Congratulations Gay Obama Zombies!

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

    Sep 19, 2009 6:39 PM GMT
    I'm not a big fan of Obama but in the back of my mind I, as a gay man, took a bit of solace in thinking he at least would stand up for the gays. However, like all of his other broken promises, he lied, or at least misled the gay community, to manipulate us into voting for him. Now, not only do we have a quadrupled deficit we still don't have any more gay rights! And it was the blacks who voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8!

    There will be those who still say "give him time" - but his time is NOW! There will not be another time when they have such sweeping, overwhelming control.They know this, that's why they're taking on such ambitious policies like sweeping health care reform, cap and trade, and the spending bill right now.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE58H57T20090918
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 19, 2009 7:28 PM GMT
    "And it was the blacks who voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8! "

    Don't stop there! I'm sure there must be more you have to vent!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 19, 2009 7:34 PM GMT
    He's so insistent on not getting reelected.

    Clinton-Bayh 2016!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 19, 2009 8:02 PM GMT
    Here's the dilemma that gays in the US face:

    - Black voters are overwhelmingly anti-gay. The few who are not include a smattering of out Black gays, who are a minority within a minority.
    - Latino voters are overwhelming anti-gay.
    - Republican voters are the most overwhelmingly anti-gay, and comprise the most vocal & active of the gay opposition, in pushing for anti-gay legislation and other anti-gay initiatives. Even gay Republicans support these measures, including many we encounter here on RJ. These represent our greatest immediate threat.
    - gay supporters include some liberal White Democrats, but too few to influence current events. They are also not reliable allies in difficult fights, and will abandon us without batting an eye. Bill Clinton is the most glaring example.
    - President Obama is not a gay friend, merely playing both sides of the fence for political gain.
    - Hillary Clinton is a gay friend, but she has no political future.
    - the best hope for gays is the younger generation, who tend to be ambivalent on the issue, or at best mildly supportive. This age demographic appears to cut across political party and ethnic lines. Their ability to influence events in favor of gay interests is decades away, as the current generation dies off.
  • jrc2005

    Posts: 74

    Sep 20, 2009 12:54 AM GMT
    The President really isn't supposed to have any real control on the Justice Department, the Bush Administration notwithstanding. It's also DOJ's job to defend US law. So there are these technicalities. And he's apparently trying to reverse things like DOMA and DADT via Congress, not simple Executive Order. All of this sucks from our perspective, but yeah...not sure what is to be done, then....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 1:02 AM GMT
    I wrote Hillary in on the ballot last year, because I didn't think Obama had the backbone or experience to deliver on his promises. I think it takes more than 4 years in the Senate to understand how government works, and to determine how you're going to navigate through the channels, to bring change. She's not perfect - but like James Carville said, "If she gave him one of her balls, they'd both have two."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 1:04 AM GMT
    Being on this site for a few months, I see little reason for minorities not to be anti-gay.

    We are just as bigoted as they proved to be on Prop 8. The only difference we just show our bigotry in other ways.

    We should just stop bitching about it and accept Karma for what it is.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Sep 20, 2009 1:04 AM GMT
    jprichva saidSadly, I agree.
    I didn't support him in the primaries because he gave every indication that he would turn out exactly as he has. Say what you will about Bush (and I am no fan) at least he pushed through the legislation he wanted despite the screaming from the other side. I wish Obama had the backbone that I knew he didn't and doesn't.


    Personally, I am trying very hard to be supportive of Obama -- scary as some of his policies are turning out to be -- because I genuinely want him to succeed at being a good President and, hopefully, bringing our country closer together. That said, I agree also with jprichva that he lacks backbone and I think the reason for that is that what he really lacks is experience. I truly believe that had he had 4 more years as a U.S. Senator he would have made a better, stronger President. He simply does not have the experience needed, in my opinion, to be as effective of a President as I think he could be. The jury is still out though, and I am holding out hope that things will start to look better for his Presidency and the country as a whole. If it doesn't, all I have to say is we are headed for some real hard times ahead.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 1:06 AM GMT


    So when the US elects a President, that person becomes a god or that guy from the Matrix? Really? Snap o the fingers and it's done?

    ..interesting.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 20, 2009 1:10 AM GMT
    How about a little common sense ??????????????????
    Any President who pushes for gay rights WILL NOT BE RE-ELECTED.
    If President Obama does anything for us, it won't be until some time in his second term.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 1:10 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    jprichva saidSadly, I agree.
    I didn't support him in the primaries because he gave every indication that he would turn out exactly as he has. Say what you will about Bush (and I am no fan) at least he pushed through the legislation he wanted despite the screaming from the other side. I wish Obama had the backbone that I knew he didn't and doesn't.


    Personally, I am trying very hard to be supportive of Obama -- scary as some of his policies are turning out to be -- because I genuinely want him to succeed at being a good President and, hopefully, bringing our country closer together. That said, I agree also with jprichva that he lacks backbone and I think the reason for that is that what he really lacks is experience. I truly believe that had he had 4 more years as a U.S. Senator he would have made a better, stronger President. He simply does not have the experience needed, in my opinion, to be as effective of a President as I think he could be. The jury is still out though, and I am holding out hope that things will start to look better for his Presidency and the country as a whole. If it doesn't, all I have to say is we are headed for some real hard times ahead.


    What experience did Reagan have?
    What experience did bush have?
    What experince did Palin have?

    No one ever has quite enough or the proper amount of experience. For the most part you grow into and with the job. Well all of them have done except GWB. He went in as and idiot and came out as an ass.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 20, 2009 1:12 AM GMT
    " Now, not only do we have a quadrupled deficit we still don't have any more gay rights!"
    _________________________________________________
    Well, we could have had gay rights and another Great Depression (without the quadrupled deficit). Then, would you have been happy ?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Sep 20, 2009 1:15 AM GMT
    MadeNUSA said

    What experience did Reagan have?
    What experience did bush have?
    What experince did Palin have?

    No one ever has quite enough or the proper amount of experience. For the most part you grow into and with the job. Well all of them have done except GWB. He went in as and idiot and came out as an ass.



    Reagan = 8 years as Governor of a state that has something like the 5th biggest economy in the world

    Bush = Governor of the state of Texas and a father who was vice president for 8 years and President for 4

    Palin = Governor of Alaska, though this is a moot point because former Governor Palin is NOT our President
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Sep 20, 2009 1:18 AM GMT
    Americans always elect a President but really want a king or pope.

    The American system is built to make it as difficult to affect change as possible. Progressives LIKED this when it stopped Bush from banning abortion, privatizing Social Security and shutting down the EPA, even with a Republican Congress. Now we whinge when Obama can't snap his fingers and do everything right away.

    Don't like the progress? Dump democracy and embrace an absolute monarchy or dictatorship. Democracies are always slow, messy and byzantine. Monarchies and dictatorships aren't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 1:18 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    MadeNUSA said

    What experience did Reagan have?
    What experience did bush have?
    What experince did Palin have?

    No one ever has quite enough or the proper amount of experience. For the most part you grow into and with the job. Well all of them have done except GWB. He went in as and idiot and came out as an ass.



    Reagan = 8 years as Governor of a state that has something like the 5th biggest economy in the world

    Bush = Governor of the state of Texas and a father who was vice president for 8 years and President for 4

    Palin = Governor of Alaska, though this is a moot point because former Governor Palin is NOT our President


    Exactly my point - And with all that experience that each of them had. They did a piss poor job that has led to the mess our country finds itself in today.

    From where I'm sitting President Obama can do no worse. He seems to be twice as smart as all of them put together
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Sep 20, 2009 1:19 AM GMT
    And Reagan quadrupled the deficit, Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit and Palin is wanted for ethics problems.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Sep 20, 2009 1:20 AM GMT
    MadeNUSA said
    Exactly my point - And with all that experience that each of them had. They did a piss poor job that has led to the mess our country finds itself in today.

    From where I'm sitting President Obama can do no worse. He seems to be twice as smart as all of them put together


    That would be YOUR opinion, but that doesn't make it true
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Sep 20, 2009 1:21 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    MadeNUSA said
    Exactly my point - And with all that experience that each of them had. They did a piss poor job that has led to the mess our country finds itself in today.

    From where I'm sitting President Obama can do no worse. He seems to be twice as smart as all of them put together


    That would be YOUR opinion, but that doesn't make it true


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

    Sep 20, 2009 1:27 AM GMT
    MadeNUSA saidBeing on this site for a few months, I see little reason for minorities not to be anti-gay.

    We are just as bigoted as they proved to be on Prop 8. The only difference we just show our bigotry in other ways.

    We should just stop bitching about it and accept Karma for what it is.


    Care to give an example that is not fundamentally tainted with gross overgeneralisation and reeking of ignorance?
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Sep 20, 2009 1:31 AM GMT
    For the trillionth time: look up the word socialism. NOTHING the Democrats propose meets the definition of socialism. In a socialist system there is no private property. All means of production and distribution are public (government) owned. That means everything.

    The U.S. has always had a mixed private-public economy. What services are provided by government and which are provided by private entities have always varied. But outside of Cuba and North Korea socialism doesn't exist anywhere.

    It's the favourite demonizing word to throw around, but it's just meant to scare people.

    Secondly, the Democrats have never been a disciplined party. It's a make-shift coalition of business types, labour unions, minorities, gays and others that are about as easy to manage as a room full of cats. In fact, I am reading that chances are that the Republicans will fade away and the Democrats will split between liberal and conservative wings and form the next two party system.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 1:39 AM GMT
    At least he hasn't started a war....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 1:42 AM GMT
    Ehem...icon_neutral.gif What's wrong with socialism? Is it worst than Wild Capitalism?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 1:46 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    dMostWanted saidEhem...icon_neutral.gif What's wrong with socialism? Is it worst than Wild Capitalism?


    Nothing wrong with socialism if you are on the receiving side... that is, if you are benefitting from the redistribution of wealth.

    If you're on the other side of that equation, though, it sucks.







    In who do you think the economy depends on? icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 1:48 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    dMostWanted saidEhem...icon_neutral.gif What's wrong with socialism? Is it worst than Wild Capitalism?


    Nothing wrong with socialism if you are on the receiving side... that is, if you are benefitting from the redistribution of wealth.

    If you're on the other side of that equation, though, it sucks.


    You don't think theres a responsibility of the well off in a society to help to poorer off, principles of solidarity, to each according to his need, from each according to his ability?

    Is it unreasonable to think that $250 000 is perhaps better spent feeding hundreds of families than buying a new car?
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Sep 20, 2009 1:50 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    dantoujours saidFor the trillionth time: look up the word socialism. NOTHING the Democrats propose meets the definition of socialism. In a socialist system there is no private property. All means of production and distribution are public (government) owned. That means everything.

    The U.S. has always had a mixed private-public economy. What services are provided by government and which are provided by private entities have always varied. But outside of Cuba and North Korea socialism doesn't exist anywhere.

    It's the favourite demonizing word to throw around, but it's just meant to scare people.


    I kind of think this is a pretty good definition (from wikipedia):

    Socialism refers to various theories of economic organisation advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterised by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation

    Government ownerships interests in GM and some of the banks would fulfill the "public ownership of the means of production" part of the definition.

    And, our tax code is extremely geared towards the reallocation of wealth from the highest earners to the lower earners (problem is, that money somehow gets lost in the maze of government as it is on it's journey from the wealthy to the lower and middle classes).

    When I hear Barney Frank who is chairman of the House Finance Committee (or whatever it is called) advocating limits on compensation for executives and employees at financial companies, to me, that's an attempt at socialism.



    Sorry, but nothing you described meets the definition.

    Everyone in Congress acknowledges that the GM and bank bailouts are temporary just so they can get back on their feet. These weren't permanent government takeovers, but a government loan that has to be paid back.

    Secondly, the tax code has nothing to do with socialism, even by the definition you provided. Every tax code has always redistributed wealth. There is much less of this happening in the U.S. now than in the past. In fact, in the 1940s and 1950s the tax rate was 90% for the wealthy and under Obama's plans it is less than 40%

    See: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

    And limiting compensation doesn't meet your definition either.

    (Why don't people actually read and think about what they post? Are people allowed to own business property in America? If so, no socialism.)