Obama-Apologist Bingo

[citdog]

fagella?

United States of America

The Great Tyrant pictured with pinkerton at the scene of his "victory" at sharpsburg.....

"the late united states"

[dbackjon]

So you are saying shut up, get to the back of the bus, be grateful for any crumbs thrown our way, and above all else, be quiet and be a good house faggot?


Oh - and keep voting for Dems and sending barrels of money.

You will get your turn. We promise. Just after the next election, wait can't bring it up then, gotta get Obama re-elected. How is 2013 for ya?

no... i'm saying stop acting like your agenda is the most pressing fucking issue for our ENTIRE country at the moment... get the fuck up over yourself and realize that, as much as I personally support your rights and equality, about half of this country doesn't, and that a fair number of them don't even acknowledge your right to exist. realize that clearing that political hurdle isn't going to happen overnight, but mostly... take a chill pill the size Maricopa County and stop deep-ending because your particular agenda item isn't first on the priority list for a country beset by recession, war, and 45 million without health care.

I get the whole attempt to make your case analogous to the civil rights movement of the 60's... and I see some parallels... however... you aren't being assaulted by fire hoses or police dogs... so your over-wrought hyperbole really misses the mark. Just a reminder... JFK was sworn in January of 1961, most civil rights legislation took until 1964 to pass...

You really don't have a fucking clue, do you? You are so insulated in your DNC world that you don't know reality, and can't even comprehend posts.

Nowhere did I say that this is the most pressing issue facing the country. Nowhere did I say that Obama should drop doing anything else.

If you remember, Obama, and many Democrats made fun of McCain for suspending his campaign to work on the economy. Obama bragged that he could multi-task. Obama bragged that his staff can handle multiple things. So either Obama is a liar, or Equality for all Americans is not a priority for him. Signing an executive order suspending DADT would take 5 minutes.

Just because a portion of the country doesn't support GLBT rights (And BTW, 81% of Americans support repealing DADT, so that throws that excuse out of the water). A majority of Americans did not support civil rights for blacks, either.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

and the concept of political capital seems to elude you... the guy is multi-tasking (to a point that pundits keep asking if he's got too much on his plate)

but again, I sense your frustration is of the "i want it now" variety... it will happen... it will take time... DADT in particular is something that needs to be worked out with DoD... rather than given the "shock doctrine" that shows contempt for the armed services (the mistake Clinton made)...

again, I disagree with you on the idea that it's wise for the President to expend all of his political capital in his first 6 months in office on a divisive issue... i think it's folly, and a potential recipe for political disaster.

[dbackjon]

and the concept of political capital seems to elude you... the guy is multi-tasking (to a point that pundits keep asking if he's got too much on his plate)

but again, I sense your frustration is of the "i want it now" variety... it will happen... it will take time... DADT in particular is something that needs to be worked out with DoD... rather than given the "shock doctrine" that shows contempt for the armed services (the mistake Clinton made)...

again, I disagree with you on the idea that it's wise for the President to expend all of his political capital in his first 6 months in office on a divisive issue... i think it's folly, and a potential recipe for political disaster.

The thing that YOU can not comprehend is that A) given our support in the past, we HAVE EARNED using some political capital, and B) with over 80% of the country supporting repealing DADT, there is no LOSS of political capital in doing so. The 20% that are against it would never vote for OBAMA in the first place. So your argument is full of shit.

Again, you have no clue as to the depth of anger, and how badly this will backfire on the Democratic Party if they keep shitting on the GLBT community. Be warned on this.

[dbackjon]

Also, this is NOT 1993. So much progress has been made since then. Stop using 1993 as an excuse to do nothing.

[Appaholic]

Also, this is NOT 1993. So much progress has been made since then. Stop using 1993 as an excuse to do nothing.

Jon....they don't need an excuse to do nothing, they got at least 6 mos before they come back around with hat in hand looking for the gay vote....then, you'll really see some promis,...er, I mean, ACTION from the DNC....

[TwinTownBisonFan]

and the concept of political capital seems to elude you... the guy is multi-tasking (to a point that pundits keep asking if he's got too much on his plate)

but again, I sense your frustration is of the "i want it now" variety... it will happen... it will take time... DADT in particular is something that needs to be worked out with DoD... rather than given the "shock doctrine" that shows contempt for the armed services (the mistake Clinton made)...

again, I disagree with you on the idea that it's wise for the President to expend all of his political capital in his first 6 months in office on a divisive issue... i think it's folly, and a potential recipe for political disaster.

The thing that YOU can not comprehend is that A) given our support in the past, we HAVE EARNED using some political capital, and B) with over 80% of the country supporting repealing DADT, there is no LOSS of political capital in doing so. The 20% that are against it would never vote for OBAMA in the first place. So your argument is full of shit.

Again, you have no clue as to the depth of anger, and how badly this will backfire on the Democratic Party if they keep shitting on the GLBT community. Be warned on this.

at the risk of being painfully blunt - and putting on the unsympathetic operative hat - i return to the question of
1. where you gonna go? the gop?
2. the glbt political movement is nowhere near the largest constituency in the big tent that is the democratic party - and while you've been supportive in the past, and raised a lot of money... neither rise to the level of other groups in the party... that's the facts.

i think the bluster about "you'll regret this" over not moving the glbt agenda to the front of a very long line (some of whom have been waiting for 50-70 years) is shortsighted. i'm going to go out on limb and say with a fair degree of certainty that the glbt community will be there for the dems in 2010... owing in part to the fact that while the dems haven't been pushing glbt issues like full federal benefits for domestic partners - the GOP will still hold up your community and Michele Bachmann will still exist and they will use you and your community to whip up anger and hate in their base to get out their votes.

My point is this - political progress takes time... and I realize that asking for patience is frustrating - but... welcome to politics... to which the glbt community is a relative newcomer... and is learning right now that your agenda will almost never move at the speed you require - my concern for that movement is that it's going to attempt to overplay a hand that isn't as strong as they think it is. threatening the money is disconcerting a bit... but I have to say that once the attacks start coming, my guess is that it will be back... and the political support isn't likely going anywhere, because the only realistic places for them to go is either the party that wants to deny their right to even exist - or an unelectable rogues gallery of Naderites and fellow travelers...

i'm sorry if you don't like that - i'm just laying out the practical political reality facing your movement

[dbackjon]

And operatives like you will be a prime reason why, if there is no progress on GLBT rights, most of us will sit out the election, or vote third party.


And if it means the GOP takes control of the house, so be it. Not like the Democrats are doing anything for the Republicans to reverse.


And this doesn't just stop at the GLBT community. The anger is in many areas of the Progressive wing of the party. Obama seems to be more interested in catering to the right, who will never vote for him, than to his base.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

And operatives like you will be a prime reason why, if there is no progress on GLBT rights, most of us will sit out the election, or vote third party.


And if it means the GOP takes control of the house, so be it. Not like the Democrats are doing anything for the Republicans to reverse.


And this doesn't just stop at the GLBT community. The anger is in many areas of the Progressive wing of the party. Obama seems to be more interested in catering to the right, who will never vote for him, than to his base.

heh - welcome to political reality Jon... a whole lot of people seem to be under the impression that radical change can occur in 6-12 months... and our system frankly isn't designed for that (and thank God, given who has was in charge for 8 years before this)

point being, Clinton overplayed his hand in 93 - and it cost us Congress... for 12 years... that's not a mistake worth repeating.

the "anger of the progressive wing"... well... it's all they know. "outrage" is seemingly the only political emotion they have...

[dbackjon]

Again, you and other DNC people would do well to remember this is NOT 1993. The Democratic Party did not have anywhere near the majority in the House and Senate it has today.

Nor did clinton win with the margin that Obama did.


Laugh at progressives - it will be your and the DNC's downfall.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Again, you and other DNC people would do well to remember this is NOT 1993. The Democratic Party did not have anywhere near the majority in the House and Senate it has today.

Nor did clinton win with the margin that Obama did.


Laugh at progressives - it will be your and the DNC's downfall.

pandering to the base was the beginning of the end of the GOP... the party needs to continue what got it where it is today, moving the country to the left in increments and being the "big tent"...

[dbackjon]

Again, you and other DNC people would do well to remember this is NOT 1993. The Democratic Party did not have anywhere near the majority in the House and Senate it has today.

Nor did clinton win with the margin that Obama did.


Laugh at progressives - it will be your and the DNC's downfall.

pandering to the base was the beginning of the end of the GOP... the party needs to continue what got it where it is today, moving the country to the left in increments and being the "big tent"...

Problem is, the Party has been galloping to the right.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

pandering to the base was the beginning of the end of the GOP... the party needs to continue what got it where it is today, moving the country to the left in increments and being the "big tent"...

Problem is, the Party has been galloping to the right.

they have??? musta missed something... unless you read the DailyKos panic and disappointment daily digest because our party isn't recreating the new deal every single day... we're moving the country to the left at a pace makes more sense...

[Rob Iola]

Problem is, the Party has been galloping to the right.

they have??? musta missed something... unless you read the DailyKos panic and disappointment daily digest because our party isn't recreating the new deal every single day... we're moving the country to the left at a pace makes more sense...

Interesting - who knew "moving to the left" was synonymous with "borrowing trillions from the Chinese"?

I don't disagree with the approach Obama's taking, or your desire as a partisan Democrat to move the country to the left. God knows the GOP's made a mess of things, starting with Iraq. But these things are cyclical (or are you thinking that this time it's different?) - for every Carter there's a Reagan, for every Bush there's a Clinton/Obama. I don't know about your so-called big tent, but you know as well as I do that in politics a one party majority in both chambers plus the Presidency does not last indefinitely.

Point being, now's the time to address issues that require the one party majority. If Obama/Pelosi/Reid won't address gay rights, who will?

[Ibanez]

fagella?

United States of America

Did you know that he tried convincing blacks to leave the Union up until his death? Did you know that he thought the central gov't existed before the states? Did you know that the Northern states all agreed that states could Nullify laws and did, more so than southern states? Did you know the Northern states attempted secession 3 times and NYC tried to secede in 1865? Lincoln was a tyrant and shouldn't be admired. His corporate welfare was one of many crimes that screwed this country.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

they have??? musta missed something... unless you read the DailyKos panic and disappointment daily digest because our party isn't recreating the new deal every single day... we're moving the country to the left at a pace makes more sense...

Interesting - who knew "moving to the left" was synonymous with "borrowing trillions from the Chinese"?

I don't disagree with the approach Obama's taking, or your desire as a partisan Democrat to move the country to the left. God knows the GOP's made a mess of things, starting with Iraq. But these things are cyclical (or are you thinking that this time it's different?) - for every Carter there's a Reagan, for every Bush there's a Clinton/Obama. I don't know about your so-called big tent, but you know as well as I do that in politics a one party majority in both chambers plus the Presidency does not last indefinitely.

Point being, now's the time to address issues that require the one party majority. If Obama/Pelosi/Reid won't address gay rights, who will?

I'm of the opinion that we are entering a period where the Dems are the nations default party (as the GOP was from 80-08 and the Dems from 32-79)... i think 2008 was a realignment election, one that comes once a generation. I don't believe in "permanent majorities".

i also know that the party has its eye on 2012 and redistricting... the effects of which will be felt all-over. the party is going to need to maintain majorities in state legislatures to get that accomplished... which means not moving too far to the left, especially in the eyes of swing voters.

i look at the day the bush administration died... not iraq, not katrina, not terry schiavo, but the day bush talked about f'ing with social security... he overreached.

obama's strength has been that he isn't out at the forefront as a vanguard for the left, but rather a mainstream arbiter moving the country slowly and cautiously to the left... i don't think that's a bad thing... he reminds me more and more of LBJ... and that is a VERY good thing. He can be a transformative figure, but he cant act too hastily.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

United States of America

Did you know that he tried convincing blacks to leave the Union up until his death? Did you know that he thought the central gov't existed before the states? Did you know that the Northern states all agreed that states could Nullify laws and did, more so than southern states? Did you know the Northern states attempted secession 3 times and NYC tried to secede in 1865? Lincoln was a tyrant and shouldn't be admired. His corporate welfare was one of many crimes that screwed this country.

and yet... Best. President. Ever.

[citdog]

Did you know that he tried convincing blacks to leave the Union up until his death? Did you know that he thought the central gov't existed before the states? Did you know that the Northern states all agreed that states could Nullify laws and did, more so than southern states? Did you know the Northern states attempted secession 3 times and NYC tried to secede in 1865? Lincoln was a tyrant and shouldn't be admired. His corporate welfare was one of many crimes that screwed this country.

and yet... Best. President. Ever.

The Great Tyrant was the best American DICTATOR......the honor of Americas greatest President goes to Uncle Ronnie of California.

[Rob Iola]

Interesting - who knew "moving to the left" was synonymous with "borrowing trillions from the Chinese"?

I don't disagree with the approach Obama's taking, or your desire as a partisan Democrat to move the country to the left. God knows the GOP's made a mess of things, starting with Iraq. But these things are cyclical (or are you thinking that this time it's different?) - for every Carter there's a Reagan, for every Bush there's a Clinton/Obama. I don't know about your so-called big tent, but you know as well as I do that in politics a one party majority in both chambers plus the Presidency does not last indefinitely.

Point being, now's the time to address issues that require the one party majority. If Obama/Pelosi/Reid won't address gay rights, who will?

I'm of the opinion that we are entering a period where the Dems are the nations default party (as the GOP was from 80-08 and the Dems from 32-79)... i think 2008 was a realignment election, one that comes once a generation. I don't believe in "permanent majorities".

i also know that the party has its eye on 2012 and redistricting... the effects of which will be felt all-over. the party is going to need to maintain majorities in state legislatures to get that accomplished... which means not moving too far to the left, especially in the eyes of swing voters.

i look at the day the bush administration died... not iraq, not katrina, not terry schiavo, but the day bush talked about f'ing with social security... he overreached.

obama's strength has been that he isn't out at the forefront as a vanguard for the left, but rather a mainstream arbiter moving the country slowly and cautiously to the left... i don't think that's a bad thing... he reminds me more and more of LBJ... and that is a VERY good thing. He can be a transformative figure, but he cant act too hastily.

I was in the building (Ronald Reagan building, 2 blocks from the White House) when Bush gave his reelection acceptance speech where he spoke of the political capital he felt he had to f*** with Social Security. If you equate health care to Social Security and think back to Clinton’s abortive attempt at f***ing with that (and the capital that Hillary personally expended on it), I think that would give you a truer read on the direction the country wants to go. Clinton and Obama have a lot in common (first black president, it’s the economy stupid, taking the center away from the conks, broad 1st term coattails, etc.), but Clinton saw his mandate slip badly midway thru his 2nd term in office.

I do believe that Obama will easily win reelection, but then what? Using your analogy (Obama = LBJ) (!), who will follow LBJ?

[Gil Dobie]

Did you know that he tried convincing blacks to leave the Union up until his death? Did you know that he thought the central gov't existed before the states? Did you know that the Northern states all agreed that states could Nullify laws and did, more so than southern states? Did you know the Northern states attempted secession 3 times and NYC tried to secede in 1865? Lincoln was a tyrant and shouldn't be admired. His corporate welfare was one of many crimes that screwed this country.

At least he did something to progress human rights in this country.

Obama is more concerned with human rights of enemy combatants than he is with Americans.

[citdog]

Did you know that he tried convincing blacks to leave the Union up until his death? Did you know that he thought the central gov't existed before the states? Did you know that the Northern states all agreed that states could Nullify laws and did, more so than southern states? Did you know the Northern states attempted secession 3 times and NYC tried to secede in 1865? Lincoln was a tyrant and shouldn't be admired. His corporate welfare was one of many crimes that screwed this country.

At least he did something to progress human rights in this country.

by doing what????? stealing property from the citizens of a foeign country? burning their homes??? leaving them as mere conquered provincies for 80 years?

[bench]

I have to admit being fascinated by this whole debate over gay marriage. I don't begrudge gays having whatever they want, but I do question the wisdom of it all, and I'm only half joking. They see marriage and benefits, I see divorce. They see joint tax returns, I see giving half of my shit to someone I now hate. They see equality with heterosexuals, and so do I, only I'm seeing the lawyers and mediations and more lawyers and custody hearings, too. I'm not smart enough to do a cost-benefit analysis for this, but how long do you have to be married before the benefits outweigh the inevitable creaming you'll take in a divorce? Anyone, gay or straight, who would willingly tangle with the biases and inequities of marriage law when they don't have to deserves whatever they get.

As an outsider and a smart ass, it looks like a group of otherwise intelligent and well-meaning individuals taking a collective stand to kill their golden goose in the name of equality. However noble their aims may be, they're quite pissed that the damn thing isn't dead yet, and all the while the goose is still dutifully shitting pure bullion.

[dbackjon]

Bench - for example, for the 5 years I would have considered Rob and I "married" I paid more than $30K in taxes that a married couple would not have.

The lack of stability in a legal relationship puts a strain on the relationship as well.

Not too mention various hassles with insurance, Social security, etc.

Another example. Good friend of mine's partner is from Poland. If he could legally marry, his partner would gain permenant residency, no questions asked. As it is, he came over on a tourist visa, and is now in the country illegally. A heterosexual would not have that issue. Could just get married, and have no further issues.

[dbackjon]

And if that is the case, Dr. Bench, why don't we just eliminate marriage completely? For everyone.

[Rob Iola]

Bench - for example, for the 5 years I would have considered Rob and I "married" I paid more than $30K in taxes that a married couple would not have.

The lack of stability in a legal relationship puts a strain on the relationship as well.

Not too mention various hassles with insurance, Social security, etc.

Another example. Good friend of mine's partner is from Poland. If he could legally marry, his partner would gain permenant residency, no questions asked. As it is, he came over on a tourist visa, and is now in the country illegally. A heterosexual would not have that issue. Could just get married, and have no further issues.

FYI the "Rob" in question is NOT yours truly.


Cuz Jon's got lousy fashion sense...