What a difference a president makes- Marriage

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

    Jan 26, 2015 6:31 AM GMT
    As I listened to GW Bush, the one who called for a constitutional amendment of marriage in his state of the union address, I cant help but notice the underlying Projection of "fear" in his voice, like he was obviously "addressing" his republican base behind the pulpit, seething hatred underneath that serious body language. Yes, people, he used to be our nations president, who specifically and incognito, called for anti gay actions that have now backfired with a new, more fair and tolerable president.

    Way to scare um, George (the nations worst president of all time) icon_twisted.gif

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

    Jan 26, 2015 7:12 AM GMT
    28 of 31 states enacted state constitutional amendments under GW Bush and his decade of fear. I find it interesting, DOMA passed congress in 1996, followed in years the first state amendments, Alaska and Hawaii in 1998, where gay marriage fight started, under George H. W. Bush, our current supportive president is from Hawaii, of which the state amendments stopped after his election.

    Baehr v. Miike (originally Baehr v. Lewin) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Hawaii, which initially found the state's refusal to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses discriminatory. In 1991, three same-sex couples sued Hawaii Director of Health John C. Lewin in his official capacity, seeking to force the state to issue them marriage licenses. After the case was dismissed by the trial court the couples appealed to the state supreme court. In the plurality opinion delivered by Judge Steven H. Levinson in 1993, the court ruled that while the right to privacy in the Hawaii state constitution does not include a fundamental right to same-sex marriage, denying marriage to same-sex couples constituted discrimination based on sex in violation of the right to equal protection guaranteed by the state's constitution. The court remanded the case to the trial court, instructing that "in accordance with the 'strict scrutiny' standard, the burden will rest on Lewin to overcome the presumption that HRS § 572-1 [the state's marriage statute] is unconstitutional by demonstrating that it furthers compelling state interests and is narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights."[1]

    1998
    Alaska
    Ballot Measure 2
    68%
    32%

    1998
    Hawaii
    Constitutional Amendment 2
    69%
    31%

    2000
    Nebraska
    Initiative Measure 416
    70%
    30%

    2002
    Nevada
    Question 2
    67%
    33%

    2004
    Arkansas
    Constitutional Amendment 3
    75%
    25%

    2004
    Georgia
    Constitutional Amendment 1
    76%
    24%

    2004
    Kentucky
    Constitutional Amendment 1
    75%
    25%

    2004
    Louisiana
    Constitutional Amendment 1
    78%
    22%

    2004
    Michigan
    State Proposal - 04-2
    59%
    41%

    2004
    Mississippi
    Amendment 1
    86%
    14%

    2004
    Missouri
    Constitutional Amendment 2
    71%
    29%

    2004
    Montana
    Initiative 96
    67%
    33%

    2004
    N. Dakota
    Constitutional Measure 1
    73%
    27%

    2004
    Ohio
    State Issue 1
    62%
    38%

    2004
    Oklahoma
    State Question 711
    76%
    24%

    2004
    Oregon
    Measure 36
    57%
    43%

    2004
    Utah
    Constitutional Amendment 3
    66%
    34%

    2005
    Kansas
    Proposed amendment 1
    70%
    30%

    2005
    Texas
    Proposition 2
    76%
    24%

    2006
    Alabama
    Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
    81%
    19%

    2006
    Arizona
    Proposition 107
    48%
    52%

    2006
    Colorado
    Amendment 43
    56%
    44%

    2006
    Idaho
    Amendment 2
    63%
    37%

    2006
    S. Carolina
    Amendment 1
    78%
    22%

    2006
    S. Dakota
    Amendment C
    52%
    48%

    2006
    Tennessee
    Amendment 1
    81%
    19%

    2006
    Virginia
    Marshall-Newman Amendment
    57%
    43%

    2006
    Wisconsin
    Referendum 1
    59%
    41%

    2008
    Arizona
    Proposition 102
    56%
    44%

    2008
    California
    Proposition 8
    52%
    48%

    2008
    Florida
    Amendment 2
    62%
    38%

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

    Jan 26, 2015 8:08 AM GMT

    And likely our next president once said



    At that time the only one really out there on the issue was Dick Cheney.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2015 2:34 PM GMT
    Maybe Hillary's opinions have changed from ten twelve years ago but i am really concerned Hilary will shut down marriage equality. Not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2015 3:45 PM GMT
    Haha. He looks so terrified. And I specifically remember the gay conservative clowns like SouthBeach and the rest supporting this fuktard. And yes, THE worst president ever.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2015 4:55 PM GMT
    Yes, Hillary has changed her mind.

    What a novel concept to republicans. Can you imagine that? Somebody thinking one way at one point in their life and then later, based on new information and/or experiences, actually changing the way they think. It's called progress, as in PROGRESSIVE, Y'all should try it some time.

    She changed her mind just like the general population, and
    ...just like my family.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 26, 2015 5:10 PM GMT
    George Bush is an idiot, but the worst thing he did as POTUS was invade Iraq. That move ruined the U.S.'s reputation abroad and paved the way for ISIS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2015 5:24 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    And likely our next president once said



    At that time the only one really out there on the issue was Dick Cheney.




    Some interesting points of president Clinton (Americas "first Black president") at time of signing DOMA:
    1) Republicans controlled the house and senate (like todays 2015 term)
    2) Clinton Veto power was dismantled, (his hands were tied)
    3) Defuse momentum for a proposed Federal Amendment (from HW Bush "compromise")
    4) No traditional law signing ceremony, No photo op taken (he was embarrassed that he was forced to sign this law)


    The bill moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled Congress, passing by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate[23] and a vote of 342–67 in the House.[24] The sole independent in the House, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, voted against the bill.[25] Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14 (with Pryor of Arkansas absent), and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65, with 15 not participating. All Republicans in both houses voted for the bill with the sole exception of the one openly gay Republican congressman, Rep. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin

    Though his official political position was against same-sex marriage, Clinton criticized DOMA as "unnecessary and divisive",[27] while his press-secretary called it "gay baiting, plain and simple".[28][29] However, after Congress had passed the bill with enough votes to override a presidential veto,[29] Clinton signed DOMA. He claims that he did so reluctantly in view of the veto-proof majority, both to avoid associating himself politically with the then-unpopular cause of same-sex marriage, and to defuse momentum for a proposed Federal Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.[29][30] Clinton, who was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C., on September 21, 1996; he refused to hold a signing ceremony for DOMA and did not allow photographs to be taken of him signing it into law.[21] The White House released a statement in which Clinton said "that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation

    Clinton did not mention DOMA in his 2004 autobiography
    (he is still embarrassed by the whole thing) icon_confused.gif

    In 2013, Mike McCurry, the White House press secretary at the time, recalled that "[Clinton's] posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996."[29] James Hormel, who was appointed by Clinton as the first openly gay U.S. Ambassador, described the reaction from the gay community to Clinton signing DOMA as shock and anger.[31] On Hormel's account, Clinton had been the first President to advocate gay rights, push for AIDS funding, support gay and lesbian civil rights legislation, and appoint open LGBT people to his Administration. Thus his signing of DOMA was viewed by much of the community as a great betrayal. (because he was forced to by evil republicans) icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2015 6:06 PM GMT
    icon_rolleyes.gif Try to stay relevant, guys; keep dredging up the past - or should I say rewriting it? Where are the references to Obama's much more recent "evolving" - read, equivocating - views on gay marriage during Bush II's admin? (He openly opposed gay marriage in his 2008 campaign, essentially agreeing with Bush, who supported civil unions since 2004; perhaps Obama had less "flexibility" then.) The only folks you're impressing are your silly selves - and given the shallowness of these posts I'm not even sure about that.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/george-w-bushs-forgotten-gay-rights-history/277567/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2015 6:13 PM GMT
    ELNathB said
    freedomisntfree said
    And likely our next president once said



    At that time the only one really out there on the issue was Dick Cheney.




    Some interesting points of president Clinton (Americas "first Black president") at time of signing DOMA:
    1) Republicans controlled the house and senate (like todays 2015 term)
    2) Clinton Veto power was dismantled, (his hands were tied)
    3) Defuse momentum for a proposed Federal Amendment (from HW Bush "compromise")
    4) No traditional law signing ceremony, No photo op taken (he was embarrassed that he was forced to sign this law)


    The bill moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled Congress, passing by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate[23] and a vote of 342–67 in the House.[24] The sole independent in the House, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, voted against the bill.[25] Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14 (with Pryor of Arkansas absent), and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65, with 15 not participating. All Republicans in both houses voted for the bill with the sole exception of the one openly gay Republican congressman, Rep. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin

    Though his official political position was against same-sex marriage, Clinton criticized DOMA as "unnecessary and divisive",[27] while his press-secretary called it "gay baiting, plain and simple".[28][29] However, after Congress had passed the bill with enough votes to override a presidential veto,[29] Clinton signed DOMA. He claims that he did so reluctantly in view of the veto-proof majority, both to avoid associating himself politically with the then-unpopular cause of same-sex marriage, and to defuse momentum for a proposed Federal Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.[29][30] Clinton, who was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C., on September 21, 1996; he refused to hold a signing ceremony for DOMA and did not allow photographs to be taken of him signing it into law.[21] The White House released a statement in which Clinton said "that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation

    Clinton did not mention DOMA in his 2004 autobiography
    (he is still embarrassed by the whole thing) icon_confused.gif

    In 2013, Mike McCurry, the White House press secretary at the time, recalled that "[Clinton's] posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996."[29] James Hormel, who was appointed by Clinton as the first openly gay U.S. Ambassador, described the reaction from the gay community to Clinton signing DOMA as shock and anger.[31] On Hormel's account, Clinton had been the first President to advocate gay rights, push for AIDS funding, support gay and lesbian civil rights legislation, and appoint open LGBT people to his Administration. Thus his signing of DOMA was viewed by much of the community as a great betrayal. (because he was forced to by evil republicans) icon_evil.gif


    icon_rolleyes.gif You mean like how "evil Democrats" like GA Sen. Sam Nunn and many others forced Clinton to sign DADT? Let the historical facts speak for themselves, from the "paper of record" some take for Holy Writ:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/12/us/compromise-on-military-gay-ban-gaining-support-among-senators.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2015 6:56 PM GMT
    The progress of gay rights has been dependent upon gay political activism. Both the Republican and Democratic parties and their national candidates have been as little or as much pro-gay as their bases have pressured them to be. A few brave folks have been out front on the gay marriage issue like Joe Biden on the left and Dick Cheney on the right.

    (By the way, I preferred Biden over both HRC and BHO in 2008 and I'd prefer Biden over Clinton in 2016. He speaks his heart, has empathy for those in need, and has common sense in foreign policy. )
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2015 11:28 PM GMT
    Ummm...the president has nothing to do with it.

    Individual states have passed laws allowing same sex marriage, or courts in the individual states have struck bans down as unconstitutional (which they are). All Obama really has done is come out for it when his gay donors finally got fed up with him waffling on it, and he needed to save his fundraising base when he was down in the polls in 2012. Nothing wrong with that, I mean he is a politician. But is it a profile in courage? Hardly. Everybody knew that he supported same-sex marriage. The fact is he said it for two reasons: VP Biden let the cat out of the bag in one of his famous gaffes, and his big donors in the gay community got tired of him "evolving" on the position. Again, nothing wrong with demanding a politician actually state something he supports, nor is there anything surprising on the measured tones they have to take. But giving him credit on any of this is a bit overdue. And your tone is more about hating GWB than actually giving Obama credit.


    The credit truly lies with the activists and regular folks in the gay community who changed minds going back decades. From the Stonewall riots and Harvey Milk. From to Richard "Jack" Baker and James Michael McConnell to Jeanne Manford, society has been slowly but surely changing. As those minds were changed, it became far more acceptable for one to be gay in society. When that started to happen, people found out that they had friends, relatives, brothers, sisters who were gay. When faced with the question of somebody you care about not being able to marry the person they love, most good people will come down on the side of gay marriage. Society does not change because a certain president is in office.

    Its nice when a president or celebrity endorses a great cause. But much of this started long before he came on the scene.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2015 2:08 AM GMT
    HottJoe saidGeorge Bush is an idiot, but the worst thing he did as POTUS was invade Iraq. That move ruined the U.S.'s reputation abroad and paved the way for ISIS.






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

    Jan 27, 2015 2:10 AM GMT
    ELNathB said
    freedomisntfree said
    And likely our next president once said



    At that time the only one really out there on the issue was Dick Cheney.




    Some interesting points of president Clinton (Americas "first Black president") at time of signing DOMA:
    1) Republicans controlled the house and senate (like todays 2015 term)
    2) Clinton Veto power was dismantled, (his hands were tied)
    3) Defuse momentum for a proposed Federal Amendment (from HW Bush "compromise")
    4) No traditional law signing ceremony, No photo op taken (he was embarrassed that he was forced to sign this law)


    The bill moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled Congress, passing by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate[23] and a vote of 342–67 in the House.[24] The sole independent in the House, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, voted against the bill.[25] Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14 (with Pryor of Arkansas absent), and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65, with 15 not participating. All Republicans in both houses voted for the bill with the sole exception of the one openly gay Republican congressman, Rep. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin

    Though his official political position was against same-sex marriage, Clinton criticized DOMA as "unnecessary and divisive",[27] while his press-secretary called it "gay baiting, plain and simple".[28][29] However, after Congress had passed the bill with enough votes to override a presidential veto,[29] Clinton signed DOMA. He claims that he did so reluctantly in view of the veto-proof majority, both to avoid associating himself politically with the then-unpopular cause of same-sex marriage, and to defuse momentum for a proposed Federal Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.[29][30] Clinton, who was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C., on September 21, 1996; he refused to hold a signing ceremony for DOMA and did not allow photographs to be taken of him signing it into law.[21] The White House released a statement in which Clinton said "that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation

    Clinton did not mention DOMA in his 2004 autobiography
    (he is still embarrassed by the whole thing) icon_confused.gif

    In 2013, Mike McCurry, the White House press secretary at the time, recalled that "[Clinton's] posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996."[29] James Hormel, who was appointed by Clinton as the first openly gay U.S. Ambassador, described the reaction from the gay community to Clinton signing DOMA as shock and anger.[31] On Hormel's account, Clinton had been the first President to advocate gay rights, push for AIDS funding, support gay and lesbian civil rights legislation, and appoint open LGBT people to his Administration. Thus his signing of DOMA was viewed by much of the community as a great betrayal. (because he was forced to by evil republicans) icon_evil.gif


    "No traditional law signing ceremony, No photo op taken (he was embarrassed that he was forced to sign this law) "

    He didn't have to sign it. Pocket veto or outright veto were his options.

    And besides, the 'interview' vid was about Hillary's statements, not Bill's.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jan 27, 2015 3:07 AM GMT
    MGINSD saidicon_rolleyes.gif Try to stay relevant, guys; keep dredging up the past - or should I say rewriting it? Where are the references to Obama's much more recent "evolving" - read, equivocating - views on gay marriage during Bush II's admin? (He openly opposed gay marriage in his 2008 campaign, essentially agreeing with Bush, who supported civil unions since 2004; perhaps Obama had less "flexibility" then.) The only folks you're impressing are your silly selves - and given the shallowness of these posts I'm not even sure about that.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/george-w-bushs-forgotten-gay-rights-history/277567/


    That's not fair. It matters very little what publicly the President says or doesn't say. What matters is what happens BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

    If you think Obama and Bush's Supreme Court nominations are equivalent, then you're smoking something. Seriously, Bush NOMINATED justices who will vote AGAINST marriage equality in all likelihood. Obama nominated justices who will vote FOR marriage equality in all likelihood.

    Stop conflating Bush and Obama as if they're the same. Not to mention how the DOJ did NOTHING under Bush, but has teeth under Obama to prosecute hate crimes (racial and sexual orientation). Obama/Hillary and Bush could not be further apart. Period, full stop.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2015 4:26 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    ELNathB said
    freedomisntfree said
    And likely our next president once said

    At that time the only one really out there on the issue was Dick Cheney.




    Some interesting points of president Clinton (Americas "first Black president") at time of signing DOMA:
    1) Republicans controlled the house and senate (like todays 2015 term)
    2) Clinton Veto power was dismantled, (his hands were tied)
    3) Defuse momentum for a proposed Federal Amendment (from HW Bush "compromise")
    4) No traditional law signing ceremony, No photo op taken (he was embarrassed that he was forced to sign this law)


    The bill moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled Congress, passing by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate[23] and a vote of 342–67 in the House.[24] The sole independent in the House, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, voted against the bill.[25] Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14 (with Pryor of Arkansas absent), and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65, with 15 not participating. All Republicans in both houses voted for the bill with the sole exception of the one openly gay Republican congressman, Rep. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin

    Though his official political position was against same-sex marriage, Clinton criticized DOMA as "unnecessary and divisive",[27] while his press-secretary called it "gay baiting, plain and simple".[28][29] However, after Congress had passed the bill with enough votes to override a presidential veto,[29] Clinton signed DOMA. He claims that he did so reluctantly in view of the veto-proof majority, both to avoid associating himself politically with the then-unpopular cause of same-sex marriage, and to defuse momentum for a proposed Federal Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.[29][30] Clinton, who was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C., on September 21, 1996; he refused to hold a signing ceremony for DOMA and did not allow photographs to be taken of him signing it into law.[21] The White House released a statement in which Clinton said "that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation

    Clinton did not mention DOMA in his 2004 autobiography
    (he is still embarrassed by the whole thing) icon_confused.gif

    In 2013, Mike McCurry, the White House press secretary at the time, recalled that "[Clinton's] posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996."[29] James Hormel, who was appointed by Clinton as the first openly gay U.S. Ambassador, described the reaction from the gay community to Clinton signing DOMA as shock and anger.[31] On Hormel's account, Clinton had been the first President to advocate gay rights, push for AIDS funding, support gay and lesbian civil rights legislation, and appoint open LGBT people to his Administration. Thus his signing of DOMA was viewed by much of the community as a great betrayal. (because he was forced to by evil republicans) icon_evil.gif


    icon_rolleyes.gif You mean like how "evil Democrats" like GA Sen. Sam Nunn and many others forced Clinton to sign DADT? Let the historical facts speak for themselves, from the "paper of record" some take for Holy Writ:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/12/us/compromise-on-military-gay-ban-gaining-support-among-senators.html




    The underlying theme here in your argument and between the parties, has been the dirty word of "Compromise" when it comes to equality.

    1. an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions
    2. settle a dspute by mutual concession
    3. accept standards that are lower than is desirable.

    Compromise has been used by the democrats because the republicans are flamers when it comes to civil rights of people they don't like. How about the republicans pick a different subject matter, other than anybody's social or civil rights, when trying to compromise, like say on tax reform? I am sure both parties can compromise on that subject. When trying to achieve full civil right equality though, compromise cannot or should not be used to satisfy the losing party's social view. Social views should be left off the "bargaining table".

    The #3 definition of compromise has been the progressives point of Second Class Citizenship in a social manner. When either party compromises on social issues, the danger is that the "undesirable" has to accept standards that are lower or less than, thus creating a "class warfare" situation. And that is exactly what the republicans have forced the democrats into doing when it comes to social issues. The high court has taken the compromise out of the equation (thank goodness) and republicans are fuming because they don't get to decide what "equal protection" means. Progressives are dam tired of the constant need to compromise US constitutional civil, social rights. Conservatives need to put down their social condemnation, finger pointing, shaming and bibles and pick another compromising battle already. This is the "wedge issue" president Obama just spoke about in his recent state of the union address.

    "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is not something we, as a two party system, compromise on, everyone has there rights and republicans are having a hard time agreeing with that. icon_rolleyes.gif







  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jan 27, 2015 4:32 AM GMT
    It's simple: Presidents control Supreme Court nominees. Supreme Court nominees control what is and what is not constitutional.

    Dems and the GP are at polar opposites w/ respect to supreme court nominees. Any conflation is more GOP lies and obfuscation. Like claiming Lincoln was a "Republican." Puh-leeze.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2015 4:56 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidIt's simple: Presidents control Supreme Court nominees. Supreme Court nominees control what is and what is not constitutional.

    Dems and the GP are at polar opposites w/ respect to supreme court nominees. Any conflation is more GOP lies and obfuscation. Like claiming Lincoln was a "Republican." Puh-leeze.



    Yes, safe to say

    Republicans nominate based on creation-biblical principles
    Democrats nominate based on evolution-science principles

    But...Which one is the real, "new world order"??????????????







  • dilfforrent

    Posts: 207

    Jan 27, 2015 5:21 AM GMT
    I love how it's the attractive blond bimbo in the video who had the composed, intelligent reaction to the big reveal
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2015 5:29 AM GMT
    Radd saidHaha. He looks so terrified. And I specifically remember the gay conservative clowns like SouthBeach and the rest supporting this fuktard. And yes, THE worst president ever.



    He has that "dear in the headlight look", like he is about to say 'terrorists' are coming if gay marriage isn't stopped immediately icon_lol.gif

    Oh wait, he and his party did blame the gays for 9/11 icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2015 5:49 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidIt's simple: Presidents control Supreme Court nominees. Supreme Court nominees control what is and what is not constitutional.

    Dems and the GP are at polar opposites w/ respect to supreme court nominees. Any conflation is more GOP lies and obfuscation. Like claiming Lincoln was a "Republican." Puh-leeze.


    No argument there; no Republican - or moderate, or Libertarian, and perhaps a few Demos - would ever nominate the likes of RB Ginsburg to SCOTUS. OTOH, look what a disaster Earl Warren turned out to be. And yes, like Lincoln, he WAS a GOPer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2015 5:52 AM GMT
    ELNathB said
    Radd saidHaha. He looks so terrified. And I specifically remember the gay conservative clowns like SouthBeach and the rest supporting this fuktard. And yes, THE worst president ever.



    He has that "dear in the headlight look", like he is about to say 'terrorists' are coming if gay marriage isn't stopped immediately icon_lol.gif

    Oh wait, he and his party did blame the gays for 9/11 icon_rolleyes.gif


    Great arguments: focus on his appearance, or rather your perception of it, and what you speculate he might have done. And, while a few nutcases blamed 9-11 on gays and every other perceived evil of America, the GOParty never did. Tighten up and support your arguments with facts and logic and they'll make a LOT more sense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2015 6:05 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    ELNathB said
    Radd saidHaha. He looks so terrified. And I specifically remember the gay conservative clowns like SouthBeach and the rest supporting this fuktard. And yes, THE worst president ever.



    He has that "dear in the headlight look", like he is about to say 'terrorists' are coming if gay marriage isn't stopped immediately icon_lol.gif

    Oh wait, he and his party did blame the gays for 9/11 icon_rolleyes.gif


    Great arguments: focus on his appearance, or rather your perception of it, and what you speculate he might have done. And, while a few nutcases blamed 9-11 on gays and every other perceived evil of America, the GOParty never did. Tighten up and support your arguments with facts and logic and they'll make a LOT more sense.




    Social conservatives + Reagan fiscal worshippers + Tea Party + Right Wing Nuts = The GOParty icon_rolleyes.gif

    6 Most Absurd Things Right-Wing Christians Have Blamed on Gays
    http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-most-absurd-things-right-wing-christians-have-blamed-gays

    1. Autism and Tornados
    2. Climate Change
    3. 9/11
    4. 2008 Economic Collapse
    5. Hurricane Katrina
    6. Hurricane Sandy
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2015 6:07 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    MGINSD saidicon_rolleyes.gif Try to stay relevant, guys; keep dredging up the past - or should I say rewriting it? Where are the references to Obama's much more recent "evolving" - read, equivocating - views on gay marriage during Bush II's admin? (He openly opposed gay marriage in his 2008 campaign, essentially agreeing with Bush, who supported civil unions since 2004; perhaps Obama had less "flexibility" then.) The only folks you're impressing are your silly selves - and given the shallowness of these posts I'm not even sure about that.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/george-w-bushs-forgotten-gay-rights-history/277567/


    That's not fair. It matters very little what publicly the President says or doesn't say. What matters is what happens BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

    If you think Obama and Bush's Supreme Court nominations are equivalent, then you're smoking something. Seriously, Bush NOMINATED justices who will vote AGAINST marriage equality in all likelihood. Obama nominated justices who will vote FOR marriage equality in all likelihood.

    Stop conflating Bush and Obama as if they're the same. Not to mention how the DOJ did NOTHING under Bush, but has teeth under Obama to prosecute hate crimes (racial and sexual orientation). Obama/Hillary and Bush could not be further apart. Period, full stop.


    How now, it's not "fair" to defend someone by his words, but to attack him w/ them? And, the best evidence of what happens behind closed doors is what transpires once they're opened; everything else is speculation, including how CJ Roberts will vote on the gay marriage case or what part Mary Cheney and her partner may have played in Bush II's deliberations on his appointment or gay rights generally. As for conflating, Bush and Obama's policies on gay marriage were the same until 2012, by which time Obama claimed to have "evolved" to supporting gay marriage; if so, where's the missing link? The DOJ's of the last three GOP admins were MUCH fairer when it came to prosecuting ALL crimes - donde esta Lois Lerner y Las Panteras Negras? - and the legal legitimacy of the whole hate crimes philosophy remains at issue; I don't buy it for an instant. But yes, the latter three characters ARE at opposite ends of the spectrum, on all issues, not just the gay marriage one I addressed and at issue here, And, thank God for it!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2015 6:09 AM GMT
    ELNathB said
    MGINSD said
    ELNathB said
    Radd saidHaha. He looks so terrified. And I specifically remember the gay conservative clowns like SouthBeach and the rest supporting this fuktard. And yes, THE worst president ever.


    He has that "dear in the headlight look", like he is about to say 'terrorists' are coming if gay marriage isn't stopped immediately icon_lol.gif

    Oh wait, he and his party did blame the gays for 9/11 icon_rolleyes.gif


    Great arguments: focus on his appearance, or rather your perception of it, and what you speculate he might have done. And, while a few nutcases blamed 9-11 on gays and every other perceived evil of America, the GOParty never did. Tighten up and support your arguments with facts and logic and they'll make a LOT more sense.



    Social conservatives + Reagan fiscal worshippers + Tea Party + Right Wing Nuts = The GOParty icon_rolleyes.gif

    6 Most Absurd Things Right-Wing Christians Have Blamed on Gays
    http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-most-absurd-things-right-wing-christians-have-blamed-gays


    You left "Gay Conservatives and Libertarians" out of your equation. But then, there's little logic in it or your following post, so no sense, no harm, no foul.