or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama the Flopper
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama the Flopper

post #1 of 82
Thread Starter 

President Obama declared today he actually supports gay marriage, ending his "evolution" on the issue.  For the all the talk of Romney flopping, he doesn't hold a candle to this.  Obama will go on TV tonight to explain it as follows: 

 

 

Quote:
"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,”

 

Uh, yeah, except here's the thing:  Everyone knows you're full of sh**, Mr. President.  You've been against gay marriage your entire life, or at least your entire political career.  Now, you're simply cleaning up Vice President Gaffer's mess.  You started to hear rumors that funding from pro-gay marriage groups might dry up unless you embraced gay marriage and ended this "evolving position" crap.  You started worrying about your political base, which come to think of it is the only thing you've been worried about for at least a year.  That's right, sir.  We see right through you.  This "announcement" is exclusively a political move.  You know it, and we know it.  

 

In a year where President might actually have been able to take advantage of Romney having changed some of his positions, he's committed what might be the biggest flip flip job in political history.  In fact, it goes beyond even that.  This move is flat-out cynical. It's transparent.And it's classic Obama.  The man has gone way beyond the Clinton spin machine that was so adept at turning events towards their advantage.  Obama's every move over the past 12 months (if not longer) has been a political calculation.  He has no interest in governing the country...not until he gets some more "flexibility" after the election.  

 

Discuss.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 82

There really is no way you can defend Romney's flip-flopping and call Obama out for his without looking foolish.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #3 of 82

Nor is this really a flip-flop.  Flip-flopping would be supporting something one day, and for no rhyme or reason other than pure political gain, changing one's tune the next.  Do you really feel that Barack Obama isn't genuine in coming out in favor of marriage equality?  

 

Compare this to the auto bailouts that Romney was against.  He wrote op-ed pieces blasting public funding, and said after the fact that he wouldn't have made the same policy decisions.  Yet, Romney now comes out in an interview and says he takes a lot of credit for the auto industry being saved by the bailouts?  WHAT?  First, why does he get to take credit for a decision he had no part of?  Second, why does he suddenly get to ignore his actual position during the crisis and be cool with the public funding now?

 

If Romney were to come out and say, "Hey, guys, I was wrong about the public financing.  Turns out it was a good idea.  It saved those companies and quite a few jobs.  In the future, I think I'd make a similar decision," I'd have a much harder time calling him a flip-flopper.  In fact, acknowledging he was wrong in his initial opposition would guarantee that I wouldn't call him one.  

 

Don't be so unsophisticated here with your analysis, SDW.  You say it was purely political.  What's your evidence?  Saying "I know it and you know it" doesn't excuse you from your burden of proof.  If you expect me to take your candidate's word when he provides a heartfelt explanation for an opinion he holds, then you better damn well extend the same courtesy to our president.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #4 of 82

There really is no way you can defend Obama's flip-flopping and call Romney out for his without looking foolish.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #5 of 82

So are you saying people aren't allowed to change their views based on new evidence?  Oh wait, you're a Mormon.  I forgot you ignore evidence (like DNA evidence proving the claims in the Book of Mormon absolutely false).  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #6 of 82
Thread Starter 

BR:

 

 

 

Quote:
Nor is this really a flip-flop.  Flip-flopping would be supporting something one day, and for no rhyme or reason other than pure political gain, changing one's tune the next.  Do you really feel that Barack Obama isn't genuine in coming out in favor of marriage equality?  

 

I think he always supported it, but was too much of a political coward to admit it.  He supported in 1996.  He opposed it in 2004.  He opposed it in 2008.  In December 2010, he said his position was "evolving."  And now it's "evolved!"  But that's the second evolution, I guess.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Compare this to the auto bailouts that Romney was against.  He wrote op-ed pieces blasting public funding, and said after the fact that he wouldn't have made the same policy decisions.  Yet, Romney now comes out in an interview and says he takes a lot of credit for the auto industry being saved by the bailouts?  WHAT?  First, why does he get to take credit for a decision he had no part of?  Second, why does he suddenly get to ignore his actual position during the crisis and be cool with the public funding now?

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at there, because it's not a flip-flop.  He's probably taking credit where he shouldn't....but what he actually said is he was the one pushing a managed bankruptcy.  He still opposes the public funding.  

 

 

 

Quote:
If Romney were to come out and say, "Hey, guys, I was wrong about the public financing.  Turns out it was a good idea.  It saved those companies and quite a few jobs.  In the future, I think I'd make a similar decision," I'd have a much harder time calling him a flip-flopper.  In fact, acknowledging he was wrong in his initial opposition would guarantee that I wouldn't call him one.  

 

That's not his position...you just tried to strawman your way through that.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Don't be so unsophisticated here with your analysis, SDW.  You say it was purely political.  What's your evidence?  Saying "I know it and you know it" doesn't excuse you from your burden of proof.  If you expect me to take your candidate's word when he provides a heartfelt explanation for an opinion he holds, then you better damn well extend the same courtesy to our president.

 

BR, this is an excellent example of your intellectual dishonesty.  I think that deep down (if there is such a place in you), you know very well this was politically motivated.  I mean...what are you saying here?  Are you honestly asking us to believe that Obama just happened to reach this gut-wrenching decision...right after Biden screwed him on Sunday...6 months before an election where he's having problems with his base?  There are some things that simply don't pass the smell test.  This reeks of complete bullshit, and you...Obama supporter or not, damn well know it.  

---------

 

 

 

Quote:
So are you saying people aren't allowed to change their views based on new evidence?  Oh wait, you're a Mormon.  I forgot you ignore evidence (like DNA evidence proving the claims in the Book of Mormon absolutely false).  

 

That was really over the line.  Attacking a member's religious beliefs is unacceptable.  Reported. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 82

There's nothing wrong with saying a religious belief is false.  Religion isn't untouchable.  Don't be an intellectual coward.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #8 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

There's nothing wrong with saying a religious belief is false.  Religion isn't untouchable.  Don't be an intellectual coward.

 

Back to lying, hmm?  Don't pretend you were discussing Mormonism and the evidence supporting its claims.  You were attacking him for being a Mormon with the implication that because he is one, he doesn't care about evidence.

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #9 of 82

I'm saying that belief in Mormonism requires a certain amount of ignoring hard evidence.  I'm saying that perhaps he is comfortable with ignoring evidence because of his religious beliefs.  I stand by those statements.

 

Back to the topic at hand...if you get to pull the smell test on this one, then you have to not bitch and whine and cry about the smell test against Republicans...starting with Paul Ryan.  Fair?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #10 of 82

Obama just did the political calculation and realized there were more votes to be gained (or not lost) by flipping on this issue.

post #11 of 82

This isn't a true flip flop since he never "officially" declared his position to begin with, which is understandable. But it is an obvious political move, and no one should take it seriously. I mean he says he supports gay marriage big fucking deal. It's not he's going to make any effort whatsoever to pass any kind of legislation. He also supports legalizing marijuana... wait... Also you can say that anyone with any religious/political belief system has to disregard large amounts of evidence (to some degree) in order support those beliefs. That was an attack for being Mormon. Which is stupid. You must be a republican, democrat, catholic, muslim, believe in UFO's, destiny, free agency, etc.. etc..

post #12 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by timeforce View Post

This isn't a true flip flop since he never "officially" declared his position to begin with, which is understandable.

 

Obama in 2004: 'I Don't Think Marriage Is a Civil Right'

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #13 of 82

Actually Obama doesn't COMPLETELY support gay marriage.

 

GAWKER.com

 

Quote:
He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn't believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?

 

The key language in the ABC News write-up is this:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

On this afternoon's special broadcast, Jake Tapper echoed that point: "The president said he thought this was a state-by-state issue."

 

Well, before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery. There are 44 states in which gay men and women are currently barred from marrying one another. Obama's position is that, while he would have voted the other way, those 44 states are perfectly within their rights to arbitrarily restrict the access of certain individuals to marriage rights based solely on their sexual orientation.

That is a half-assed, cowardly cop-out.

 

This is nothing more than world-class triangulation.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 82

Oh look Obama was for or maybe someone that works for him was for it back in 1996 or ... very confusing.

 

 

Obama Gay Marriage Survey: Official Claims 'Someone Else' Filled Out Approving 1996 Questionnaire 

post #15 of 82

They are all actors Republicans and Democrats and Obama is the biggest one regarding this topic.This is another political ploy his campaign is advising him to do to get more votes.Money and power that is the essence of politics and yet corruption on both sides of the isle.
 

post #16 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Nor is this really a flip-flop.  Flip-flopping would be supporting something one day, and for no rhyme or reason other than pure political gain, changing one's tune the next.  Do you really feel that Barack Obama isn't genuine in coming out in favor of marriage equality? 

 

How can it be genuine when instead of believing it a civil right, he instead believes states can determine it for themselves. Would he say that about abortion or free speech? Not only is it a politically calloused attempt to half endorse the issue, he only endorses it if the states agree. He's using states rights dog whistles for goodness sakes!

 

Quote:
Don't be so unsophisticated here with your analysis, SDW.  You say it was purely political.  What's your evidence?  Saying "I know it and you know it" doesn't excuse you from your burden of proof.  If you expect me to take your candidate's word when he provides a heartfelt explanation for an opinion he holds, then you better damn well extend the same courtesy to our president.

 

You've been presented evidence. Now ignore it like you always do and then call us all a bunch of names later on. The burden of proof is that there are no other rights that he considers fundamental that he would leave up to the states to vote on. He wouldn't say I support the right of women to vote, but only if the men in the state vote yes on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

There's nothing wrong with saying a religious belief is false.  Religion isn't untouchable.  Don't be an intellectual coward.

Intellectual cowards attack people and even institutions with caricatured thought instead of logic. The speak in sweeping generalizations and then become profane and bitter when such weak sauce fails to persuade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm saying that belief in Mormonism requires a certain amount of ignoring hard evidence.  I'm saying that perhaps he is comfortable with ignoring evidence because of his religious beliefs.  I stand by those statements.

 

Back to the topic at hand...if you get to pull the smell test on this one, then you have to not bitch and whine and cry about the smell test against Republicans...starting with Paul Ryan.  Fair?

Socialism, communism and other government centered models require ignoring a ton of evidence. They are ineffective and do not pass the smell test. As for Republicans, Obama just gave them a free pass for the entire election year. All they have to do is ponder positions and decide if they are going to "evolve" their thought on the matter after the election. Paul Ryan or anyone else need not worry about being hypocritical. They can just "evolve" their positions.

Quote:

He still doesn't think it is a civil right. That is the point to be emphasized to anyone declaring this some sort of moral victory. Obama's position is exactly the same as Prop 8 backers in California. Marriage is an institution that can be determined by the state and majority vote. It is not a civil right that is above such matters.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #17 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm saying that belief in Mormonism requires a certain amount of ignoring hard evidence.  I'm saying that perhaps he is comfortable with ignoring evidence because of his religious beliefs.  I stand by those statements.

 

Back to the topic at hand...if you get to pull the smell test on this one, then you have to not bitch and whine and cry about the smell test against Republicans...starting with Paul Ryan.  Fair?

 

Nice try.  You've made that claim about not just Mormonism, but anyone who believes in a supreme being.  You've used this tactic many times.  First, you claim that parts of a faith are provably false.  By implication, you claim that anyone following that faith must be embracing this "false" evidence.  Then you attempt to disqualify any argument the individual makes because he is, according to you, predisposed to ignore evidence.  In reality, it's nothing but a lazy attack on his faith.  Surprise, surprise.  

 

Now, back to topic:  The Paul Ryan/Rand issue (to which I assume you're referring) isn't equivalent.  Ryan's statements appear inconsistent and even pandering in nature. I'm not claiming they pass the "smell test."  My only argument with you there was that I didn't view him as being hypocritical as a result.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Obama just did the political calculation and realized there were more votes to be gained (or not lost) by flipping on this issue.

 

Then his calculation is probably wrong.  Why he'd announce it on a day that NC voted 2-1 to ban all gay marriage and civil unions is beyond me.  32 states have law that define marriage as between a man and a woman.  African-Americans oppose gay marriage more than whites do.  Latinos tend to oppose gay marriage.  I suppose one could say he'll probably win these groups anyway.  In any case, I think it's about securing his base more than anything.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by timeforce View Post

 

Quote:
This isn't a true flip flop since he never "officially" declared his position to begin with, which is understandable

 

Yes, he did...many times.   

 

1996:  For

1998: No position/unsure

2004: Against

2008: Against

2010: Evolving

2012: For, sort of.  

 

Quote:
But it is an obvious political move, and no one should take it seriously. I mean he says he supports gay marriage big fucking deal. It's not he's going to make any effort whatsoever to pass any kind of legislation.

Agreed, though anyone that thinks a pro-gay marriage amendment or federal law has any chance of passing should have his head examined.

 

Quote:
 He also supports legalizing marijuana... wait...

 

Pretty much.  He's still trying to have it both ways on these issues.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Also you can say that anyone with any religious/political belief system has to disregard large amounts of evidence (to some degree) in order support those beliefs. That was an attack for being Mormon. Which is stupid. You must be a republican, democrat, catholic, muslim, believe in UFO's, destiny, free agency, etc.. etc..

 

Agreed on the attack, though I don't agree that one has to ignore evidence to hold any belief system.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #18 of 82

220

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #19 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

220

 

 

 

My, what a fair, reasonable and relevant comment.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 82

The ultimate trump card: an Internet meme.

 

BR wins the Interwebz.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #21 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The ultimate trump card: an Internet meme.

 

BR wins the Interwebz.

 

 

By the way, here's Robin Roberts saying she's "getting a chill" again from listening to Obama talk.  Romney changes his mind, and he's a flopper.  Obama changes his mind for obvious political reasons, and it sets a new standard for the free world.  It gives people chills!  

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/10/abcs_robin_roberts_on_interviewing_obama_im_getting_chill_again.html

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #22 of 82

Your candidate is on the wrong side of history.  Mitt Romney wants to not only ban marriage equality, but also abolish civil unions with equal rights for gay people.  That's all sorts of fucked up.  But sure, try to paint Obama negatively here.  Mitt Romney is the real douchebag in the situation.  Go ride that Mitt Train to Bigotville.  Choo choo!  

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/05/mitt-romney-same-sex-marriage-barack-obama-/1

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #23 of 82

Myself, I think it's kind of interesting that all the attacks on Obama here center around the idea that's he being politically expedient.  What happened to gay marriage being an abomination in the eyes of the Lord?  

 

It's pretty telling that the worst anyone can say about the President of the United States actually coming out in support of gay marriage is that it strikes them as a bid to gain votes.  Wrong side of history, indeed.

You can't stop it.
Reply
You can't stop it.
Reply
post #24 of 82
Thread Starter 

BR:

 

 

Quote:
Your candidate is on the wrong side of history.

 

So you say.

 

 

Quote:
Mitt Romney wants to not only ban marriage equality, but also abolish civil unions with equal rights for gay people.

 

Right, I forgot...it's not gay marriage anymore.  It's "marriage equality."  I've got to hand it you leftists on framing the debate. 

 

 

Quote:
That's all sorts of fucked up.

 

No, it's just something on which you disagree.  

 

 

Quote:
But sure, try to paint Obama negatively here.

 

He's doing a pretty good job all by himself.

 

 

 

Quote:
 Mitt Romney is the real douchebag in the situation.  Go ride that Mitt Train to Bigotville.  Choo choo!  

 

Yes, BR.  Mitt Romney is a doucehbag because he doesn't have the same opinion on this issue you do.  And clearly, his position is motivated by bigotry.  And of course, Obama wasn't a bigot when he opposed gay marriage.  See, he evolved.  Really, I'm starting to feel sorry for people that have to defend Obama.  

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #25 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Right, I forgot...it's not gay marriage anymore.  It's "marriage equality."  I've got to hand it you leftists on framing the debate. 

 

 

I don't understand how the issue isn't marriage equality?  If the idea is to give gays the same rights to marry and be recognized under the law as heterosexuals, how is that not "marriage equality."

 

If anything, "gay marriage" is the more charged term, IMO.

You can't stop it.
Reply
You can't stop it.
Reply
post #26 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal View Post

Myself, I think it's kind of interesting that all the attacks on Obama here center around the idea that's he being politically expedient.  What happened to gay marriage being an abomination in the eyes of the Lord?  

 

It's pretty telling that the worst anyone can say about the President of the United States actually coming out in support of gay marriage is that it strikes them as a bid to gain votes.  Wrong side of history, indeed.

 

It's called cynicism.  And he's the master of it.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #27 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal View Post

 

I don't understand how the issue isn't marriage equality?  If the idea is to give gays the same rights to marry and be recognized under the law as heterosexuals, how is that not "marriage equality."

 

If anything, "gay marriage" is the more charged term, IMO.

 

You know full well that "marriage equality" sounds better, which is the only reason the term is being used.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #28 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

It's called cynicism.  And he's the master of it.  

 

Yeah, I get you think that.  But what I'm talking about is the complete lack of concern by some posters (long time lurker so I have an idea where people are coming from) regarding the advisability of gay marriage.  Instead of saying, for instance, "Obama has come out for gay marriage, which makes him an enemy of morality and is a bad sign for the future of the republic, him being the president and all", or perhaps "Obama has doomed his reelection bid because America Hates Gay Marriage", it's just "This is nothing more than a cynical bid for votes."

 

It's almost as if certain parties can see the writing on the wall and will have to content themselves with charges of politically expediency because there's no traction to be had, anymore, with "OMG GAY MARRIAGE WITCH."

You can't stop it.
Reply
You can't stop it.
Reply
post #29 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

You know full well that "marriage equality" sounds better, which is the only reason the term is being used.  

 

It probably sounds better because it accurately describes the stakes.  I mean, I guess they should call it "the end of real marriage forever", but you know how people get.

You can't stop it.
Reply
You can't stop it.
Reply
post #30 of 82

This was interestingly ironic:

 

 

Quote:
The state laws defining and regulating marriage came about during the Progressive Era as an attempt to prevent black and white intermarriage, or what Progressives called "miscegenation." Before then, marriage was left either to the church or to common law.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #31 of 82

Quick Google search sheds no credible sources saying it was "Progressives" who made those clearly regressive laws.  In fact, I found many sources that contradict that statement.  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation#United_States

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

 

 

Quote:
Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races. Such laws were first introduced in North America from the late seventeenth century onwards by several of the Thirteen Colonies, and subsequently by many US states and US territories and remained in force in many US states until 1967. 

 

You really shouldn't trust everything you read from a right-wing nutter's blog.  Will you have the common decency to admit you were wrong in passing along that lie to us?  Doubt it.  Prove me wrong that you won't admit fault.  I'll happily admit I was wrong about you not wanting to admit fault if you do.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #32 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quick Google search sheds no credible sources saying it was "Progressives" who made those clearly regressive laws.  In fact, I found many sources that contradict that statement.  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation#United_States

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

 

 

 

You really shouldn't trust everything you read from a right-wing nutter's blog.  Will you have the common decency to admit you were wrong in passing along that lie to us?  Doubt it.  Prove me wrong that you won't admit fault.  I'll happily admit I was wrong about you not wanting to admit fault if you do.

 

1. It's not a right wing blog it is an anarchy-capitalist/libertarian blog. Learn the difference.

2. I'll make that admission when its proven a lie. I will research further.

 

So the statement I posted said this:

 

 

 

Quote:
The state laws defining and regulating marriage came about during the Progressive Era as an attempt to prevent black and white intermarriage, or what Progressives called "miscegenation."

 

So, using your preferred source, Wikipedia, here we have:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States#After_American_independence

 

 

Quote:
In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the stories of Phinehas and of the "Curse of Ham".

 

 

Quote:
However, as the US expanded, all the new slave states as well as many new free states such as Illinois[14] and California[15] enacted such laws.

 

 

Quote:
However, after conservative white Democrats took power in the South during Redemption, anti-miscegenation laws were once more enforced, and in addition Jim Crow laws were enacted in the South which also enforced other forms of racial segregation.

 

 

Quote:
A number of northern and western states permanently repealed their anti-miscegenation laws during the 19th century. This, however, did little to halt anti-miscegenation sentiments in the rest of the country. Newly established western states continued to enact laws banning interracial marriage in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Between 1913 and 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws.

 

Quote:
The constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583). The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

 

Quote:
In 1871, Representative Andrew King (Democrat of Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nationwide. 

 

Quote:
In December 1912 and January 1913, Representative Seaborn Roddenbery (Democrat of Georgia) again introduced a proposal in the United States House of Representatives to insert a prohibition of miscegenation into the US Constitution and thus create a nationwide ban on interracial marriage.

 

Quote:
In 1928, Senator Coleman Blease (Democrat of South Carolina) proposed an amendment that went beyond the previous ones, requiring that Congress set a punishment for interracial couples attempting to get married and for people officiating an interracial marriage.

 

And this. And this.

 

What's more, this is completely unsurprising and perfectly consistent with the early progressive's affinity for eugenics, scientific social engineering and racist tendencies.

 

It seems it is you who are mistaken. Surprise.


Edited by MJ1970 - 5/10/12 at 6:21pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #33 of 82

What's your source on calling the folks promoting the laws Progressives?  Furthermore, what relation do those Progressives have to those who call themselves Progressives today?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #34 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

What's your source on calling the folks promoting the laws Progressives?  Furthermore, what relation do those Progressives have to those who call themselves Progressives today?

 

Well the state laws were largely modeled after Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 which was birthed (pardon the pun) out of the scientific social engineering and eugenics movement which was a key component of the early progressive movement.

 

As to the relation of early progressives to modern progressives...well they have a very clear ancestral and intellectual linkage. If you're going to deny this linkage, well we just have to assume you're committed to pure intellectual dishonesty.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #35 of 82

And all those Jim Crow Democrats are the modern day Republicans.  What's your point?  You're somehow saying that promoting marriage equality now is somehow tainted by racist, ignorant twats 90 years ago?

 

Also, NC's last marriage-related constitutional amendment was this:

 

oLNuD.jpg

 

That doesn't fit with your Virginia narrative.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #36 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And all those Jim Crow Democrats are the modern day Republicans.  What's your point?  You're somehow saying that promoting marriage equality now is somehow tainted by racist, ignorant twats 90 years ago?

 

Also, NC's last marriage-related constitutional amendment was this:

 

That doesn't fit with your Virginia narrative.

 

You're priceless. I mention the progressive eugenic basis of the progressive era anti-miscegenation laws and you focus on the Jim Crow laws. I mention the basis of the state level laws in VA and you jump over to NC. You're tap dancing. Of course.

 

What's the point? Merely the irony of the progressive history of racism and marriage laws as compared to their positions today. That's all. I find it rather humorous.

 

Granted, I understand why you wouldn't want to admit to this terrible period in the history of your intellectual ancestors.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #37 of 82

I don't know why Virginia is relevant.  North Carolina passed their bigotry law this week, not Virginia.  Also, North Carolina passed a miscegenation law earlier than you claimed.  Perhaps these aren't the same progressives.  Ever thought of that?  Just like Republicans are no longer really the party of Lincoln or Teddy.  The Democrats today are not the Jim Crow Democrats.  Some labels persist even though the people using them change.  Why is that funny?  

 

Should I talk about the irony of the party of Lincoln being fervently anti-equality?  I mean, I could if you really want me to.  I don't see the point.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #38 of 82

So the theatre continues to play out.

 

lol.gif

 

- Biden "gaffes" (trial balloon) by "disagreeing" the the president

- Internal polling tells them this will be a good tactical move for the president

- Obama's views suddenly "evolve"

- Biden completes the story with an "apology"

 

Priceless.

 

This was a class A/B test.


Edited by MJ1970 - 5/10/12 at 7:41pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #39 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Should I talk about the irony of the party of Lincoln being fervently anti-equality?  I mean, I could if you really want me to.  I don't see the point.

 

You could, but there is no irony here. Lincoln was an anti-black racist. If you assume (as I'm sure you do) all modern Republicans and conservatives are anti-black racists and also are intellectual and political heirs to Lincoln...then they are perfectly consistent with this.

 

Well, I'd love to continue, but I have more intellectually challenging and stimulating things to do this evening.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #40 of 82

Lesson1391.jpg

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama the Flopper