In re: Biden's slightly early comments regarding homosexual marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2014 5:02 PM GMT
    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/joe-biden-gay-marriage-white-house-response-105744.html

    "In a private lunch at the White House, Mehlman advised Obama that backing gay marriage could reassert his character strength from 2008, appealing to young people, Republicans and independents and beyond by seeming to take a bold stand without regard to the political consequences. On November 10, 2011, Mehlman sent Plouffe a full write-up of how the president should announce his support — in a joint interview with the first lady, conducted by a female journalist and “all 3 should be sitting. Soft lighting”—as well as a full suggested script for the president to use."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2014 5:42 PM GMT
    Speculation that Biden’s comments on “Meet the Press” in May 2012 were meant as a trial balloon, Becker writes, came from people “not privy to the chaos that erupted inside the West Wing after an emailed transcript of the interview landed in the inbox of the White House press team.” A furious Valerie Jarrett, Becker adds, accused Biden of “downright disloyalty.”

    More proof that this Administration views its supporters as gullible, walking wads of donation money rather than actual people (and they're right). Every move of theirs on gay issues have been based solely on the political cost-benefit analysis rather than any genuine concern. The gay marriage stance was a forced hand. DOMA they let fail in the courts rather than repeal it when they had a supermajority for two years.

    And DADT? The Log Cabin Republicans had it successfully struck down in court with Obama's DOJ fighting them tooth and nail every inch of the way. The Dems only got around to repealing it to save them the embarrassment of gay republicans getting a Clinton bill ruled unconstitutional.

    Point being: gay rights may be making progress, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this Administration has had any part in it. They only use it when it's to their advantage.
  • topathlete

    Posts: 882

    Apr 16, 2014 5:52 PM GMT
    adammm saidSpeculation that Biden’s comments on “Meet the Press” in May 2012 were meant as a trial balloon, Becker writes, came from people “not privy to the chaos that erupted inside the West Wing after an emailed transcript of the interview landed in the inbox of the White House press team.” A furious Valerie Jarrett, Becker adds, accused Biden of “downright disloyalty.”

    More proof that this Administration views its supporters as gullible, walking wads of donation money rather than actual people (and they're right). Every move of theirs on gay issues have been based solely on the political cost-benefit analysis rather than any genuine concern. The gay marriage stance was a forced hand. DOMA they let fail in the courts rather than repeal it when they had a supermajority for two years.

    And DADT? The Log Cabin Republicans had it successfully struck down in court with Obama's DOJ fighting them tooth and nail every inch of the way. The Dems only got around to repealing it to save them the embarrassment of gay republicans getting a Clinton bill ruled unconstitutional.

    Point being: gay rights may be making progress, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this Administration has had any part in it. They only use it when it's to their advantage.

    Absolutely. Couldn't have said it better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2014 7:36 PM GMT
    I've said it all along: Obama is not anti-gay, but he's not especially pro-gay either. He has insulted the gay community over and over, either through ignorance or through a calculation that we don't particularly matter except when it's checkbook time. And everything positive he's done has essentially been forced upon him by Biden (who really is an ally) or by gay zillionaire donors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2014 8:42 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidWell so may be all progressives should switch party because Obama is not entirely supportive of gays?

    That's what the Republicans here surely think.
    But people aren't liberal for only one reason. And there isn't a single thing in the Republican agenda that I can support. Not. One.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2014 9:54 PM GMT
    But people aren't liberal for only one reason. And there isn't a single thing in the Republican agenda that I can support. Not. One.

    Try running a business. I don't view Democrats as stupid, just naive.

    If every person in this country were required to grow an apple, hire someone to pick it, turn the juice into hard cider and sell it wholesale, legally, every person in this country would be an anarchist. Given the choice of being free to run a business, or get gay married, I choose the one that puts a roof over my head and food in my mouth, not something else...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2014 9:57 PM GMT
    So, is this what counts as a Republican "gotcha?" Wow, so willing to hang your hat on the weakest shit.

    So, when the Log Cabin Republicans wanted a seat at C-PAC, the answer they got was...? Sorry that tent isn't a little bigger.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2014 9:58 PM GMT
    adammm saidTry running a business. I don't view Democrats as stupid, just naive.
    I run two businesses. Seriously?

    See, Democrats are the same as Republicans in many ways (at least regarding business). You can get all you want as a conservative by voting Democratic. Prove me wrong.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 16, 2014 10:13 PM GMT
    lol Biden, Kerry and Obama - it's amazing we still have a country icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2014 10:54 PM GMT
    adammm saidBut people aren't liberal for only one reason. And there isn't a single thing in the Republican agenda that I can support. Not. One.

    Try running a business. I don't view Democrats as stupid, just naive.

    I not only ran one, I started a small chain of stores. I sold them when I moved to Florida and I understand they're still doing well.

    I gave my employees healthcare and far above minimum wage. And I remain a liberal Democrat. So much for your smugness.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Apr 16, 2014 11:19 PM GMT
    adammm said
    Point being: gay rights may be making progress, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this Administration has had any part in it. They only use it when it's to their advantage.


    Sounding bitter because the Republicans still aren't on board with gay rights. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Apr 16, 2014 11:44 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude said
    adammm said
    Point being: gay rights may be making progress, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this Administration has had any part in it. They only use it when it's to their advantage.


    Sounding bitter because the Republicans still aren't on board with gay rights. icon_rolleyes.gif


    My representative to Congress is, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R-FL. And she didn't need to do some phony "evolving" to arrive at her position supporting gay rights, unlike the phony Obama.


    Another bitter queen...

    And yes, we congratulated her when she came out in support.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2014 12:23 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio saidSo, is this what counts as a Republican "gotcha?" Wow, so willing to hang your hat on the weakest shit.

    So, when the Log Cabin Republicans wanted a seat at C-PAC, the answer they got was...? Sorry that tent isn't a little bigger.


    Bullshit, We've been there almost as long as there's been a CPAC and yes, I mean me personally too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2014 2:16 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidBullshit, We've been there almost as long as there's been a CPAC and yes, I mean me personally too.


    Bullshit, huh? So...

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/05/the-truth-about-cpac-and-gay-conservatives/

    You may have been there personally. But I don't think "when three of you are gathered together in my name, there I am among you..." quite applies here, does it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2014 4:19 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    freedomisntfree saidBullshit, We've been there almost as long as there's been a CPAC and yes, I mean me personally too.


    Bullshit, huh? So...

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/05/the-truth-about-cpac-and-gay-conservatives/

    You may have been there personally. But I don't think "when three of you are gathered together in my name, there I am among you..." quite applies here, does it?


    "To the credit of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which produces CPAC each year, there has never been a ban on anyone “attending” CPAC. Log Cabin Republicans members attend every year, as paying guests. This is hardly something worth tweeting, much less trumpeting via press releases. Anyone can attend CPAC as a paying “guest” "

    Thanks for supporting my point. I was there many years just like anyone else as a paying guest. I was also in LCR.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2014 4:57 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidThanks for supporting my point. I was there many years just like anyone else as a paying guest. I was also in LCR.

    How does this support your point? The Log Cabin Republicans did not have a speaker, sponsors, booth, table. Nothing. Just you. Did you notice that while you were there? Please explain how this supports your point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2014 5:02 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    freedomisntfree saidThanks for supporting my point. I was there many years just like anyone else as a paying guest. I was also in LCR.

    How does this support your point? The Log Cabin Republicans did not have a speaker, sponsors, booth, table. Nothing. Just you. Did you notice that while you were there? Please explain how this supports your point.


    "To the credit of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which produces CPAC each year, there has never been a ban on anyone “attending” CPAC. Log Cabin Republicans members attend every year, as paying guests. This is hardly something worth tweeting, much less trumpeting via press releases. Anyone can attend CPAC as a paying “guest” "

    "Just you. Did you notice that while you were there"

    Many there .... not just me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2014 5:05 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said"Just you. Did you notice that while you were there"

    Many there .... not just me.


    So, in your Paula Deen-sized hot tub of cognitive dissonance, did you notice Log Cabin Republicans had no speaker, sponsor, table, booth? Or did you deliberately ignore my last post. You know, I said that, right there. Go ahead, scroll up, Dad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2014 5:08 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    freedomisntfree said"Just you. Did you notice that while you were there"

    Many there .... not just me.


    So, in your Paula Deen-sized hot tub of cognitive dissonance, did you notice Log Cabin Republicans had no speaker, sponsor, table, booth? Or did you deliberately ignore my last post. You know, I said that, right there. Go ahead, scroll up, Dad.



    "To the credit of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which produces CPAC each year, there has never been a ban on anyone “attending” CPAC. Log Cabin Republicans members attend every year, as paying guests. This is hardly something worth tweeting, much less trumpeting via press releases. Anyone can attend CPAC as a paying “guest” "

    "Just you. Did you notice that while you were there"

    Many there .... not just me."

    "Log Cabin Republicans had no speaker, sponsor, table, booth?"

    Don't care and don't need any damn booth.

  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Apr 17, 2014 1:45 PM GMT
    adammm saidSpeculation that Biden’s comments on “Meet the Press” in May 2012 were meant as a trial balloon, Becker writes, came from people “not privy to the chaos that erupted inside the West Wing after an emailed transcript of the interview landed in the inbox of the White House press team.” A furious Valerie Jarrett, Becker adds, accused Biden of “downright disloyalty.”

    More proof that this Administration views its supporters as gullible, walking wads of donation money rather than actual people (and they're right). Every move of theirs on gay issues have been based solely on the political cost-benefit analysis rather than any genuine concern. The gay marriage stance was a forced hand. DOMA they let fail in the courts rather than repeal it when they had a supermajority for two years.

    And DADT? The Log Cabin Republicans had it successfully struck down in court with Obama's DOJ fighting them tooth and nail every inch of the way. The Dems only got around to repealing it to save them the embarrassment of gay republicans getting a Clinton bill ruled unconstitutional.

    Point being: gay rights may be making progress, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this Administration has had any part in it. They only use it when it's to their advantage.


    Progress is always made at the local level and primarily pushed by the people and their congressional representatives. If you want to get into details, you can look at the presidencies of Lincoln and LBJ (slavery and civil rights) and it's not so simple - both Presidents had to be nudged, but they are given their due credit for signing the bills.

    As for the case with the log cabin republicans, DADT was ruled unconstitutional by a judge Clinton appointed.

    When the Supreme Court struck down the defense of marriage act, it was struck down mostly with Clinton and Obama nominees.

    If John McCain had been president instead, you know, the republican candidate that the log cabin republicans endorsed in 2008, do you think his nominees would have struck down DOMA? Let's not forget that John McCain wanted to keep DADT in place and said it was working.

    Your post is an attempt to smear Democrats, but it is they, at the local, state, and federal level, who have pushed for equality.

    So while the log cabin republicans can give themselves a pat on the back with the lawsuit, they also gave themselves the middle finger by voting for politicians that sealed the discriminatory DADT in place.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Apr 18, 2014 3:57 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Don't care and don't need any damn booth.


    Don't need any credibility either. icon_rolleyes.gif

    badass.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 22, 2014 8:38 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidWell so may be all progressives should switch party because Obama is not entirely supportive of gays?


    Surly if Mr Obama truly wanted to see homosexuals of America advance, he would not left the choice of advancement in same sex marriage in the hands of the states; surly he would of acted on it, and not give the gays of America lip service just to get their gay vote; and how they willingly gave it, because words are cheap.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 22, 2014 9:16 PM GMT
    Decadence_of_Art said...and not give the gays of America lip service...because words are cheap.


    Sometimes we choose between the lesser of two devils. What, pray tell, is the Republican party platform on gays?