Gay Obama-haters

[ohioguy7711]

I try not to "hate" people, but I am certainly no fan of our President. Nearly every step he and his administration has taken is the opposite of my values and beliefs.

We electec Onbama because it felt right; not because it was right.

So I will stand with the Obama opposition!

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

I prefer to call myself an "Obama sceptic".

 

[Sondrith]

Sorry to spoil your little hate shrine but it doesn't belong in this forum. I think you will choke on those words when we see pictures of him signing gay rights into law.

Yes the only hate that belongs on this forum is twords Fmr President Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity and Gov. Palin.

Don't worry about seeing him sign any pro gay law. Gay voters cant sway an election.

 

[spencer]

I think debate belongs in this forum. As for the President, I support him just like I "supported" all the Presidents that I liked or didn't like. After all he is our Chief and I prefer to be part of the solution not part of the problem.

I am skeptical too, but I'm willing to see what people have to offer. I think that political rallies like the ones in Iran this week by the Iranian youth were in part helped by our new President. I don't see world youths embracing say McCain.

 

[PabloZed]

People who hate tend to be sad and desperate - and sometimes crazy.

BTW, the thread starter seems to be a Cheney-clone in that he opposes abortion and favors gay marriage. So which is it - do you want to control a person's life and body or not?

Sad.

 

[JayHawk]

No Jav it is just that calling names is easier than forming an argument.

This is what we get for HOPING the wonder child could CHANGE the swamp called D.C. Never going to happen.

I know we needed change for the soul of the nation if for anything. The least we could have gotten was someone staunch enough to push their ideas into reality.

Obama must have paid attention too much when the dog trainer was training the new poochie to ROLL OVER.

 

[jdoe4822]

BTW, the thread starter seems to be a Cheney-clone in that he opposes abortion and favors gay marriage. So which is it - do you want to control a person's life and body or not?

Sad.

there's no contradiction. the two issues aren't even related. if one believes that life begins at conception, then wanting it banned has nothing to do with controlling another's life.

 

[chillyboi]

i dont hate him, i just refused to vote for him is all....

 

[willie metcaffe]

The Democratic party may not be racing ahead on gay-specific issues but progress is more likely to happen with them than with the current remains of the Republican party. I think that Obama is looking for progress in many areas to benefit many people, including us. If the Democrats and he are not, in one's view, moving fast enough, people should definitely remind them and him of this error. No one will look out for our interests more effectively than ourselves.

For those of a Libertarian bent, neither party probably qualifies as a home. On another political site, I questioned how serious the Libertarian party was in advancing their agenda if they are waiting around while the Republicans are vulnerable. Teabagging aside. Which seems gimmicky to me anyway. Why the Libertarians aren't going door to door, phone to phone, computer to computer is beyond me. Maybe they enjoy living on the outside...

As for the original poster, well there's a lot of anger there, sir, and it's your right to speak it. But this is a club that Im in no way joining. Sounds as though, for instance, you're asking for gay men to have a ton of rights relative to their bodies, but women to have none relative to theirs? Makes little sense to me. If you don't want the govt in your bedroom, better stay out of the doctor's office as well. Only fair...

 

[Kulindahr]

Sorry to spoil your little hate shrine but it doesn't belong in this forum. I think you will choke on those words when we see pictures of him signing gay rights into law.

If he keeps piling up record deficits, adding to the national debt like it was just Monopoly money, trying to stack the press to give him the coverage he wants, hanging on to Bush secrecy, not addressing the freedom-slashing aspects of the "USA PATRIOT" Act, and more, I won't care in the least if he signs gay rights legislation, because he'll be turning us into a third-world country more like an empire than a Republic based on individual rights.

And change!

Change comes from within.

BTW, the thread starter seems to be a Cheney-clone in that he opposes abortion and favors gay marriage. So which is it - do you want to control a person's life and body or not?

That isn't an inconsistent position -- depending on your definition of when there's a human person involved in abortion. If there's a person there, it isn't just the woman's body, and granting her the decision of whether to abort or not as she pleases is granting a license to commit murder.

Of course, maintaining that there's a human person present at conception is a virtually unsupportable position; even on the basis of the Bible that's a pretty thin place to stand.

I thought the rightists wanted the government out of their business. Well the other side does too. This is why I really start to like the Libertarian POV more and more.

(Obama skeptic, ...

The LP is where gays ought to be -- if the entire LGBT community moved there, we could take over....
The Republicans generally condemn us, the Democrats as a party want our votes and really nothing else: the only party in the country which really believes we have equal rights and that those ought to be upheld by law is the Libertarian Party.

Count me as an Obama skeptic, too. At this point I rate him worse than Clinton, worse than Bush I, worse than Reagan... working hard to catch up with Bush II.

 

[Críostóir]

Well, I've been very disappointed by him, but I'm still glad I voted for him.

In American politics, we're constantly having to choose between the bad and the less bad. Obama seemed pretty good at the time, but he still seems better than that idiot McCain.

And every POTUS in history was better than Bush II.

 

[CaptainRush]

I can't see me ever using the word hate or love for the man but I'll refrain from answering until after his term.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

He's left-wing on all the wrong things (such as economy, Abortion, etc.)

And he's right-wing on all the wrong things (gay marriage, for example)

Actually, anybody who's pro abortion is right in my book.

Obama? I don't hate him. I just don't see him as being very useful for any cause that needs a strong advocate. He'll take the wishy washy middle ground every time to avoid upsetting too many people. He's just OK. About all I can say in his favor is he isn't Bush. He's a politician.

 

[NickCole]

If such an apocalyptic event were imminent, learned society would be clamoring for his resignation.

And get Biden?? No thanks.

Republicans in Congress thought it wise to swipe their voting cards as a credit purchase for two foreign wars, extending the debt to my generation.

Many Democrats, including Obama, voted for those budgets.

And now Obama and his Democratic Congress are proving to be as bad as Bush & Co.

I think by 2012 we will be pleased at the level of debt and Federal deficit, just as we were when it halted at the end of Clinton's term.

This is unbelievably naive.

Then again, the Executive branch of government doesn't appropriate money. The President only requests the budget.

The President makes economic policy, and Obama got the bailout and economic stimulus he wanted. But I can see already that Obama supporters will blame someone other than him for his failures with our economy.

 

[NickCole]

Actually, anybody who's pro abortion is right in my book.

Obama? I don't hate him. I just don't see him as being very useful for any cause that needs a strong advocate. He'll take the wishy washy middle ground every time to avoid upsetting too many people. He's just OK. About all I can say in his favor is he isn't Bush. He's a politician.

He's less than OK.

He's not competent enough to successfully address the challenges facing our nation and the world. He's not competent enough to, along with a Democratic controlled Congress, come up with policies and legislation that puts our economy and health care and energy on track in a healthy direction.

That's not OK.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

He's less than OK.

He's not competent enough to successfully address the challenges facing our nation and the world. He's not competent enough to, along with a Democratic controlled Congress, come up with policies and legislation that puts our economy and health care and energy on track in a healthy direction.

That's not OK.

Like I said, he's a politician. He's not concerned with making things the way they ought to be. He's primarily concerned with reelection. And he has this idealistic philosophy about compromise and bipartisanship. That's never worked out well for anyone other than the minority (Republicans, this time). Where was bipartisanship in 2002? Where will it be if the Republicans take over again?

About the only good thing about the Republicans (as much as it pains me to praise them in any way) is they aren't ashamed to be Republicans. Too many Democrats are ashamed to be Democrats. A politician who is afraid of being called a liberal and is overly concerned he/she won't get reelected if they push an agenda will never get anything done.

Bush was an asshole but he knew how to get shit done. He was always wrong, of course, but he believed he was right and he didn't care what anyone else thought. He was reelected by sheer luck.

 

[NickCole]

Like I said, he's a politician. He's not concerned with making things the way they ought to be. He's primarily concerned with reelection. And he has this idealistic philosophy about compromise and bipartisanship. That's never worked out well for anyone other than the minority (Republicans, this time). Where was bipartisanship in 2002? Where will it be if the Republicans take over again?

About the only good thing about the Republicans (as much as it pains me to praise them in any way) is they aren't ashamed to be Republicans. Too many Democrats are ashamed to be Democrats. A politician who is afraid of being called a liberal and is overly concerned he/she won't get reelected if they push an agenda will never get anything done.

Bush was an asshole but he knew how to get shit done. He was always wrong, of course, but he believed he was right and he didn't care what anyone else thought. He was reelected by sheer luck.

Although I share your frustration with politicians, I think it's unfair to dismiss them all as the same; there are many who do want to make things better, and some who actually do.

And I don't think Obama doesn't want things to be better, but I think he's not authentic and that gets in the way of his decision making. He's a made-up personality, all about pretense and never about principle, too narcissistic and too afraid of confrontation, too tempted by ease and resistant to the hard way even if it's better, too concerned with being thought of in a certain way rather than genuinely solving a problem. His choices regarding the economy and financial services industry show his fear in stark relief, and will result in a worsened situation rather than healthier. I fear we'll see the same in his health care legislation. Although he may want things to be better, Obama's primary concern is not making things they way they ought to be, his primary concern is his pretense.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm a white supremecist, so I don't mind being called a "Reich"-winger.

So what are you doing on a discussion board which, in general, believes in civilization?

 

[Kulindahr]

If such an apocalyptic event were imminent, learned society would be clamoring for his resignation. Until then, that view will have to remain in the minds of brilliant economists such as yourself. It seems that only the conservative side is complaining about increasing debt, when in fact an explosion of debt was a hallmark of the Bush administration when Republicans were and weren't in power. Therefore I view it as a partisan smear attempt. Republicans in Congress thought it wise to swipe their voting cards as a credit purchase for two foreign wars, extending the debt to my generation. Along with believing that exhausting the Earth's finite resources at an ever increasing rate solves any problems except immediate gratification. Isn't that something that my generation gets accused of so often? Thanks a bunch! Drill baby Drill.

I think by 2012 we will be pleased at the level of debt and Federal deficit, just as we were when it halted at the end of Clinton's term. Then again, the Executive branch of government doesn't appropriate money. The President only requests the budget.

It doesn't take a brilliant economist to know that piling up debt is bad.

"Conservative side"? Who the heck are you talking about?

If you vie this as "a partisan smear attempt", then you must mean the Libertarian Party, because I "smeared" Bush even worse (though I still think he was a figurehead for Cheney).

Be a little more accurate there about those foreign military adventures (I do not consider Iraq a legitimate 'war'): Democrats stumbled over themselves to spend all that money, too.

I fail to see what the comment about resources has to do with my post, or this thread. Though WRT "Drill, baby, drill", I think at this point that we should drill -- and cap it all, until things are desperate: drilling to support a self-indulgent consumption of resources would be foolishness, but having a back-up supply in case of emergency would be wise. But more, I'd say "Bake, baby, bake!" -- i.e. use the "anything to oil" technology and turn our trash into oils we need, like lubricants, cleaner diesel, and cleaner heating oil.

 

[Kulindahr]

ZzZz

Typical gay rushing to the defense of Obama just because he's "cool" and "fresh".

Fresh as a rotting corpse in the April sun.

Um...

Read much?

Your comments have nothing to do with what he wrote.