This Guy is a Sham
 

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes....cnn?hpt=hp_c2


"I believe whatever the voters want me to believe in order to get elected.. let me lick my finger and put it in the air to see which way the wind is currently blowing. I really dont have any core values or beliefs, I am a career politician who will just say whatever the voters want to hear. Deep down, I might support gay marraige, but right now the country isnt ready for it, so I dont support it, once the majority of votors support it, I will support it, but currently, my Christian faith prohibits me from supporting it" President Obama

First, my neck hurt from watching him.



Secondly,the fact that he is gay doesn't matter as he has not been born.

you make a very good point!

I thought this was about Baffert. Wrong forum.

Thanks so much;and Mr. Snot is in the wrong forum...........again.

Help me out of this store, clyde...i was looking for the rectal thermometer thread and somehow I ended up in your backyard.

Oh boy.






And don't waste your time with Danny...believe me, I know.

Wow, you mean to tell me that President Obama is a politician? Absolutely earth shattering news...what great insight! The first President ever to govern in the middle of the road while trying to not lose votes by taking controversial stands...welcome to America pilgrims!

Obama may be a sham in your view, but he's far better than those that actively politic against that in our society. That think being gay shouldn't be legal, that deny gays their rights, that call being gay an abomination, etc.

Obama has always been strongly anti-gay marriage, unfortunately, I don't expect him to change - although change would put him where the majority of society is now (in favor of it) I do appreciate he ended DADT.

But doesn't your neck hurt??

It hurts.



But she won't admit it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/0...nt-ask-policy/

June 3, 2011, 6:21 PM ET.

Post-Repeal, Airman Discharged Under ‘Don’t Ask’ Policy.

In December, Congress repealed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. But the policy, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” remains in effect: The president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must still certify that lifting the policy does not affect military readiness, and full repeal takes effect 60 days after that.



i wonder how long it will take for that certification??

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

did you watch the video? He's only been anti-gay marriage since he's been running for office. and now that the tides are turning, he might change his opinion. not because it's morally right to do so, but because he needs the most votes he can get.

Obama's always been anti-gay marriage from a personal belief point of view - all the various "yes" and "noes" regarding what he'd do as a lawmaker were the flip-flop politicizing based upon current expediency. There's multiple quotes from him about his personal views, going way back.

But Obama doesn't make law - he signs it, yes. Now we have a Congress (House) filled with Republican religious zealots completely and actively and proudly against it, as is every single Republican Presidential candidate (perhaps not Huntsman, would have to check) Not good. And those people, the "big government control of your life, take away your individual rights" group, are the big danger.

I didn't realize that hadn't been done. They mentioned the need at the repeal - why isn't it done is a very good question.

Yeah democrats don't fall in that group...just Republicans.

Isn't that right, Republican?

Huntsman, pro civil unions as are many. I am, I wish I was in civil union. It is just like being Puerto Rico. All the benefits, none of the cons. Lucky gays.

Coming as a response to me pointing out a Democrat in "that group", not a very brilliant personal insult. Try again.

LOL. Good point.

Some (Ron Paul) want to take "marriage" out of government all together, and put it only in churches. Which I guess means atheists can't marry?

The first question is should the concept of legal marriage be recognized on a federal or state level. State is the obvious answer, but that's given us the disaster we have now. So against what I've always thought (that it's a state thing), I'm thinking the feds have to recognize and define what constitutes a civil union-marriage (all the religious stuff needs to be out of it) and yeah, gay couples can be part of that and equal to heteros.

You moved the blame to congress and didn't single out any democratic congressman, just piled the responsibility on Republicans. You won't address it like an adult so you do the typical nitpick routine and try to convince others that Obama is the same as Congress. He's not.

If you'd like I can take the first paragraph out for you. That way you can comprehend which part of your post I'm singling out. But then we couldn't have these mundane troll replies over semantics because you're consistently wrong and deceptive.

Baseless claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...on_legislation

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[192] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[193] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[194] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[195][196] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[195]

In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.

I didn't "move to blame" anybody. Re-read it. I simply pointed out, outside of Obama, the current political reality, and yeah, it's that the GOP has moved so far to the right that their public position is overtly anti-gay.

Oh, bullshit. Yip, yip, yip, with some obvious lack of reading comprehension added on top.

No, I did not say or imply Obama was the same as Congress. I said Obama was personally anti-gay marriage, but politically he waffles. I said the GOP are stringently anti-gay.

I other words, I made a contrast between Obama and the current GOP.

Sorry - I'm not responsible for the nonsensical assumptions you make up in your head about what your imagination thinks I meant, but that I didn't actually say.


It must be so difficult for you to live with such a constant hate-on.

Why don't you look at what Paul said during the last GOP debate.

You're an aggressive person who is a hypocrite. You act like a man, quite frankly.

You're like the Martina Navratilova of internet trolls. Congrats.

Wow. You really have childish and limited repertoire of insults. I didn't start this insult crap in this thread, you did. Get lost, you pathetic loser. The rest of us want to talk about politics. You can't contribute.

Paul is on the federal level. His whole purpose is to give the power to the states. When that happens his opinion is meaningless.

Then the states that are tolerant will benefit because gay people are oppressed and it will lead to a fashion revolution. Sure the people in the tolerant states will be broke and starving but at least they'll look good while doing so.

So you're taking back your wrong "baseless claim" accusation. Nice of you to man up for once. :tro:

BTW, you being involved in this thread is a bit offensive, considering "that's gay" (using gay as a slur) is something you throw around on this board at times.

And besides it's ridiculous to have a discussion on this issue because I'm sure we both agree that gays should be able to marry. It's a ridiculous political tool used by RINOs to keep the southern baptists in their flock. Plus it's a distraction from far more important issues.

The feds need to back off. They already have too much on their plate. Let the states have control of the issue. It's a good start. With time all the states will allow gays to marry.

What I'm more concerned with at the moment is this crazy weather we're having. I don't want to die and you need to live too. Stay safe.

Nice post.

What did you do with Coach?

Riot you know his personal opinion doesn't matter much. He's in the minority. I'm sure he's opposed to gay marriage due to his religious beliefs but he's at least willing to get the fed out of our homes. You can't say that about many of them in D.C. right now.

It's just alarming you would single him out. He's like Ghandi compared to most of them.

I just realize the game is rigged, that's all. Democrats aren't helping with the issue. Sure some of them are vocally for it but don't have the backbone to vote yes. They'll go absent or vote no because of some irrelevant part of the bill they disagree with.

It's laughable how blatantly deceptive some of them are.

You are probably right that the states would move more quickly on this.

Holy ****, I'm watching a gigantic supercell pop up and top out from my deck.

I was out in eastern Scott country when that first tornado warning for Paris went out - that was one huge cell (could see it in the distance)

Yes. I agree.

It was about 8:45 or so last night and people were getting out of their cars in a downpour because of rotation right over us in downtown Louisville...getting back in and turning around flying away from it. We were stuck on the 4th floor and I thought it was a rain-wrapped twister. Sirens were going off. It was truly scary.

because this way he can have his cake and eat it too. obama is the 'good guy' but it's the mean ole' pentagon who won't let it move forward. :rolleyes: yeah, so much for his avowal that he would 'do what's right, even if it means i only serve one term'.

The cynic in me wonders if the administration is taking their time with this in order to keep it an issue as long as possible.
Most Americans believe DADT should be permanently and completely repealed. And at the last Republican debate all (or all but one, can't remember for sure) of the candidates said they wanted DADT completely reinstated.
So - politically speaking - the later the final removal of DADT comes, the better it is for the administration. It will force leading Republicans to take their increasingly unpopular pro-DADT (anti-gay) stance even closer to the 2012 election.

If this is actually the case (and again, this is just pure speculation on my part) it obviously sucks that the administration is willing to sit back and let people be discharged simply to help their political situation. On the other hand....at least it is a good sign for this society that it is the ANTI-gay position that one side is trying to force the other side to take publicly.

He sure can still be one term. I think his gay marriage rights view is just another tell that he's not as progressive as many thought.

I would hope to think Obama isn't happy with any delay, but I've seen zero public pressure. If it's needed, it has to be done.

I can't find any current status on the certification. From Wiki:

PS New York is voting tonight on gay marriage.