What Does Obama Really Think About Gay Marriage? A Telling Timeline.

Ugh, opportunism much? I'm sure that he'd like gay marriage to be legal, but he's avoiding saying in order to maintain support (as if he had any support from bigots in the first place). It's time for Democrats to adopt the same zeal that Republicans have to defend their dogmas. They need to start defending the values they hold in the face of some bigoted idiots.

 

Why are people surprised at this? I mean the guy voted "present" over 200 times during his stint in the state senate (which everyone knows is a cop out). He is an outstanding orator with little substance I believe. If you listen to WHAT he says, instead of HOW he says it...well...he really doesn't say anything at all. Yes...Hope...We need to be for the future..blah blah blah. Well who the hell doesn't think that?

You know it's bad when even the French start mocking his economic policies.

The only person that I think is completely thrilled by Obama is Jimmy Carter...because Obama is actually making Carter look good...which I thought no one would be able to do.

Obama needs to understand that he is not a celebrity...he is a leader, or supposed to be. Leadership, by definition, means that we are moving forward...together. I haven't noticed that we are moving anywhere lately.

The only group that has worse approval ratings than Mr. Obama is Congress...and quite frankly, I want to meet the 17% of Americans that think Congress is doing a good job. Half of them are in loony bins I'll bet.

 

I understand what Obama is saying and in a sense agree.
1) He is trying not to risk making conservatives angry before he can be re-elected
Yeah that is stupid but it is politics. But what he is saying is more along the lines of Civil marriage is essentially a civil union that should be granted to all people regardless of sexual orientation but it is up to individuals, religion etc to decide wether they want to call it marriage.

The strategy is to pass civil unions with full benefits equal to marriage and then you are in a position to say "hey why does the word matter?" then it gets struck down as separate but equal and congrats we have Gay marriage. It is all very strategical, i think smart, and i hope it works the way i think he is trying to get it to work.

 

Yeah, I can see where you are coming from...but conservatives are not going to vote for him anyway (I'm one and I would vote for The Great Pumpkin from "Charlie Brown" before I would vote for him) Obama's biggest problem is that his is losing massive amounts of support with independents...which put him in office. Independents are still kinda "iffy" on the whole subject.

 

That's not surprising. The guy is always too concerned with keeping everyone happy, but the result is that in order to avoid upsetting anyone, he more or less does nothing... because there is never an option that everyone is going to like. Apparently, he chooses to take stances on issues by the same "gotta try and please everyone" logic.

 

Sarkozy's government has been appalling in terms of social equality, having an unprecedented level of violence from the State towards immigrants and the poor. I don't see why they should be taken as a role model.

Not that I really care for Obama, but just hearing some people call him "a communist" (for showing a slight intension of distributing wealth) makes him a tad more likeable than Reagan or the Bush family.

 

We need a gay president.

 

Which is why I used Sarkozy's government as an example...not using as a role model at all.

He isn't showing an intention of distribution of wealth, we are in the process of it. Even Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, stated that we are embarking on the largest redistribution of wealth in American history.

The Administration has begun bribing people with the promise of getting their medical benefits paid for by other people....so as long as those other people can be called "rich". Oddly, most of the people that The Administration considers "rich" aren't rich at all.

Even Thomas Sowell, who is no where near what you would call a conservative, stated: "Envy and resentment have been cultivated to the point where even people who contribute NOTHING to society feel they have a right to a "fair share" of what others have produced".

 

1) A state that grants its citizens access to public health is called a Welfare State, not "a briber". And taxes are a source of income to the State, and I therefore see nothing wrong with using that money to make sure all people can have something as fundamental as health care (that you seem to consider a priviledge). I personally find it hilarious that some people say nothing when a governmentsgives money to big companies yet anything that could result in a benefit for the poor is called 'unfair'. Apparently, it's OK to use middle or low class people's money to financially support General Motors but not the other way around. That's fair.

2) I see that you equate "contribution to society" to "annual wage". Right...

 

Yeah, in like a million years.

 

I hate to say it, but I do not fault obama for trying to have it both ways. I do believe he is a allie, but there is only so much he can do. I do not think he would go out of his way to stop gay marriage, but this country does not progress as fast as anyone would want it to. It is hard to when there are still people pushing the lie that gay men are 12 times more likely to molest children then heterosexual men... even though the statistics prove otherwise. There are still people who believe that woman have smaller brains, because god did not create them to be capable of equalling a man's intelligence... there are still people who believe that hawaii's records of obama's birth in hawaii does not mean he is a american citizen.

those people like to scream really loud. Until we can get a culture of reason going, politics will be a game of pandering to peoples fears and ignorances.

Honestly, if it took him saying he was not for gay marriage to prevent us from having mccain/palin, then God bless Barrack Obama.

 

I have genuinely met very very few people who supported the bail out of big business, in this case General Motors. On the same note, I have met very few people who actually support the stripped down health care system Obama has passed. Oddly, when I ask people why, they often respond "we're broke". There have been other reasons, but this is by far what I often hear. In all fairness, I live in a red state.

On your second point, I honestly don't see what you're getting at. I may come off sounding snide (not my intent), but I would like you to explain it further.

EDIT: I would like to make a reference to the Roman Republic and it's dabbling with "welfare services" and the reasons behind it, but I'll save it for later.

 

Danger people are arguing over politics things are gonna get back handed and sly in the evilest of ways soon xD oh wait

 

I take your word on that, though my generalization aimed at the very commonly heard (in my experience) yet erroneous idea that, whenever the Government invests on social protection of any kind, it's "squandering money" (as if the one and only function of the State were to boost business). On my second point I was expressing my disagreement with bamaboy's opinion that distributing wealth is "giving money to people who don't contribute to society". If that's not equating wage to social contribution, then it needs further clarification.

 

I'm sure what each of us hear either way is in reality a rather limited selection of what is really out there. In my personal opinion though, the "squandering money" couldn't possibly more accurate. Looking at America's Social Security program for example, Congress has failed to properly manage that money and ensure that it is used for it's intended purpose. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that money is factored into the national budget rather then set aside. I think everyone can agree this is poor and lazy bookkeeping.

Being not only broke but having a rather poor resume when it comes to social welfare, I personally do not want my government giving it another go on anything. Not because I feel in any way people don't deserve help, I just think the American government is the last place we should be looking for it.

In my own personal family, I know of members who do not work and by extension of course make no annual wage. Yet, they manage to obtain food stamps for example and other social services. I'm sorry, but I do not see any contribution these people make to society, and if that's not "giving money to people who contribute nothing to society", then it needs further clarification.

I wish to state I am not trying to sound like a royal rear end, and am in no way trying to make anyone angry. In my own personal life (however short), I've simply had to work hard and have never had the luxury of a helping hand. I've been successful I feel, and thoroughly enjoy my home I paid (paying!) for, and everything in it. It's all mine, and I can tell you how much blood sweat and tears paid for each item. While not everyone can work as I can and need help, I'm far more bothered by those who don't do/need either.

 

Arnie for president? ...lets make an exception and get him in..hell help get us same sex marriage...nobody would argue with him govenator <3 ...hehe i got mental image of Cameron talking to him on tv and arnie just saying what the hell you talking about you talk rubbish hehe ...ahh i can dream.

that was a great bit of the expendables...very funny the cinema burst into laughter.

 

You make me want to see this movie. A thousand curses upon you!

 

This thread has gone completely off-topic.

 

My apologies. If you'd rather discuss what Obama says and what he actually does, I'm all for that too.