A friend in Obama?

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

    Feb 24, 2010 11:54 AM GMT
    As someone who voted for our current president, I admit that I have been disappointed by yet another politician.

    How do you guys feel about Obama's exclusion of gay protections in his health care proposal?

    From gay365.com:

    Obama health plan lacks LGBT provisions by Ruth Schneider
    ...
    What’s missing?

    “Most LGBT and HIV activists had supported the House bill because it included key LGBT specific provisions,” the Metro Weekly article states. “In addition to the data collection, it prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the provision of health care; enabled people with HIV and low incomes to obtain Medicare coverage earlier in the course of their illness; and eliminated the tax that gay employees must pay if their same-sex partners or spouses receive health coverage from their employers’ plan. Straight employees don’t pay that tax but, for gay couples, the coverage is characterized by the federal government as additional income for the gay employee.”

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

    Feb 27, 2010 12:40 PM GMT
    As gay man, I pay my tax and insurance for years. Just in case, if I am sick, I don't want to rely on my relatives money or medicaid.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Feb 27, 2010 12:44 PM GMT
    Are they referring to HR 3200? I don't remember seeing anything specifically focusing on GLBT health rights in any of the bills.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 27, 2010 2:29 PM GMT
    we have as much a friend in Jesus as we do in Obama.

    Which is to say lots of promises, but no follow through and in the end it´s all imaginary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 27, 2010 2:30 PM GMT
    Politicians do not have friends, they only have their own interests to further.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2010 12:50 AM GMT
    TexDef07 saidPoliticians do not have friends, they only have their own interests to further.


    I'm always hopeful that an elected official will someday surprise me and not be a typical politician.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2010 3:02 AM GMT
    ShivaJOCK said
    TexDef07 saidPoliticians do not have friends, they only have their own interests to further.


    I'm always hopeful that an elected official will someday surprise me and not be a typical politician.

    You can play that to your advantage. If you give them a reason not to believe that they've always got your vote then they might actually take the time to seek it. I don't get why anyone would be so reflexively partisan... Who cares if they are advocates for the things you believe in because of your votes or because they actually believe it... isn't that what the conservatives in the UK are doing?

    The problem is that it seems from the outside here, that gay advocacy groups and certain minority groups have so heavily invested themselves in the Democratic Party that it's little wonder some Republicans have often dismissed concerns of certain minorities. That could be changing: http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=4914

    For historical perspective you could look back to when JFK got elected. Prior to his presidency, Catholics overwhelmingly voted Democrat. Hopefully the same will happen for Blacks and maybe as far as conservatives go, acceptance and advocacy might not be too far behind. Already a possible positive cultural outcome is that the "racist" trope is far more easily dismissed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2010 3:06 AM GMT
    The machine that is the gov't dictates much more than people understand. By the time a policy reaches implementation it is radically different from what a politician promises. I find it very naive that people believe that one man's statements to get elected will be implemented.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Mar 18, 2010 4:12 AM GMT
    OH, THE REPUBLICANS WOULD HAVE LOVED SEEING THAT IN THE LEGISLATION !
    They would have voted "No," TWICE.

    When there's a piece of legislation that makes sweeping changes, there will always be people left out, disappointed, or down right angry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2010 4:34 AM GMT
    riddler -
    You completely rewrite history by suggesting that Republicans have ignored gay issues because gays are Democrats, and Republicans think there's no point in addressing gay issues.
    TOTAL BS.
    The Republican have had a stridently anti-gay agenda since the religious right took control of the party in the 1980's.
    The Republican party made a deliberate decision to side with religious, anti-gay voters AGAINST gay Americans, way back in the 1980's
    I was a registered Republican (who voted for Reagan in 1984) until 1987, when I left the party - mostly because of the failure of the Republican party's economic policies, but also because of the rise of the influence of the religious right in the Republican party.
    Republicans have been actively and deliberately using the anti-gay hatred of some Americans to try to win elections for years.
    Most infamously, during the 2004 election, when they put anti-gay marriage measures on the ballots in swing states to help Bush get reelected.

    I don't object to Obama focusing his time and energy on cleaning up the Bush recession and the resulting high unemployment, and improving the unsustainably messed up health care system FIRST, and addressing gay rights issues later.
    The epic mess Bush left behind needs to be cleaned up first.

    You are deluded if you really believe that the Republican party isn't loaded full of people who hate you because you're gay.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2010 4:39 AM GMT
    Ah, Rick. So smart, and so hot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2010 6:53 AM GMT
    we need to lock rickrick, christian, soutbeech,riddler, GQjack, and repat dudes in a room with no key....coupla condoms and some lube.....let them deal with their issues and come back to let the dogs out in 3+ days.....lolzicon_lol.gif

    i bet by the end of the first day they get tired of arguing and start making out and fukin with passion to get all their pent up frustrations for each other out. ...who knows...when u let them out...they might even become friends...icon_twisted.gif

    all those in favor of locking them with condoms and lube say AYE.

    AYE!....lolzicon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2010 7:43 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidriddler -
    You completely rewrite history by suggesting that Republicans have ignored gay issues because gays are Democrats, and Republicans think there's no point in addressing gay issues.
    TOTAL BS.
    The Republican have had a stridently anti-gay agenda since the religious right took control of the party in the 1980's.
    The Republican party made a deliberate decision to side with religious, anti-gay voters AGAINST gay Americans, way back in the 1980's
    I was a registered Republican (who voted for Reagan in 1984) until 1987, when I left the party - mostly because of the failure of the Republican party's economic policies, but also because of the rise of the influence of the religious right in the Republican party.
    Republicans have been actively and deliberately using the anti-gay hatred of some Americans to try to win elections for years.
    Most infamously, during the 2004 election, when they put anti-gay marriage measures on the ballots in swing states to help Bush get reelected.

    I don't object to Obama focusing his time and energy on cleaning up the Bush recession and the resulting high unemployment, and improving the unsustainably messed up health care system FIRST, and addressing gay rights issues later.
    The epic mess Bush left behind needs to be cleaned up first.

    You are deluded if you really believe that the Republican party isn't loaded full of people who hate you because you're gay.


    First, I have little doubt that there will be people who hate me on the basis of how I look or who I'm sexually attracted to. My guess is that this is a bipartisan issue. That doesn't however mean that one need accept the way things are or even deny recognition of when things are changing. Further - I'm suggesting saying that Republican Party as an institution has likely been more reluctant to change given that there hasn't been as much of an imperative to do so. Party views, however, I think are changing especially with broader acceptance. I'm not saying that this has been the reason for the intolerance but it certainly hasn't helped.

    Second, I think your argument with respect to Obama would be more believable if administration didn't spend so much time doing much lower importance issues like lobbying for the Olympics or even Copenhagen. Your argument would also be more credible if you weren't always so rabidly partisan.

    Mistakes have clearly been made by both Bush and Obama - though as far as spending goes, it looks like Obama has compounded Bush's mistakes in spades. It would seem to me and based on polling that instead of the intense and probably quixotic focus on healthcare, jobs and the economy should have been his primary focus and that's also probably why his approval ratings continue to fall.

    @joshnyc - possibly. Actually there are a number of people who I disagree with a lot but suspect that in person I could also be great friends with (though not sure if this is reciprocated) like Christian or MeOhMy for that matter on other issues. I think that debate's quite healthy for thinking about personal views on things. Especially on issues like this so long as there's a willingness honestly seek enquiry and look at arguments somewhat objectively. I learn a lot not only from the points raised by some but also in looking at the other side and thinking about whether or not arguments seem reasonable. That said, a little sex in between rounds couldn't hurt either. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2010 9:14 AM GMT
    @Riddler78 -

    I think that's true. icon_smile.gif.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2010 9:32 AM GMT
    Just blame the Republicans, or Marie Osmond, and her church. Not the fact that America is a conservative country anyway, and has been almost from the beginning, this is not about to change over night, and I'm sure MR Obama wants another term in the White House, and all the perks that come with it too. But.............What has you president done for you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2010 9:35 AM GMT
    Pattison said.............What has you president done for you?


    Not much, but far more than Bush, Cheney and Rove, and that's all that matters to me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 3:29 AM GMT
    I still believe hes trying his best in a very bad situation. Of course theres so much I wish he could do, but being empathetic, what could I do more than he is within reason? progress, if it is even guaranteed that it exists, is a slow road. icon_sad.gif


    AND THATS WHY WE HAVE TO BURN WASHINGTON TO THE GROUND AND SHOW THOSE FUCKERS WE ARE SERIOUS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 3:47 AM GMT
    carthesis saidI still believe hes trying his best in a very bad situation. Of course theres so much I wish he could do, but being empathetic, what could I do more than he is within reason? progress, if it is even guaranteed that it exists, is a slow road. icon_sad.gif


    AND THATS WHY WE HAVE TO BURN WASHINGTON TO THE GROUND AND SHOW THOSE FUCKERS WE ARE SERIOUS.


    And that's one good way to get thrown in jail, lol