate or party can often be consistent with all your views. There are guys whose sexual orientation is the most important thing to them, and they don't follow politics too much, so voting for the most gay friendly politician is obvious.

    Others are liberal/progressive so their decision is also easy.

    This is where I stand:

    1) I found the booing of the soldier disgraceful. The candidates lost an opportunity to condemn it at the time, but that doesn't hold sway with me. Look at Obama's record, and it is clear the video is nothing but politics. The slick editing did not include Obama stating his position about marriage being between a man and a woman. Also, keep in mind Republican organizations were actively involved in repeal of DADT.

    2) I think the current policies of this Administration are extremely damaging to the country, both economically and politicly. Making a change is the most important thing to me.

    3) As a whole, the Democrats tend to be more gay friendly, especially considering some of the homophobes on the right. But much of it is lip service, as there are large constituencies within the Democratic Party that favor only traditional marriage, and the Democrats have not seen the need to jeopardize their standing with these large blocks. The Democrats can pretty much count on a large percentage of gay voters, so they can be more readily taken for granted.

    4) Some of the moderates, such as Romney, did sign that pledge. Can't be denied, but I think it was to not alienate the right. Politics is politics. I don't think in office attacking gay rights would be a primary issue for him.

    5) Much of the gay issues are at the state level. In California you can work for measures such as Prop 8 regardless of your national politics.

    6) There are groups within the Republicans such as Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud, so being gay and supporting a Republican are not inconsistent. The groups are not as effective now as things have become so polarized that the extremes on both parties have more influence than the moderates, but this can change.

    7) If Obama were reelected, not having to worry about an upcoming election, I think he would be more divisive, and the country would continue to suffer.

    8 ) If Romney were elected, and I realize he is not guaranteed to be the nominee, he would tend to work across the aisles, as he did in Massachusetts when most in their legislature were Democrats. I think there could be a broad coming together, and we would have a person in office who understands the private sector.
    I am very much in disagreement here on both of these bolded.

    Number 5. It IS a national issue. Until my military retirement and my social security is automatically bequeathed to my "chosen life partner whether that be a man OR woman, (as it is in 'heterosexual 'marriages, scam or otherwise) it IS a NATIONAL/FEDERAL issue! NO state can override that in ANY legislation.

    number 7.
    This country is as divided as it was during the Bush era if not MORE so and it got worse by the GOP's own statements they're ONLY priority was to make Obama a "one term president". That was PUBLICLY stated In October 2010 by the Senate Minority leader. It was also stated by Paul Ryan publicly. Now if these folks were to actually DO something constructive instead of focusing in on divisive and partisan politics they might have room to stand on.. It is NOT(the polar divide) solely on the shoulders of Obama. That cannot be denied.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 2:41 AM GMT
    White4DarkerFL saidThank you!!! for that very powerful video.

    2012... the next president will nominate 1 to 3 SCOTUS justices.

    The past two gay related cases, (Texas v Lawrence and Bowers v. Hardwick) all the Anti-Gay votes came from Republican nominated justices and all the Democratic nominated justices voted Pro-Gay. Romney and Gingrich both openly promised to only nominate Anti-Gay judges. The Republican nominated judges dissented, believing that gays have no Constitutional right to consensual sex in their own homes.

    SCOTUS justices are on the court for a lifetime, so we need justices who are forward thinking. We already have 4 anti-gay reactionaries on the court now, and one more gives them a majority voting bloc. If you want to cap that number....then Obama is your only option.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You sure bring up an important point !!


    There is another very major issue and that is the republicans except for Ron Paul that are left in the Nomination Debating process are all very supportive of war with Iran.

    If anyone thinks this isn't necessary to bring up, just consider 5000 of our soldiers are dead, Trillions of dollars have been wasted, to kill the countrymen of Iraq primarily(Iraq based on a lie) and Afghanistan also. While we had a good reason to go and get the ones who plane bombed our Towers killing 3000, we had no business caving to the wishes of Dual Nationals who had been wanting those wars of choice for many years planning it from their Project for the New American Century think tank. Now many leftovers from that disgraced group are pushing for a third war, this one with Iran.

    Vote for a candidate who doesn't talk war for the money they'll get from the Lobby for their election campaigns. The best example of this type of Lobby lap dog for war is Gingrich, who recently received $5million from Israel's primary financier of its leader Netanyahu and his name is Adelson. This Adelson has apparenty now decided to give more money to Gingrich since he's done so well at his Israeli pro-war talk against Iran and for Gingrich downing Obama for putting a stop to Israel's instigating war with Iran.

    Don't take my word for it, Google the subjects and see for yourself, then vote for the one who will not go to war for another country's wishes but puts the US interests first, because the US nor the World needs another war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 2:42 AM GMT
    I'm a social liberal/fiscal conservative.

    Socially I'm for safety nets, fiscally I'm against corporate welfare.

    1929-1969.jpg

    1969-2008.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 2:47 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness said5) Much of the gay issues are at the state level. In California you can work for measures such as Prop 8 regardless of your national politics.

    7) If Obama were reelected, not having to worry about an upcoming election, I think he would be more divisive, and the country would continue to suffer.

    I am very much in disagreement here on both of these bolded.

    Number 5. It IS a national issue. Until my military retirement and my social security is automatically bequeathed to my "chosen life partner whether that be a man OR woman, (as it is in 'heterosexual 'marriages, scam or otherwise) it IS a NATIONAL/FEDERAL issue! NO state can override that in ANY legislation.

    number 7.
    This country is as divided as it was during the Bush era if not MORE so and it got worse by the GOP's own statements they're ONLY priority was to make Obama a "one term president". That was PUBLICLY stated In October 2010 by the Senate Minority leader. It was also stated by Paul Ryan publicly. Now if these folks were to actually DO something constructive instead of focusing in on divisive and partisan politics they might have room to stand on.. It is NOT(the polar divide) solely on the shoulders of Obama. That cannot be denied.

    #5 I don't discount the military aspect at all. Saying "much of the gay issues" is based on the number of battles at the state level (50) and the numbers of people involved (civilians vs military). But again, that is not to diminish the importance for the military.

    #7 I think there was a big difference. The division during the Bush administration was based on a specific issue, the Iraq War, which did initially have bi-partisan support, with all having access to the same intel data. With Obama, it is his fundamental attitude shown in two examples: Deliberately excluded Republicans in health care law formulation, even losing the two Senators from Maine. Second, his overt derision and condescension towards others. I acknowledge the McConnell comment, but in the case of Ryan, after he proposed the budget, Obama invited him to a meeting front row and proceeded to mock him. If you think the condescension is something only those on the right say, consider this from a liberal NY Times columnist. http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2131066
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 2:54 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness said5) Much of the gay issues are at the state level. In California you can work for measures such as Prop 8 regardless of your national politics.

    7) If Obama were reelected, not having to worry about an upcoming election, I think he would be more divisive, and the country would continue to suffer.

    I am very much in disagreement here on both of these bolded.

    Number 5. It IS a national issue. Until my military retirement and my social security is automatically bequeathed to my "chosen life partner whether that be a man OR woman, (as it is in 'heterosexual 'marriages, scam or otherwise) it IS a NATIONAL/FEDERAL issue! NO state can override that in ANY legislation.

    number 7.
    This country is as divided as it was during the Bush era if not MORE so and it got worse by the GOP's own statements they're ONLY priority was to make Obama a "one term president". That was PUBLICLY stated In October 2010 by the Senate Minority leader. It was also stated by Paul Ryan publicly. Now if these folks were to actually DO something constructive instead of focusing in on divisive and partisan politics they might have room to stand on.. It is NOT(the polar divide) solely on the shoulders of Obama. That cannot be denied.

    #5 I don't discount the military aspect at all. Saying "much of the gay issues" is based on the number of battles at the state level (50) and the numbers of people involved (civilians vs military). But again, that is not to diminish the importance for the military.

    #7 I think there was a big difference. The division during the Bush administration was based on a specific issue, the Iraq War, which did initially have bi-partisan support, with all having access to the same intel data. With Obama, it is two-fold - Deliberately excluded Republicans in health care law formulation, even losing the two Senators from Maine. Second, his overt derision and condescension towards others. I acknowledge the McConnell comment, but in the case of Ryan, after he proposed the budget, Obama invited in to a meeting front row and proceeded to mock him. If you think the condescension is something only those on the right say, consider this from a liberal NY Times columnist.http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2131066
    I didnt just list my 'military retirement' I also listed 'social security' and that applies to every swingin dick. And while there is a "federal law" against it, who gives a rats ass about what the states do. Even IF a state allowed SSM, as some have done.. the federal aspect is still UNLAWFUL. That IS an issue, a BIG one.
    Additionally, I said the divided and polarized country is NOT because of ONE or the other 'party', or person.
    Both parties and MANY individuals are as guilty as the other. NO one has 'more' blame for this. They are ALL guilty at the same level. Dirty destructive politics however, has its kingpin and architect.. Karl Rove, and his history and tactics are well documented.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 3:39 AM GMT
    White4DarkerFL saidThank you!!! for that very powerful video.

    2012... the next president will nominate 1 to 3 SCOTUS justices.

    The past two gay related cases, (Texas v Lawrence and Bowers v. Hardwick) all the Anti-Gay votes came from Republican nominated justices and all the Democratic nominated justices voted Pro-Gay. Romney and Gingrich both openly promised to only nominate Anti-Gay judges. The Republican nominated judges dissented, believing that gays have no Constitutional right to consensual sex in their own homes.

    SCOTUS justices are on the court for a lifetime, so we need justices who are forward thinking. We already have 4 anti-gay reactionaries on the court now, and one more gives them a majority voting bloc. If you want to cap that number....then Obama is your only option.


    "all the Anti-Gay votes came from Republican nominated justices "

    who appointed David Souter?
    and Sandra Day O'Conner?
    How 'bout Anthony Kennedy?
    and John Paul Stevens?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 5:07 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    White4DarkerFL saidThank you!!! for that very powerful video.

    2012... the next president will nominate 1 to 3 SCOTUS justices.

    The past two gay related cases, (Texas v Lawrence and Bowers v. Hardwick) all the Anti-Gay votes came from Republican nominated justices and all the Democratic nominated justices voted Pro-Gay. Romney and Gingrich both openly promised to only nominate Anti-Gay judges. The Republican nominated judges dissented, believing that gays have no Constitutional right to consensual sex in their own homes.

    SCOTUS justices are on the court for a lifetime, so we need justices who are forward thinking. We already have 4 anti-gay reactionaries on the court now, and one more gives them a majority voting bloc. If you want to cap that number....then Obama is your only option.


    "all the Anti-Gay votes came from Republican nominated justices "

    who appointed David Souter?
    and Sandra Day O'Conner?
    How 'bout Anthony Kennedy?
    and John Paul Stevens?



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick
    upheld, in a 5-4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexuals

    no constitutionally protected right to engage in homosexual sex.

    Against Gay People
    Majority White, joined by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor

    For Gay People
    Dissent Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Stevens
    Dissent Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
    the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by proxy, invalidated sodomy laws in the thirteen other states where they remained in existence, thereby making same-sex sexual activity legal in every state and territory of the nation

    For Gay People
    Majority Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
    Concurrence O'Connor (in the judgment of the court only)

    Against Gay People
    Dissent Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas
    Dissent Thomas

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White
    Nominated by John F. Kennedy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger
    Nominated by Richard Nixon

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Powell
    Nominated by Richard M. Nixon

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist
    Nominated by Ronald Reagan

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Day_O%27Connor
    Nominated by Ronald Reagan

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmun
    Nominated by Richard Nixon

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens
    Nominated by Gerald Ford

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan,_Jr
    Nominated by Dwight D. Eisenhower

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall
    Nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy
    Nominated by Ronald Reagan

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter
    Nominated by George H. W. Bush

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
    Nominated by Bill Clinton

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer
    Nominated by Bill Clinton

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia
    Nominated by Ronald Reagan

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
    Nominated by George H.W. Bush