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.
Sadly, 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.
- 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.
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....
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."
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.
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.
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.
" 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 ?
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
I assume you voted for him in the general?
Don't count Obama out yet.... his party still has control of both houses of the Congress... The democrats just have to come together to decide what degree of socialism they want to implement.
If Obama and the Democrats don't make good on all their promises, there will be nobody to blame for failing to pass all the promised programs and legislation but Obama and the Democrats.
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.
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.
dMostWanted saidEhem... 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 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%
Let me explain some economy basics to Mr. SouthBeach.. The Big fish eats the small fish.. Ok? So without the small fish, the big fish dies... Let me add that the more healthy the small fish is, the more health the big fish will have..
It was reported that here in Florida, Amendment 2 was largely supported by blacks and Latinos (who also supported Obama) due to their much religious influence. I'm not sure how much truth there is to this, but it seems feasible. I think it was half whites and half minorities who favored Amendment 2. Then again Florida is a pretty racially diverse state.
Lets be realistic here !!! Obama is not, nor did he ever pretend to be a miracle worker. He was handed the worst possible financial situation since the great depression which forced on him having to do some spending to get money flowing again (both republican and dem economists strongly urged him to do the stimulus) That in itself was quite an accomplishment in his first forty or so days in office. The economy is starting to turn around after painful bailouts that most agree were hard to avoid. he's now dealing with the Health care which will also help the economy and the general public. And there are two wars to deal with, which are fiasco's in and of themselves, thanky you GW !!! We as gays have come a long ways in the last few decades in spite of the republicans and far right and why should we expect that we are to get everything we want from Obama in his first eight months in office. Give him credit for having one hell of a lot on his plate and that he is handling it all quite well when you look at the entire picture. As he said, at the end of 4 years gays will be able to look back and be glad he was in office. Be patient, there are much bigger fish for him to fry than our needs
Sure, at least we knew where palin/mccain... but they were, or at least seemed, adamantly against gay marriage... while obama was... well... as joe wilson put it, 'a liar...' playing both sides. He isn't hurting us (for the most part) or helping us. He could at least repeal the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy, I'm sure that would appease several people and it would not be nearly as controversial as the DoMA.
----------------------------------
As for prop 8... Mostly low income... poorly educated, and religious nuts voted for it. Blacks normally don't voted (according to various news articles)... but with the whole obama thing... 70% did.
-----------------------------------
As for the younger generations... they will be the ones that bring about change. When I went to some prop 8 protests there were tons of high school kids there, I'd say the majority of them were straight allies.
------------------- side note* How many of you still read the Los Angeles Times? Did you guys know that they had 'Vote YES on prop 8' banners all over their website 24/7?
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
You are right my opinion doesn't make it true.
It is is only my opinion that there is something called the sun. It's only my opinion that I live in a country called the United States of America. It's only my opinion that I live in a place called Washington DC. It's only my opinion that you have common sense. It's only my opinion that you are a rational human being with some degree of intelligence.
Heck , you are certainly right - my opinions don't necessarily make them true.
dMostWanted saidLet me explain some economy basics to Mr. SouthBeach.. The Big fish eats the small fish.. Ok? So without the small fish, the big fish dies... Let me add that the more healthy the small fish is, the more health the big fish will have..
Actually, that's biology.
In our economy, it's the "big fish" that invest in and grow businesses that employ the "small fish." So without the big fish, the small fish die.
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
You are right my opinion doesn't make it true.
It is is only my opinion that there is something called the sun. It's only my opinion that I live in a country called the United States of America. It's only my opinion that I live in a place called Washington DC. It's only my opinion that you have common sense. It's only my opinion that you are a rational human being with some degree of intelligence.
Heck , you are certainly right - my opinions don't necessarily make them true.
creature saidThose big fish at one time were small fish.
That's right. I was one of those small fish... graduated college with $17,000 in debt... Now, among other things, I own a company that employs 15 people....
Now I'm a big fish... but there is a bigger fish than I out there.... it's called the Federal Government and they are proposing all sorts of new taxes, fees and surcharges on me and my business.
So, if they reduce the profit of my business to a point where my company is looking at a loss, I may be forced to fire some of my little fish workers.
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?
Hey Daedalus.... don't you know that NOBODY challenges MadeNUSA on here.... He's a real tough guy.
Anyone can question me- anyone that is, except stupid people who either cannot read, or who cannot comprehend what they have read; or who can comprehend what they have read and yet deliberately choose to remain ignorant for some strange reason.
Case in point you - You posted verbatim from wikipedia the definition of socialism. Your trying to link the definition to what is going on in America currently, would indicate one of the above signs of stupidity that I previously itemized. It is tiresome.
buffenuff999 said And it was the blacks who voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8!
70% of blacks voted for Prop 8. They made up an additional 4% of the electorate that year. That is roughly an additional 3% for Prop 8.
Prop 8 won by 6% so the numbers still don't add up.
Why don't we blame the 85% of Conservatives who voted for it and made up 30% of the electorate? Why don't we blame 59% people in their 40s who made up 22% of the electorate? Or 61% of those over 65 who made up 15% of the electorate?
No matter how you play the blame game, No on Prop 8 was a poorly run campaign. Pointing fingers at Obama and Black people is a waste of time and avoids the real issue.
creature saidThose big fish at one time were small fish.
That's right. I was one of those small fish... graduated college with $17,000 in debt... Now, among other things, I own a company that employs 15 people....
Now I'm a big fish... but there is a bigger fish than I out there.... it's called the Federal Government and they are proposing all sorts of new taxes, fees and surcharges on me and my business.
So, if they reduce the profit of my business to a point where my company is looking at a loss, I may be forced to fire some of my little fish workers.
Well if that's your case then you are a victim of Wild Capitalism.. Do you know what THAT is?
MadeNUSA said You posted verbatim from wikipedia the definition of socialism. Your trying to link the definition to what is going on in America currently, would indicate one of the above signs of stupidity that I previously itemized. It is tiresome.
Stupidity as in not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're"???? (re-read your post above)
Now I'm a big fish... but there is a bigger fish than I out there.... it's called the Federal Government and they are proposing all sorts of new taxes, fees and surcharges on me and my business.
So, if they reduce the profit of my business to a point where my company is looking at a loss, I may be forced to fire some of my little fish workers.
This is the same government whose security (military/homeland security), roads, highways, communication, public education, etc makes your business possible in the first place. If that didn't exist your business would come to a screeching halt tomorrow.
There is definitely a balance. But business and personal taxes are the lowest in modern (post WWII) U.S. history. What Obama has proposed still doesn't raise them to the point they were at under Reagan or Bush I.
dantoujours said This is the same federal government whose security, roads, highways, communication, public education, etc that makes your business possible in the first place. If that didn't exist your business would come to a screeching halt tomorrow.
There is definitely a balance. But business and personal taxes are the lowest in modern (post WWII) U.S. history. What Obama has proposed still doesn't raise them to the point they were at under Reagan or Bush II.
On one of these other topics I presented the math on how a person earning "just" 250,000 a year pays more than 50% of their income in taxes if they are unlucky enough to live or work in a high tax state.
To me, that is a completely ridiculous amount. The solution is to cut government spending.... but we know that the best we can ever hope for is a cut in the rate of government spending increases.
dantoujours saidAmericans 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.
YES! This is so true that I hope every poster on this site sees it.
Also, kudos to the poster who pointed out that openly embracing gay issues straight away means political suicide for Obama and the dems in general in 2012. I hate to admit it, but I'd almost rather Obama be pragmatic and NOT give the repubs ammunition in 2012. Their regaining control/public esteem would be far more damaging to the country in the long run than a slight delay in the advancement of gay rights (as much as we should have them right now).
southbeach1500 saidMadeNUSA said You posted verbatim from wikipedia the definition of socialism. Your trying to link the definition to what is going on in America currently, would indicate one of the above signs of stupidity that I previously itemized. It is tiresome.
Stupidity as in not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're"???? (re-read your post above)
Hmmmm????
Or is that just called ignorance?
Oh for shit sake. LOL LOL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh no - I refuse to correct you. I'm not touching this.
southbeach1500 saiddantoujours said This is the same federal government whose security, roads, highways, communication, public education, etc that makes your business possible in the first place. If that didn't exist your business would come to a screeching halt tomorrow.
There is definitely a balance. But business and personal taxes are the lowest in modern (post WWII) U.S. history. What Obama has proposed still doesn't raise them to the point they were at under Reagan or Bush II.
On one of these other topics I presented the math on how a person earning "just" 250,000 a year pays more than 50% of their income in taxes if they are unlucky enough to live or work in a high tax state.
To me, that is a completely ridiculous amount. The solution is to cut government spending.... but we know that the best we can ever hope for is a cut in the rate of government spending increases.
But those "high tax" states have better education systems, better service and healthier societies. There's a reason why New York City which has high taxes is such an attractive destination.
But I agree that we should cut government spending. Considering that the military takes 50% of the government budget, that U.S. military spending accounts for half the world's total and that the U.S. spends 10 times more than the next country, we should start there. It's a complete drag on this society and we could do with half that.
Unfortunately the Republicans give the military carte blanche.
southbeach1500 saiddantoujours said This is the same federal government whose security, roads, highways, communication, public education, etc that makes your business possible in the first place. If that didn't exist your business would come to a screeching halt tomorrow.
There is definitely a balance. But business and personal taxes are the lowest in modern (post WWII) U.S. history. What Obama has proposed still doesn't raise them to the point they were at under Reagan or Bush II.
On one of these other topics I presented the math on how a person earning "just" 250,000 a year pays more than 50% of their income in taxes if they are unlucky enough to live or work in a high tax state.
To me, that is a completely ridiculous amount. The solution is to cut government spending.... but we know that the best we can ever hope for is a cut in the rate of government spending increases.
Can I suggest that you let someone who can count to 10 do the math for you? You have demonstrated quite often that logic is not your forte. You have aptly demonstrated that truth is foreign to you. I do not see how you could possibly then carry out a math problem.
And it's blatantly obvious from the 50% that your calculations are awry
realifedad said Lets be realistic here !!! Obama is not, nor did he ever pretend to be a miracle worker. He was handed the worst possible financial situation since the great depression which forced on him having to do some spending to get money flowing again (both republican and dem economists strongly urged him to do the stimulus) That in itself was quite an accomplishment in his first forty or so days in office. The economy is starting to turn around after painful bailouts that most agree were hard to avoid. he's now dealing with the Health care which will also help the economy and the general public. And there are two wars to deal with, which are fiasco's in and of themselves, thanky you GW !!! We as gays have come a long ways in the last few decades in spite of the republicans and far right and why should we expect that we are to get everything we want from Obama in his first eight months in office. Give him credit for having one hell of a lot on his plate and that he is handling it all quite well when you look at the entire picture. As he said, at the end of 4 years gays will be able to look back and be glad he was in office. Be patient, there are much bigger fish for him to fry than our needs
Well said ! I'd like to add that I'm really getting tired of hearing folks blame the passing of Prop 8 on Blacks aka "Those Whom Oppose Gay But Should Have Sympathy Due To Their Past Struggles." Perhaps you guys need to stop watching so much CNNMSNBCFOXNEWS and get out there and find out the real facts ! Sources reported that 70% of the vote was Black ? Funny since we only make up 7% of the state. Someone failed basic math in school ! Yes some of the votes came from Black Americans but they were older more conservative voters. There were also lots of older Latin & Asians who voted for Prop 8. Lastly most of the country forgets that there are many largely conservative ( and primarily white ) cities here in Cali ( exp San Diego, Orange County, Escondido, Bakersfield to name a few.) The Bay and some parts of L.A. are surrounded by serious conservative voters whom ALL voted for Prop 8. But since folks believe EVERYTHING they see on TV, Blacks became the easy scapegoat.
My entire family voted No on 8 as did a fair amount of my relatives. My Uncle ( an older straight Black man ) has been so involved in thwarting anything anti-gay marriage that he informs me about things that I haven't even heard of ! My immediate family who live in a largely white very conservative suburb have stick their necks WAAAY out to oppose Prop 8. Considering the high concentration of rednecks in their town I have to applaud their bravery. I have many friends of color both young and old who have done the same thing. Where's their props ? WE always focus on the negative and rarely acknowledge the positive. Especially when it comes to minorities. What burns me the most is if anything should happen to my friends and family in retaliation for speaking up, I wonder if the gay folks who blame us for Prop 8 would come to our aid ? Probably not. Cuz when it comes to some of you, it's not about scratching each others backs. It's more like... "You scratch my back and go find someone else to scratch yours. I got mine ! "
Do you understand how corporations got so big? How your business is able to flourish? It all stems from the money being shelled out by the consumer. If you weaken the base of the economy, expect it to crumble. If you want to use that fish analogy — a fish can only grow by the strength of its food source. If the food is contaminated, or poisoned, the fish will die. Which is why, in order to have a sustainable ecosystem, you need every step of the food chain to be healthy.
The spending Obama wants to do is a long-term investment. As a businessman, it would help you to have some hindsight. I'm sure you have heard of the saying in order to get a little, you have to give a little. That is how this works. If you want a healthy economy where your business can prosper, you have to address and invest in the needs of the people, who will not only act as the labor force, but also the consumer.
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?
The majority of us gay white guys refuse to see anyone outside our very narrow base as being attractive. They are not worthy of us or our attention and we claim it is our preference- we like who we like. It is our preference and our right to do so. So there’s no reaching out to minority segments of our community in any shape or form. Because they are not seen as being important.
Yet these same minorities are supposed to however join with us to get things like prop 8 overturned . Because they are supposed to understand being discriminated against.
Really?? How do you figure this solidarity is supposed to work exactly? I’ve always been curious.
I think the justice department is going against this case because the lawsuit is a way to use the courts to legalize gay marriage on the federal level. It's how many of the states were able to legalize gay marriage on the state level. I think the Obama administration is against using the courts to legalize gay marriage.
We'll see. I really like Obama and hope he takes a more progressive attitude towards gay rights.
The majority of us gay white guys refuse to see anyone outside our very narrow base as being attractive. They are not worthy of us or our attention and we claim it is our preference- we like who we like. It is our preference and our right to do so. So there’s no reaching out to minority segments of our community in any shape or form. Because they are not seen as being important.
Yet these same minorities are supposed to however join with us to get things like prop 8 overturned . Because they are supposed to understand being discriminated against.
Really?? How do you figure this solidarity is supposed to work exactly? I’ve always been curious.
Firstly I'll address your example of bigotry in attraction, then move on to the solidarity debate.
Clearly your trend is not limited to the white community, nor the gay community, I dont see anyone saying we should ignore the rights of black people because they tend not to be as attracted to others as they are people of their own colour.
On this not I would also question your assertion about the "majority" of gay people, not that it is necessarily incorrect, but rather it is a weasle word without any factual backing.
I would also say that it could become particularly irksome if we start calling everybody who isnt attracted to someone a bigot. One would think that they are only a bigot if they are attracted to someone, but let some misguided taboo prevent them from pursuing that relationship. Hopefully I am not a bigot for not being attracted to women.
As to the question of solidarity, it is based in the notion that whilst we may all have different experiences of discrimination, we are all joined by the commonality that we are oppressed. Under such a scheme any work toward equality by any party should be supported, in spirit of not through direct action, but by tearing each other down out of pettiness and an attempt to climb up ourselves, we retard the pursuit of equality for anyone.
I've been realistic about what he could deliver from the get go. But I'm still disappointed. And, yes, I find it hard to argue against "time is now."
That said, I still elected the person I thought was best for the job. You can't honestly think McCain/Palin would have done a better job for America, let alone the gays? And I think Hillary would have likely electrified the Right in less time than Obama and they would have been more obstructionist than they are now. Republicans like to gear up the works. They do not want progress.
And what disgusts me as a former Republican, is that how can any moderate Republican can be comfortable with how the party has embraced the fringe of the party to take down Obama. I'm more disgusted with the Republicans now more than ever. They are playing upon the most base fears of people. Is this what they want to base the party's future on? Frightening.
Now it could of been much worse, Chillery could of been in the top job, and not Obama.
One of the first things she would of done is start a war, to prove the hair on her chest runs all the way down to her balls, and too prove to can play the game as well as the boys.
Still the homosexuals of the US of A, would not of advanced any. because Chillery would wonted to be re-elected, and she knows, America is still a religious country, and advancing homosexuals would offended the religious majority of the U S of A. They would of made sure she never got re-elected too.
As an Aussie living in Oz, American politics, can and does effect my country, sometimes even infect it too. But........ I personally don't feel threatend by Obama.
But then I always vote for who I feel will be the best leader for my country, and not who will fulfil my personal wont's; like who would allow me to wed my two long term partners, because I know if some-one said: A vote for me will give homosexuals of Oz the same rights as the heterosexuals, and bisexuals who stand under the straight banner. This would not mean I would vote for that person, for my own self advancement, if I felt they would not be good for Oz over all; thus I would not be disappointed with our leader for not giving me the same rights as a newcomers to Oz get, or even Australians.
Maybe the people who voted for Obama for hope of their own self advancement, should own their own disappointment for voting for him for the wrong reasons.
Pattison_the_Great saidNow it could of been much worse, Chillery could of been in the top job, and not Obama.
One of the first things she would of done is start a war, to prove the hair on her chest runs all the way down to her balls, and too prove to can play the game as well as the boys.
Still the homosexuals of the US of A, would not of advanced any. because Chillery would wonted to be re-elected, and she knows, America is still a religious country, and advancing homosexuals would offended the religious majority of the U S of A. They would of made sure she never got re-elected too.
As an Aussie living in Oz, American politics, can and does effect my country, sometimes even infect it too. But........ I personally don't feel threatend by Obama.
But then I always vote for who I feel will be the best leader for my country, and not who will fulfil my personal wont's; like who would allow me to wed my two long term partners, because I know if some-one said: A vote for me will give homosexuals of Oz the same rights as the heterosexuals, and bisexuals who stand under the straight banner. This would not mean I would vote for that person, for my own self advancement, if I felt they would not be good for Oz over all; thus I would not be disappointed with our leader for not giving me the same rights as a newcomers to Oz get, or even Australians.
Maybe the people who voted for Obama for hope of their own self advancement, should own their own disappointment for voting for him for the wrong reasons.
Pattison, while I agree that Hillary would not have us in a better position, I find your sexism and misogyny repugnant.
Red_vespa, what's your source on Latino voters being "overwhelmingly anti-gay"?
If we look at the Prop 8 numbers, for example, Latino voters voted around 54 Yes - 46 No on the proposition. White voters voted approximately 49 No - 51 Yes. I'm seeing both of those groups as pretty close to even splits, not "overwhelmingly" favoring one side or the other.
buffenuff999 said 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!
Where are you going with this? You say you don't like Obama and then you talk about "the blacks" overwhelmingly voting for Prop 8.
Prop 8 passed because the gay community insists on labeling itself white-gay male community. For Christ's sake, your comment (among other "blacks cost us Prop 8" comments) is riddled with an "us versus them" implication.
MSUBioNerd saidRed_vespa, what's your source on Latino voters being "overwhelmingly anti-gay"?
If we look at the Prop 8 numbers, for example, Latino voters voted around 54 Yes - 46 No on the proposition. White voters voted approximately 49 No - 51 Yes. I'm seeing both of those groups as pretty close to even splits, not "overwhelmingly" favoring one side or the other.
The figure for Latinos yes vote was approx more in the region of 61% according to numbers polled by the following
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.
I thought I was the only one that had that thought cross my mind.
you are not the only one. i too chuckle at this quite often. I would actually roll my eyes if I wasn't afraid they would stick. but here this will have to do
Prop 8 passed because the gay community insists on labeling itself white-gay male community. For Christ's sake, your comment (among other "blacks cost us Prop 8" comments) is riddled with an "us versus them" implication.
Yes, that was one of the major issues. The opponents of prop 8 refused to recognize the existence of 'minorities' and only created ads to target the 'white' community, until the very end... possibly because they realized they couldn't win with just the 'white' vote.
-They released ONE commercial in spanish... featuring actors/actresses that the 'hispanic' community would NOT be familiar with... they did not try to combat the ads that 'protect marriage' kept releasing (in spanish AND korean) and they hardly aired them.
----it's no wonder that regions with large 'hispanic' communities voted 'overwhelming' for the passage of prop 8.
Overall it was just a horrible campaign.
'Vote no on prop 8 and keep government out of all our lives!'
-WTF?
I thought this was all about getting recognition FROM the government.
I think this quote by radical historian Howard Zinn is appropriate: "What matters most is not who is sitting in the White House, but "who is sitting in" -- and who is marching outside the White House, pushing for change."
If the Left hopes to see genuine healthcare reform, equal marriage, and an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--among many issues we voted for Obama to deliver on--it's actually not going to come from either him or a would-be President Hillary Clinton.
Unfortunately, the Right is growing because Obama is too vested in the business and banking class to bring the kind of change that is needed. We're all hoping for a lot more audacity from Obama--but that isn't going to come without the pressure on him from social movements from below.
That's why I'm attending the upcoming LGBT March on Washington being organized by Cleve Jones, Harvey Milk's protege, the National Equality March, Oct. 11-12.
I'll be marching with Daniel Choi in the Veterans' Contingent. And to all cynics--NO, one march isn't going to bring full equality or even win equal marriage. But a march can help strengthen and solidify a Movement and give people the confidence to organize, particularly when they return home from DC.
I hope more RJ members will consider attendingl. It's high time we had our own March on Washington to build a new Movement for LGBT equality.
IlliniXMarine saidI think this quote by radical historian Howard Zinn is appropriate: "What matters most is not who is sitting in the White House, but "who is sitting in" -- and who is marching outside the White House, pushing for change."
If the Left hopes to see genuine healthcare reform, equal marriage, and an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--among many issues we voted for Obama to deliver on--it's actually not going to come from either him or a would-be President Hillary Clinton.
Unfortunately, the Right is growing because Obama is too vested in the business and banking class to bring the kind of change that is needed. We're all hoping for a lot more audacity from Obama--but that isn't going to come without the pressure on him from social movements from below.
That's why I'm attending the upcoming LGBT March on Washington being organized by Cleve Jones, Harvey Milk's protege, the National Equality March, Oct. 11-12.
I'll be marching with Daniel Choi in the Veterans' Contingent. And to all you cynics--no, one march isn't going to bring full equality or even win equal marriage. But a march can help strengthen and solidify a Movement and give people the confidence to organize, particularly when they return home from DC.
I hope more RJ members will consider attendingl. It's high time we had our own March on Washington to strengthen and solidify a new Movement for LGBT equality.
buffenuff999 said "And it was the blacks who voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8!"
Now I'm starting to see why Some of "Blacks" Voted Yes on Prop 8.... With some of the Comments I seen on this site lately i can see why...
And This People is why there will always be Wars!!! Because of Hate!!!
People Fear & Hate What they dont understand!! That Hate will lead to Violence.
OP You would Think being a GAY man!! That you would know what being Hated on means &show our Straight Oppressors That will not be hated on!!!, and Meet them not with Hate!!! But with Courage, Strength, Honor, Love, Compassion, Wisdom, Compromise, & Understanding!! Otherwise we are no better then thoes who would bring us down and tell us that we are beneath them and that we should do what they say.
That Goes for all of Us......
Love not Hate
If You dont like What Obama is doing and you think you can do better Then STOP YOUR B****ing & DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND RUN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
Jarhead8 saidDO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND RUN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
I would love to but I won't be 35 in time for the next election.
So, the next best thing is encourage discussion and debate on the topics at hand and learn from the mistakes of my predecessors and ensure I do not repeat them.
Pattison_the_Great saidNow it could of been much worse, Chillery could of been in the top job, and not Obama.
One of the first things she would of done is start a war, to prove the hair on her chest runs all the way down to her balls, and too prove to can play the game as well as the boys.
Still the homosexuals of the US of A, would not of advanced any. because Chillery would wonted to be re-elected, and she knows, America is still a religious country, and advancing homosexuals would offended the religious majority of the U S of A. They would of made sure she never got re-elected too.
As an Aussie living in Oz, American politics, can and does effect my country, sometimes even infect it too. But........ I personally don't feel threatend by Obama.
But then I always vote for who I feel will be the best leader for my country, and not who will fulfil my personal wont's; like who would allow me to wed my two long term partners, because I know if some-one said: A vote for me will give homosexuals of Oz the same rights as the heterosexuals, and bisexuals who stand under the straight banner. This would not mean I would vote for that person, for my own self advancement, if I felt they would not be good for Oz over all; thus I would not be disappointed with our leader for not giving me the same rights as a newcomers to Oz get, or even Australians.
Maybe the people who voted for Obama for hope of their own self advancement, should own their own disappointment for voting for him for the wrong reasons.
Pattison, while I agree that Hillary would not have us in a better position, I find your sexism and misogyny repugnant.
Oh just because I say something about a women I'm now a misogynist, and sexist So how do you feel about all the hate directed at Ms Palin Or is that Ok and diffrent, because she is a Republican. Sorry but One does not seek your approval; I stand by what I said.
Next you will be saying if someone says something less than flattering about Obama they are a racist too
I didn't vote for Obama thinking he'd deliver gay equality. I voted for him knowing he wouldn't be worse for the movement than those who ran against him.
I love Obama but I'm a realist. Be assured of one thing... If you can make it to the highest office in the land you'll be a just another politician through and through by the time you get there.
The Gay Rights agenda is in the hands of those who will serve and advance it best.
for everyone's bitching, i'd like to see anyone in here do a better job, considering the convergence of various crisis he's having to deal with. i tend to think he's handling it all as best he can, and navigating the political roadblocks to the policys he'd LIKE to accomplish faster, with infinitely more grace, tact, and leadership than our last president (talk about a disaster- next to him anyone would look like a saint). and the way a lot of you talk, i imagine that no matter WHO had won the election, you'd still find fault to bitch about. shame on you all. to those who have said that a term in the senate is not enough to teach the workings of the government at the presidential level, i retort with two points: no one in here has even had THAT much exposure to politics, so who are you to judge him and his experience- you know infinitely less no matter how you look at it; and what job on earth COULD adequately prepare a man for the presidency? there's nothing close to it in difficulty and variety of responsibilities and tasks. give the man some faith and acknowledgement that at least he's doing his best to make INTELLIGENT decisions with long reaching consequences- something this country had forgotten how to do over the last 8 years of disaster. i worry that everyone's just used to the bush speed and clumsiness of ramming policies through.... wake up people that was never how it was supposed to be done and we've all suffered for it- things take time and tact in politics and there simply are no intelligent overnight changes, outside of dictatorship. unless that's what you're all advocating... a good, kind, loving dictator.
czarodziej saidfor everyone's bitching, i'd like to see anyone in here do a better job, considering the convergence of various crisis he's having to deal with. i tend to think he's handling it all as best he can, and navigating the political roadblocks to the policys he'd LIKE to accomplish faster, with infinitely more grace, tact, and leadership than our last president (talk about a disaster- next to him anyone would look like a saint). and the way a lot of you talk, i imagine that no matter WHO had won the election, you'd still find fault to bitch about. shame on you all. to those who have said that a term in the senate is not enough to teach the workings of the government at the presidential level, i retort with two points: no one in here has even had THAT much exposure to politics, so who are you to judge him and his experience- you know infinitely less no matter how you look at it; and what job on earth COULD adequately prepare a man for the presidency? there's nothing close to it in difficulty and variety of responsibilities and tasks. give the man some faith and acknowledgement that at least he's doing his best to make INTELLIGENT decisions with long reaching consequences- something this country had forgotten how to do over the last 8 years of disaster. i worry that everyone's just used to the bush speed and clumsiness of ramming policies through.... wake up people that was never how it was supposed to be done and we've all suffered for it- things take time and tact in politics and there simply are no intelligent overnight changes, outside of dictatorship. unless that's what you're all advocating... a good, kind, loving dictator.
Well put, as usual, and very passionate.! I love it when you get angry. I think it's hot!
Obama never showed promise of supporting gays. No politician ever has. They've only ever said enough to {try and} fool people into thinking they are supporters. Gay equality has never been popular, and no serious politician would use it as a means to gain votes.
Obama would only have a chance to help gays during his second term, as reelection would no longer be an issue. On the other hand, he's obviously started undermining gay issues -- not cool. Two thumbs down for Obama.
I wrote Hilary in on the ballot too, because she gave no pretenses, and she already knows the in's and outs of Capitol Hill to get what she wants. Poor Obama already looks tired.
I voted for Obama because I wasn't about to vote for Grampy McBushClone and his hillbilly sidekick or throw away my vote on a write-in or third party candidate. But, after Obama cozied up to Donnie McClurkin, I never figured he'd end up being all that great on gay issues. The issue of primary importance for me is the Supreme Court, and in that regard, I'm satisfied with Obama's performance so far.
So what if Obama isn't holding up his promise.The voice has been, "Obama is such a bad so and so." But have you looked in the bigger picture? No really???
Would you rather we be under the government of McCain and the Republicans which doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hell of mentioning anything gay support!?
Yeah I totally see the Republicans throwing a gay parade and letting us get married. The Republicans wouldn't give a flying fuck about Us. Even the gay conservative voice among them is hushed due to the airport cock-sucking they are preoccupied with.
I'd rather be on Obama's side, even if slightly mentioned than be totally discriminated against in the Republican's eyes.
"And it was the blacks who voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8"
did he really say this? ummmmmmm... what does that have to do with anything? NO! don't answer that! I can tie this back to his first few sentences. However, soooo not necessary to through this tangent in! LOSER!
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
You are right my opinion doesn't make it true.
It is is only my opinion that there is something called the sun. It's only my opinion that I live in a country called the United States of America. It's only my opinion that I live in a place called Washington DC. It's only my opinion that you have common sense. It's only my opinion that you are a rational human being with some degree of intelligence.
Heck , you are certainly right - my opinions don't necessarily make them true.
Well, now you're only succeeding in proving that you can't distinguish between FACT and FICTION. But, of course, the rest of us already knew that about you.
Jarhead8 saidDO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND RUN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
I would love to but I won't be 35 in time for the next election.
So, the next best thing is encourage discussion and debate on the topics at hand and learn from the mistakes of my predecessors and ensure I do not repeat them.
You might be repeating thoes mistakes by blaming a whole race for actions that only a precentage of that race might have done.
jrc2005 saidIt'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.
While I don't necessarily agree that anyone should work to preserve DOMA or the like, thank you jrc2005 for pointing this out. Obviously we all realize that it is important for the president to support equality and fairness if anything is going to change, but the justice department (e.g. the legal team responsible for seeking dismissal of the Massachusetts law suit) is just doing the job it was set up to do: congress makes laws, DOJ enforces and defends those laws. Without this function of DOJ, it would be far easier to overturn any piece of legislation that anyone disagreed with. Nevertheless, it means gay men and women still face big challenges, but those challenges are in the context of a system of democracy, like it or not.
We should remember that when black Americans were struggling for their civil rights, they couldn't just demand that President Johnson work some sort of magic and sign bills into law. They had to gain support of senators who were able to do that. The Senate majority leader at the time the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being considered worked within the bounds of his power to bypass the senate judiciary committee, where the bill surely would have been shot down, and had the bill read on the floor for consideration by the whole senate. Despite a nearly two-month filibuster, relatively swift passage there was due in large part to public pressure on senators from the sympathetic north drummed up by civil rights leaders of the time. A model like this is something we could learn from, rather than demanding that one president, whose powers are constrained by the U.S. governmental system, fix everything in one fell swoop.
To me, that is a completely ridiculous amount. The solution is to cut government spending.... but we know that the best we can ever hope for is a cut in the rate of government spending increases.
One reason for that is because no one wants to see less government money going to support services he uses. I'm guessing you don't either.
Here's a good example, posted by someone in a different thread:
This guy voted against funding services that weren't in his state, but when the day came that he wanted those services to function properly, he was pissed that they didn't. But if the funding had been for services in his area, he'd probably have voted for them.
Problem is that Americans want everything without paying for it. We want lots of government services but we want lower taxes. And we're always ready to cut the services for someone else.
One thing that annoys me about the Republicans in general is that they play on this (and some of them probably don't even get the problems with the idea). That's what we saw happen under Reagan (who ended up having to raise taxes repeatedly after he cut them, which is something you rarely hear about) and Bush II: ballooning deficits because they cut taxes but not spending. In fact, as we know, Bush II raised spending. He kept talking about sacrifice, but he tried to do something never done before in American history: have a war and cut taxes. Well, sacrifice would have been, for those of us not going off to actually fight, paying for it at least.
Now Obama's inherited the mess. You may not like the solution he's chosen, and I'm not sure about it myself, but it may be that sometimes you have to make things even worse (in terms of deficits) before they get better. But it won't happen overnight, and at least some very smart people think part of the problem is that he couldn't make enough spending happen, that a lot more spending was needed to have the necessary effect.
It is beyond ironic that the Republicans yell now about fiscal discipline.
MadeNUSA quoted me when I wrote: On one of these other topics I presented the math on how a person earning "just" 250,000 a year pays more than 50% of their income in taxes if they are unlucky enough to live or work in a high tax state. To me, that is a completely ridiculous amount. The solution is to cut government spending.... but we know that the best we can ever hope for is a cut in the rate of government spending increases.
And then MadeNUSA wrote: Can I suggest that you let someone who can count to 10 do the math for you? You have demonstrated quite often that logic is not your forte. You have aptly demonstrated that truth is foreign to you. I do not see how you could possibly then carry out a math problem. And it's blatantly obvious from the 50% that your calculations are awry
To which I respond to MadeNUSA:
You are a boob. A complete and total idiot. I actually bothered to do the research and do the math and posted it in the "Tired of being taxed" thread on here a few weeks ago. I repost the numbers here for you to attempt to understand.... Oh, and before hurling insults at me (or anyone else you disagree with on here) again, why don't you actually check YOUR facts first... that is, if you are capable of doing so.
Here's an example. If you live in a high tax city in a high tax state, let's take New York City, you'll end up paying over half of what you make in federal, state and local taxes.
This is based on income of $85,000 taxed as follows:
28% Federal 6.85% (plus $973) New York State 3.75% (plus 1706) New York City
This comes out to 42% of income being taxed by the income tax. Then, add on the 8.375% sales tax on most of the stuff you buy and you are over the 50% mark.
southbeach1500 said Here's an example. If you live in a high tax city in a high tax state, let's take New York City, you'll end up paying over half of what you make in federal, state and local taxes.
This is based on income of $85,000 taxed as follows:
28% Federal 6.85% (plus $973) New York State 3.75% (plus 1706) New York City
This comes out to 42% of income being taxed by the income tax. Then, add on the 8.375% sales tax on most of the stuff you buy and you are over the 50% mark.
This is wrong on two counts:
1) Conflating sales tax with income tax is just a trick. Why stop there? Throw in the gasoline tax, or the excise tax on alcohol. Throw in property taxes.
2) State and local taxes are deductible from federal tax liability. So no one pays these taxes additively. Your 42% is wildly overstated because of this. It's closer to 36%, possilby less (the more you pay in a flat state or local income tax, the lower your federal liability, which may even slip you into a lower tax rate altogether).
Really, you shouldn't be laughing at someone else for being ignorant of math, finance, or taxation. You'd have to take the big red clown nose off your own face first.
I love how you say Obama has taken us into a defecit when Bush left the defecit. And i'm sure you're next comment will be about the bailouts. Hmm! When did the greed start? Oh! wait before Obama's adminastration. Yeah Bush pushed thru his agenda, his agenda of starting wars and world domination! But, that's ok he did that right! You don't think pushing the healthcare agendea thru will help the gay community? How many hiv people don't have insurance and can't get it from their pre -existing illness? And if you do have insurance and get it or another illness watch how your rates change if you're not dropped. The wonderful Republican party really stood up in the Regan years for the gay community and the aids epedimic ! Didn't they? Yeah I'll give Obama a chance to change things, becaue the last fucked up President admininstration did a bang up job in such a quick pace! How long did he sit in that chair with that stupid look of dumbness on his face when the first plane hit the tower! And you don't disrespect the office of the President by shouting out in the Capital like that ass did! No matter what he is trying to pass thru! And how our enemies must be sitting back and laughing their asses off cause of the stupid shit we are bickering about, Nazi's deathecamps! Are you really that stupid!!! Yes I'll wait and give the Obama administration a chance. What would the state of the country be in now if he didn't bailout the greed hungry repulblican wall street. Or helped the auto industry. All this crap didn't happen overnight when he took the oath of office. But you keep whinning cause nothing is really goin to be enough is it?
Thanks, zoom10963, for reading what I said. I'm not quite sure why this thread is so long -- y'all need to remember how all of these powers are supposed to work.
southbeach1500 saidMadeNUSA quoted me when I wrote: On one of these other topics I presented the math on how a person earning "just" 250,000 a year pays more than 50% of their income in taxes if they are unlucky enough to live or work in a high tax state. To me, that is a completely ridiculous amount. The solution is to cut government spending.... but we know that the best we can ever hope for is a cut in the rate of government spending increases.
And then MadeNUSA wrote: Can I suggest that you let someone who can count to 10 do the math for you? You have demonstrated quite often that logic is not your forte. You have aptly demonstrated that truth is foreign to you. I do not see how you could possibly then carry out a math problem. And it's blatantly obvious from the 50% that your calculations are awry
To which I respond to MadeNUSA:
You are a boob. A complete and total idiot. I actually bothered to do the research and do the math and posted it in the "Tired of being taxed" thread on here a few weeks ago. I repost the numbers here for you to attempt to understand.... Oh, and before hurling insults at me (or anyone else you disagree with on here) again, why don't you actually check YOUR facts first... that is, if you are capable of doing so.
Here's an example. If you live in a high tax city in a high tax state, let's take New York City, you'll end up paying over half of what you make in federal, state and local taxes.
This is based on income of $85,000 taxed as follows:
28% Federal 6.85% (plus $973) New York State 3.75% (plus 1706) New York City
This comes out to 42% of income being taxed by the income tax. Then, add on the 8.375% sales tax on most of the stuff you buy and you are over the 50% mark.
Not only do you not know the language you speak -otherwise if you did you would obviously be aware of the parts of speech known as conjunctions and possessive pronouns and the manner in which they can be employed.
But you also do not have basic understanding of anything
Let's deal with your hypothetical example and take it to real world.
What transpires when someone making $85K file their taxes at tax year end?
Well my idiot friend - all the releveant exemptions and deductions bring that person down to an effect tax rate of around 11% -18%. 20s percentile if they are in bad shape.
Do you want to know how I know this? I used to live in NYC and I have never paid even 20% in taxes combined. And I do not have children nor am I the head of a household.
You claim to have lived in NYC. I have that extremely difficult to believe. NYC is known for having the best and the brighest.
Ah but of course, now I see - that's the reason why you are no longer there. They've gotten rid of the idiot!
southbeach1500 said On one of these other topics I presented the math on how a person earning "just" 250,000 a year pays more than 50% of their income in taxes if they are unlucky enough to live or work in a high tax state.
But I wonder how many people actually end up, after deductions and loopholes, paying that much.
I don't know of any way to get figures on that, but on a related theme, one thing that drove me crazy during the presidential campaign was that McCain more than once said (and at least one of those times was in a debate) that we have the second-highest corporate-tax rate in the world. I kept waiting for Obama to answer that while that's true, we nonetheless collect the fourth-lowest amount of corporate revenue (as a percentage of GDP) among the major economies because of loopholes. The truth is that the effective corporate tax rate is low, even if the rate on the page is high.
My understanding is that those tax loopholes are there to ease the burden on people who actually need it (small business owners ect). Sort of like unemployment and welfare are to help people who need them. I wouldn't really want to cancel welfare and unemployment because some people abuse the service... that would leave a lot of people screwed. Also most of those tax loopholes are geared toward reinvesment in the economy, so at least we are growing the economy as a result of it. Just a thought.
tsavage216 saidMy understanding is that those tax loopholes are there to ease the burden on people who actually need it (small business owners ect). Sort of like unemployment and welfare are to help people who need them. I wouldn't really want to cancel welfare and unemployment because some people abuse the service... that would leave a lot of people screwed. Also most of those tax loopholes are geared toward reinvesment in the economy, so at least we are growing the economy as a result of it. Just a thought.
Maybe that's the idea, but I'm under the impression that many of the biggest corporations are the ones that end up paying the lowest percentages in taxes. Creative accounting.
I have to admit that I'm a bit put off by Obama's lack of decisive action. He's a lot more milk-toast than I expected. However, the best way to approach things is by education and persuasion. Yes, the Constitution is really on our (gay community) side as far as our rights go, but as we have seen in California and now in the state of Washington (Ref 71), if the legislature makes something legal against the will of the people, they will only introduce bills, propositions, and referendums that reverse the legislature's action.
Bigotry on our part is not going to make things better, it's only going to make things worse. I used to be "straight" (I thought I was) and homophobic (only because I knew, deep down inside that I was gay, and couldn't reconcile to my religion), and had a very specific image of what gays and lesbians were like. After I came out and began to associate with gays and lesbians, my view of them changed and I found out that they were the same as my straight friends and neighbors, just different in who they were driven to love.
The straight people I know are like I was, and as I have reported back to them about what I've learned and observed, they have expressed surprise and amazement that their ideas and views and judgments were incorrect. When we educate our straight friends and neighbors and collegues and acquaintances, they become sympathetic to our plight (little to no rights). It is when we reveal the fear-mongering of those who are anti-gay, people change their attitudes and opinons. Being the best of who we are sways public opinion. When we stand up for the rights of others, we are only standing up for our own rights, in the end.
Blame Obama or Bush, or whoever you want. In the end, the responsibility rests squarely on our own heads. You want a living example of that??? The Mormon Church is that example. They slowly but surely taught the world who and what they were, and the tide of public opinion has slowly turned in their favor, so that they are now a mainstream Christian Church (even if their leaders are hypocrites). The point is that they taught, and slowly, people listened.
If we want our rights, if we want to have the public on our side, we MUST be the servants of all. If we want our rights, we have to educate!
I typically don't get involved in all this political madness, but here we go anyways. Let's just start by saying I'm not exactly what you would call an Obama supporter. With that being said, this is a gay website, so obviously our opinions on gay rights, or lack thereof, are a little biased. As great as it would be to have everything we want right now, I think it is amazing that many people let their self-centered ideals dictate their views on the success or failure of anyone, let alone the president.
It is the presidents duty to direct this nation as a whole, and while yes there are a large number of subgroups that make up this country, I feel first and formost, we need to address the issues that affect us all as Americans, and not just the population we fall into. I feel this what Obama is attempting to do, regardless of how much I may disagree with the method in which he chooses to do it. I would be much more critical of a president that puts his focus on one particular minority, whether it be gays/blacks/latinos or whomever, and leaves the issues that affect everyone on the wayside, especially in this economic situation of today.
If we all don't have jobs, money, or insurance, and are living in the streets, at least everyone in this country will be equal and we can do whatever the we want to, but will that really make us happy? We need to get our little panites out if the bunch they are in, and cut the man some slack. There bigger fish to fry right now.
jrc2005 saidThe 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....
Wow! Someone that remembers that we have three separate branches of Government. I'm hot listing you!
Well, that's not what I like to hear from someone on RJ. Perhaps a misfired attempt at humor?
I hope so, because otherwise, well, that puts you in a category with a few others here that no one takes seriously, and basically ignore. Your explanation, and/or apology to jprichva, would be nice, to help keep us all friends here. And to preserve your credibility.
jrc2005 saidThe 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....
Wow! Someone that remembers that we have three separate branches of Government. I'm hot listing you!
dMostWanted saidLet me explain some economy basics to Mr. SouthBeach.. The Big fish eats the small fish.. Ok? So without the small fish, the big fish dies... Let me add that the more healthy the small fish is, the more health the big fish will have..
Actually, that's biology.
In our economy, it's the "big fish" that invest in and grow businesses that employ the "small fish." So without the big fish, the small fish die.
Well if that was the case, then a lot of big fish put the wrg thought into investment and growth. Threre would be no growth w/out the little fish.
Here's an example. If you live in a high tax city in a high tax state, let's take New York City, you'll end up paying over half of what you make in federal, state and local taxes.
This is based on income of $85,000 taxed as follows:
28% Federal 6.85% (plus $973) New York State 3.75% (plus 1706) New York City
This comes out to 42% of income being taxed by the income tax. Then, add on the 8.375% sales tax on most of the stuff you buy and you are over the 50% mark.
Actually your example has the person paying 46.6% of their income in federal, state and local taxes. Your math applied sales tax to dollars that would have already been paid in federal, state or city taxes and that doesn't happen.
But that really doesn't matter because based on your example it is pretty clear you don't understand how federal income is taxed. I won't bother with the fact that you haven't adjusted the income in any capacity which would lower the tax rate and just stick with the math. Federal taxes are a progressive tax based on increasing percentages. So, while 85k puts you into the 28% range, you don't pay 28% on all 85K but rather just 2750 of it. Your actual income paid in taxes would be 20.61%. That is a 7% difference between what you are counting and what a person would pay in reality.
There are other problems with your example but I won't bother.
In short your example is so profoundly flawed it can't even come close to be taken seriously.
Your comment indicates you're not aware of distinct separation of duties of the different branches of government. It is congress that makes laws. So before you berate the president you should also hold congress men and women accountable.
Consider the speaker of the house ,who is from San Francisco, and other progressive leaders in the House and Senate have yet to introduce a bill on behalf of gay interest.
Your statement of the correlation of blacks voting for Prop 8 and the president’s action is not reliable. In a majority, the state of California voted against Prop 8. !
Here's an example. If you live in a high tax city in a high tax state, let's take New York City, you'll end up paying over half of what you make in federal, state and local taxes.
This is based on income of $85,000 taxed as follows:
28% Federal 6.85% (plus $973) New York State 3.75% (plus 1706) New York City
This comes out to 42% of income being taxed by the income tax. Then, add on the 8.375% sales tax on most of the stuff you buy and you are over the 50% mark.
Actually your example has the person paying 46.6% of their income in federal, state and local taxes. Your math applied sales tax to dollars that would have already been paid in federal, state or city taxes and that doesn't happen.
But that really doesn't matter because based on your example it is pretty clear you don't understand how federal income is taxed. I won't bother with the fact that you haven't adjusted the income in any capacity which would lower the tax rate and just stick with the math. Federal taxes are a progressive tax based on increasing percentages. So, while 85k puts you into the 28% range, you don't pay 28% on all 85K but rather just 2750 of it. Your actual income paid in taxes would be 20.61%. That is a 7% difference between what you are counting and what a person would pay in reality.
There are other problems with your example but I won't bother.
In short your example is so profoundly flawed it can't even come close to be taken seriously.
See Southbeach
Do you bealieve me now when I tell you that you are an idiot
To quote that the mass majority of both blacks and Hispanics are anti-gay sounds a bit stereotypical. Granted among the more religious and conservative segments of both the black and Hispanic communities, anti-gay sentiment is very strong but that does not mean that entire communities of blacks and Hispanics are anti-gay. Please keep in mind that there are other more pressing, serious issues facing both the black and Hispanic communities. Problems like high unemployment, poor education, drug abuse, and continued discrimination take priority over the gay rights issue. Most blacks and Hispanics have too many negative issues to deal with already without the touchy concept of gay acceptence being brought onto the scene in their already battered, troubled neighborhoods. The narrow-minded, bible thumping screwballs are well aware of this situation and they cleverly play it to their advantage unfortunately.
Webster666 saidHow 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.
Which is why any progress in this area will come from Congress or the courts. This administration will not stop anything moving forward, but the President clearly does not want his fingerprints anywhere on this issue. He knows what his electoral base is, and for him to advocate (what an ironic word choice I just made. "Fierce advocate" anyone?) anything approaching normalization of homosexuality will cost him the black and Hispanic vote, along with the Blue Dog types that crossed over to vote for him.
That lunacy that was the DOJ brief concerning DOMA awhile back came from Eric Holder, and is evidence of his own homophobia.
dMostWanted saidEhem... 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?
The economy depends on people like me who own a business that supplies jobs to people like you who don't own a business and therefor need a job !
You didn't read my profile huh? I own a business since 2003 and still going strong.. In fact almost all my family members are business owners.. Jumping to conclusions dear?
You grossly exaggerated. It was the drop that was "steep" not the actual percent. He is still dwarfing the lil'Texan by almost double and that is at his lowest.
barriehomeboy saidHe's a little busy. Getting better rights for Gays in your country is still on his agenda. It's just not at the top. Relax. He'll get to you.
I voted for Obama, but really we do not have a lot of time. How do we know what congress will look like after 2010 (next year). I am a Democrat, but it is crazy to think we can't complain and bitch when they are moving too slow or not doing the right thing and it crazy to sit back and be quiet and not say anything when a Democratic congressman on a taxation commitee is not paying taxes on him home. We all wanted change and not more of the same old thing.
filmhottie saidYou grossly misread. Read the article.
Telegraph UK said Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April.
9% drop.
Yes he entered at 78% but for hell's sake his popularity is double Bush's. The article doesn't have to treat Bush at all for you to still be wrong about your claim "Obama hits all record lows that havent been hit in 50 years."
filmhottie saidYou grossly misread. Read the article.
Telegraph UK said Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April.
9% drop.
Yes he entered at 78% but for hell's sake his popularity is double Bush's. The article doesn't have to treat Bush at all for you to still be wrong about your claim "Obama hits all record lows that havent been hit in 50 years."
Are you retarded? Im not talking about bush., Im talking about Obama falling faster than any prez in 50 years?
filmhottie saidYou grossly misread. Read the article.
Telegraph UK said Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April.
9% drop.
Yes he entered at 78% but for hell's sake his popularity is double Bush's. The article doesn't have to treat Bush at all for you to still be wrong about your claim "Obama hits all record lows that havent been hit in 50 years."
Are you retarded? Im not talking about bush., Im talking about Obama falling faster than any prez in 50 years?
What about my statement makes you so confused?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Personally I could care less about these polls at this point in his about 10 month presidency, he's done quite a bit already, our standing in the world has improved by around 50% and we will soon have a major necessary overhaul of healthcare at his request. Give him another 3 years at this pace and most Americans other than the far right will be pleased and he'll be a shoe in for another 4 years. Remember my prediction republicans, and you be sure to keep your far right southern run good ol' boy standards, put Palin in to run against him and we Dems will be assured of lots of successes.
I think you left spelled out your wet dream or most recent masturbation session. What you stated is pure fiction and says nothing. What exactly has obama done that you speak of? Im curious to hear this. The man, has only gone on apology tours around the world, which only hurts him. Polls dont lie little guy
barriehomeboy saidHe's a little busy. Getting better rights for Gays in your country is still on his agenda. It's just not at the top. Relax. He'll get to you.
I voted for Obama, but really we do not have a lot of time. How do we know what congress will look like after 2010 (next year). I am a Democrat, but it is crazy to think we can't complain and bitch when they are moving too slow or not doing the right thing and it crazy to sit back and be quiet and not say anything when a Democratic congressman on a taxation commitee is not paying taxes on him home. We all wanted change and not more of the same old thing.
You got the same old thing, just wrapped in a younger,better speaker, who is less qualified for the position.
As for gay men Arnold will do more them Obama-Look at CA folks!!!
"AHH Maria I raise the penalty for talking on a cell while drivink a car, and you..you mine buttercup are the first to get caught. DAhmit voman- I'm going to pee,den dinna betta be on de table!!... I'll be Back"
I actually hope ppl keep Obama just so we don't have to deal with Ron Paul and Hilary
It's funny how politics has turned to picking the lesser of evils and settling nothing will ever change, but in my opinion, there has been NO one on either party who is good enough for our country's needs. Yeah for the gay ppl, the gay issues are important, but honestly there are more important issues that having nothing to do with your sexuality
I don't voted for Obama because the gay rights. I voted for him because I was against John McCain and other crazy right wing nuts. I knew Obama is not going to do anything for us or anybody. If John McCain run the white house, we will end up having another Bush.
Jmuscle33 saidI actually hope ppl keep Obama just so we don't have to deal with Ron Paul and Hilary
It's funny how politics has turned to picking the lesser of evils and settling nothing will ever change, but in my opinion, there has been NO one on either party who is good enough for our country's needs. Yeah for the gay ppl, the gay issues are important, but honestly there are more important issues that having nothing to do with your sexuality
I am a big fan of Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich... I was a big supporter of Howard Dean. Still love that guy..... Obama and Hilary, they both are same crap.
Using the word "zombies" implies that someone blindly believes everything that Obama says or proposes. Save that description for anyone on the left or right that needs to do that, but there are lots of people who don't.
The Presidental office is not an all powerful do as you please office. There is tremendous political and social factors that are beyond a presiden't control.
Obama has set an agenda. Given the enourmous and unprecedented problems facing the country and world, it will take time to fix them.
In the meantime, what have you done to pressure your city/state representatives to push forward proposed legislation? Even if your lawmaker is rabidly anti-Obama, you can still contact him/her to voice your opinion.
Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position knows that 90% of the job is balancing all those competing interests, and the savy of good timing toprioritize things in order to get anything done. I'm sure his (our) political adverseries would LOVE if Obama now started to vigorously push gay rights.
Call me naive, but I think Obama hasn't lied. I believe his hope is in the right place when it comes to gay issues. Time will tell.
Frankly I'm always a little mystified by these threads when they get reincarnated over and over. Granted, living in Canada and not being directly effected by the state of gay rights in the U.S. I'm only disappointed as an observer-- and I am a disappointed observer. When he was elected I thought "okay, good, he won, now he should act like he won-- fuck pandering to the obstructionists who will oppose him no matter what-- he talks so clearly about what's right now he should do what's right." But, all of that said, whenever people start bitching about what a let-down he's been in their eyes I just think "pray tell, what do they think the alternative is? Would they rather the other guy had won? Do the ones saying 'Obama's let the homos down' truly think they'd have been better off under another Republican beholden to the Christian taliban? On election day they only had two options on the ballot: Obama or McCain; are they saying they wish McCain had won? Because they think he would have been so much more gay-friendly? They think he would have done them any favours?"
If you voted for the guy and he won and he's let you down then push for better from him. But before bitching about the outcome of the election, think back on what the alternative was. In reality, not in some idealized parallel universe. I think "The Guy you could have been optimistic about"-- even if he needs to do better-- is a far sight better than "The Guy you knew would continue treating you like the enemy."
jprichva saidRON PAUL for white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups! And secession! And nullification! And weird obsessions with the gold standard! Fuck yeah!!!!!
imperator saidFrankly I'm always a little mystified by these threads when they get reincarnated over and over. Granted, living in Canada and not being directly effected by the state of gay rights in the U.S. I'm only disappointed as an observer-- and I am a disappointed observer. When he was elected I thought "okay, good, he won, now he should act like he won-- fuck pandering to the obstructionists who will oppose him no matter what-- he talks so clearly about what's right now he should do what's right." But, all of that said, whenever people start bitching about what a let-down he's been in their eyes I just think "pray tell, what do they think the alternative is? Would they rather the other guy had won? Do the ones saying 'Obama's let the homos down' truly think they'd have been better off under another Republican beholden to the Christian taliban? On election day they only had two options on the ballot: Obama or McCain; are they saying they wish McCain had won? Because they think he would have been so much more gay-friendly? They think he would have done them any favours?"
If you voted for the guy and he won and he's let you down then push for better from him. But before bitching about the outcome of the election, think back on what the alternative was. In reality, not in some idealized parallel universe. I think "The Guy you could have been optimistic about"-- even if he needs to do better-- is a far sight better than "The Guy you knew would continue treating you like the enemy."
It's funny how politics has turned to picking the lesser of evils and settling nothing will ever change, but in my opinion, there has been NO one on either party who is good enough for our country's needs.
Believe me, when the choices were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, a lot of people felt it was a choice as to who was the lesser of two evils. No question about that.
onejock saidI 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."
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.
tryandbuy saidHe's so insistent on not getting reelected.
Clinton-Bayh 2016!
Ha... keep dreaming. Incumbents almost never loose and Im sure the republican that wins will carry that one too. try 2020 than maybe ill agree with you. Not so sure about Bayh though.
Webster666 saidHow 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.
the blunt card above suggest we shut up about politics, but we all have to admit that politics affects our lives to a very very large degree. Not just as gays either, so it behooves each of us to be involved in at least voting and contacting congressmen/senators to express our opinions, those calls do make a difference. Above I joked about Paul running with Obama, but putting all joking aside, we do right now at this time in our lives have Obama as our President and I dare say that while he isn't doing everything any of us would want, we are not by any means the only subject 'fish he has to fry', I don't and most of you don't follow his every move and decision as if zombied into some kind of worship of the guy, but he is a far cry better than many alternatives we could have had. Yes that boils down to our having to vote for the lesser of two evils, but what else can we do? We actually have a lot to be thankful for, things are improving !!! No blind Zombie here !!!
i don't feel like sorting through this quagmire to see if the point has been made yet or not, but in reference to us having no more rights than before:
the matthew shepperd hate crimes legislation is now reality.
Most people that have read my posts know I am not an Obama fan. Not because he is Black or liberal or whatever, I could not care less about that.
But, posts like this....
the blunt card above suggest we shut up about politics, but we all have to admit that politics affects our lives to a very very large degree. Not just as gays either, so it behooves each of us to be involved in at least voting and contacting congressmen/senators to express our opinions, those calls do make a difference. Above I joked about Paul running with Obama, but putting all joking aside, we do right now at this time in our lives have Obama as our President and I dare say that while he isn't doing everything any of us would want, we are not by any means the only subject 'fish he has to fry', I don't and most of you don't follow his every move and decision as if zombied into some kind of worship of the guy, but he is a far cry better than many alternatives we could have had. Yes that boils down to our having to vote for the lesser of two evils, but what else can we do? We actually have a lot to be thankful for, things are improving !!! No blind Zombie here !!!.
I am sorry. But left or right, does anyone know what he is saying? Even a clue? I guess he likes Obama being President?
Triggerman saidMost people that have read my posts know I am not an Obama fan. Not because he is Black or liberal or whatever, I could not care less about that.
But, posts like this....
the blunt card above suggest we shut up about politics, but we all have to admit that politics affects our lives to a very very large degree. Not just as gays either, so it behooves each of us to be involved in at least voting and contacting congressmen/senators to express our opinions, those calls do make a difference. Above I joked about Paul running with Obama, but putting all joking aside, we do right now at this time in our lives have Obama as our President and I dare say that while he isn't doing everything any of us would want, we are not by any means the only subject 'fish he has to fry', I don't and most of you don't follow his every move and decision as if zombied into some kind of worship of the guy, but he is a far cry better than many alternatives we could have had. Yes that boils down to our having to vote for the lesser of two evils, but what else can we do? We actually have a lot to be thankful for, things are improving !!! No blind Zombie here !!!.
I am sorry. But left or right, does anyone know what he is saying? Even a clue? I guess he likes Obama being President?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was definately trying to put a positive light on being involved politically and promoting Obama as being good for we gays and for our country in general.
I am somewhat disappointed with the Democratic Congress and Obama, particularly on DADT (even though I have no interest in serving in the military), but Congress did pass, and Obama did sign, the Hate Crimes bill and that's more than we would have gotten out of a Republican Congress or a Republican President and that shouldn't be discounted.
I too want everything right now, but at least we're heading in the right direction now.
Pattison_the_Great saidNow it could of been much worse, Chillery could of been in the top job, and not Obama.
One of the first things she would of done is start a war, to prove the hair on her chest runs all the way down to her balls, and too prove to can play the game as well as the boys.
Still the homosexuals of the US of A, would not of advanced any. because Chillery would wonted to be re-elected, and she knows, America is still a religious country, and advancing homosexuals would offended the religious majority of the U S of A. They would of made sure she never got re-elected too.
As an Aussie living in Oz, American politics, can and does effect my country, sometimes even infect it too. But........ I personally don't feel threatend by Obama.
But then I always vote for who I feel will be the best leader for my country, and not who will fulfil my personal wont's; like who would allow me to wed my two long term partners, because I know if some-one said: A vote for me will give homosexuals of Oz the same rights as the heterosexuals, and bisexuals who stand under the straight banner. This would not mean I would vote for that person, for my own self advancement, if I felt they would not be good for Oz over all; thus I would not be disappointed with our leader for not giving me the same rights as a newcomers to Oz get, or even Australians.
Maybe the people who voted for Obama for hope of their own self advancement, should own their own disappointment for voting for him for the wrong reasons.
Pattison, while I agree that Hillary would not have us in a better position, I find your sexism and misogyny repugnant.
So who here thinks that this mail message from Triggerman is the product of a balanced mind, hmm?
"DONT EVEN IMPLY IT. DO NOT EVEN IMPLY IT. I DO NOT PLAY THAT GAME AND I WILL NOT START NOW. DO NOT EVEN IMPLY I AM RACIST. CALL ME ANYTHING BUT DO NOT EVER IMPLY THAT.. YOU ARE TALKING FAMILY NOW; DO NOT CALL ME RACISAT AND DO NOT IMPLY i AM RACIST. EVER EVER. MY DAUGHTER IS MIXED RACED AND THE LOVE OF MY LIFE. DO NOT EVER PULL THAT CARD WITH ME. i WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND KILL YOU."
onejock saidI 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."
after i left the polls i was like FUCK! I should have just written hilary in! damn me and my delayed thinking
TigerTim saidSo who here thinks that this mail message from Triggerman is the product of a balanced mind, hmm?
"DONT EVEN IMPLY IT. DO NOT EVEN IMPLY IT. I DO NOT PLAY THAT GAME AND I WILL NOT START NOW. DO NOT EVEN IMPLY I AM RACIST. CALL ME ANYTHING BUT DO NOT EVER IMPLY THAT.. YOU ARE TALKING FAMILY NOW; DO NOT CALL ME RACISAT AND DO NOT IMPLY i AM RACIST. EVER EVER. MY DAUGHTER IS MIXED RACED AND THE LOVE OF MY LIFE. DO NOT EVER PULL THAT CARD WITH ME. i WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND KILL YOU."
Hmmmm.... well, ignorant about the "I will kill you" part.... not a smart thing to be writing.
There was some guy (in Ohio I think) who kept getting harrassed by this telemarketer insurance company in St. Louis (I believe). Finally, the poor guy got so fed up, he said he would go over there and kill them. The guy got arrested.
Brings up an interesting topic about how free is speech. Obviously yelling fire in a theater is not protected, and I'm not sure how the writings above would be viewed by a court.
onejock saidI 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."
after i left the polls i was like FUCK! I should have just written hilary in! damn me and my delayed thinking
Hillary 2012!
I wish but yeah right... Obama is going to run for re-election and if someone challenges him it will be seen as racist (as I hope It wouldn't be but you know that bluntcard has a way of showing its ugly face and the train is never late) and whomever... if it were Hillary would get all kind of hell for getting the democratic nomination assuming she or someone else did and out of spite the most Obama supporters out of spite will flip GOP... hope im wrong but eh... something tells me I would be pretty right on if this were to happen.
What's wrong with socialism? Is it worst than Wild Capitalism?
[/url]
Or is that Ok and diffrent, because she is a Republican. Sorry but One does not seek your approval; I stand by what I said.
nothing will ever change, but in my opinion, there has been NO one on either party who is good enough for our country's needs. Yeah for the gay ppl, the gay issues are important, but honestly there are more important issues that having nothing to do with your sexuality