kallend 2,182 #26 May 16, 2012 Quote Everybody seems to be using the term "Evolving". Who in the hell uses that kind of language. My thoughts on this matter are still evolving... The term that needs to be used in discribing Obama's thoughts on this issue is "Revolving" Like the DUDE continues to go around in circles, I'm for it, against it....no I'm for it again, UHH well Im for it maybe, just let the States resolve it. He's still looking for those CORE VALUES that he thinks he might have. Well, Mr. Romney stated in 1994 that he is the "champion of full equality" for gays and lesbians, but now the Etch a Sketch has been shaken and he's all about denying them equal rights, rights that other people have. “We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern”; Mitt Romney, in a letter to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, 1994... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #27 May 16, 2012 QuoteSo Newsweek is striking back against time with its own controversial cover depicting Obama with a cock ring above his head and calling him "The First Gay President." (Never mind that Franklin Pierce WAS gay and Lincoln has been suspected of being gay for ages). This begs the question: is he a twink, a troll, or somewhere in between? I did a quick google search and couldn't find anything about Pierce being gay. Do you have something I could read? Just find it interesting. I did find that Buchanan was disparaged for his long term relationship with a man, but that was Andrew Jackson. He was an ass and it didn't have to be based on anything, so it's hard to say.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #28 May 16, 2012 Quote Quote So go into federal court and file a mandamus action to compel the president to enforce DOMA. you've already got the tools, you just gotta have the jewels. We had this discussion before, pettifogger. And I doubt I would meet the standards for a justiciable controversy. I think I could make a non-frivolous argument for how a US citizen might fulfill the "standing" and "justiciable controversy" requirements, as well as a good procedural strategy for pursing an action. (The details, of course, would bore all the non-lawyers to utter tears.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #29 May 16, 2012 QuoteI'm still mad that he's a guy who will support gay marriage but won't actually DO anything about it. "Leave it to the states" is actually a fine strategy for the ANTI-gay marriage people because of the Defense of Marriage Act. Hmmm. Could a president propose legislation that would repeal DOMA? Naw... Instead he'll let the courts deal with the issue over the next "few terms." This is the sort of political grandstanding with ZERO action behind it that I despise. I think it's worse than not saying anything because you actually give the people hope for something like a quick resolution. You think he'd do better by proposing legislation that has absolutely zero chance of getting through a House that has near perfect reverse correlation with his proposals? How would losing such a fight to an anti-compromise House benefit anyone besides his opponents? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #30 May 16, 2012 >You think he'd do better by proposing legislation that has absolutely zero >chance of getting through a House that has near perfect reverse >correlation with his proposals? Of course he wouldn't. But his opponents would like him to try. Then they can claim "he knew it wouldn't pass. This is the sort of political grandstanding that I despise. I think it's worse than not doing anything because you actually give the people hope for something like a quick resolution." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,473 #31 May 16, 2012 Hi Andy, ***I think I could make a non-frivolous argument . . .[url] Wow, this is great. We get to watch two attorneys in action without any cost to us. I'm with you BTW On occasion I do agree with lawrocket, though. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #32 May 16, 2012 QuoteThere were not enough tickets to make 15million Not even close Well, lets take a look at actual facts. 150 guests paid $40,000 a ticket to attend. This raised $6,000,000. Then there was an online raffle to "win" tickets to the event. That online raffle is believed to have brought in $8,500,000. So, "ticket sales" accounted for $14,500,000, received prior to the annoucement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #33 May 16, 2012 Damn you, reality!!!!!!!! DAMN YOU!!!!!!!Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #34 May 16, 2012 >Damn you, reality! Quick! To the subject-change-mobile! "just another exampl of the liberal media with their pro-PC agenda, trying to force gay marriage down our thraots with their condescendgn arroegent attacks" Much better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #35 May 16, 2012 Quote>Damn you, reality! Quick! To the subject-change-mobile! "just another exampl of the liberal media with their pro-PC agenda, trying to force gay marriage down our thraots with their condescendgn arroegent attacks" Much better. Ignoring the rotten spelling...did you really mean to bring up homosexuality and the metaphor of forcing something down someone's throat in the same sentence? Just curious.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #36 May 16, 2012 Quote>Damn you, reality! Quick! To the subject-change-mobile! "just another exampl of the liberal media with their pro-PC agenda, trying to force gay marriage down our thraots with their condescendgn arroegent attacks" Much better. Bravo, sir... Bravo.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #37 May 16, 2012 JERRY!!!! I did some research and was left completely confused on how you came up with Pierce being gay. The arguments for Buchanan were thin. Lincoln was barely ephemeral. Help me out here.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #38 May 16, 2012 QuoteYou think he'd do better by proposing legislation in my opinion, yes. It means doing something instead of doing nothing. It would be an important symbolic step to say, "I'm putting my money where my mouth is." Quotethrough a House that has near perfect reverse correlation with his proposals Which is why I wrote that he should have done in in 2010, when he signed the legislation regarding DADT. Sure, he and Congress left THAT up to the courts to make a ruling and then passed the legislation immediately afterward in a House and Senate that had a near PERFECT record of passing his proposals. Obama came to this opinion just last week? I call bullshit. He wants it as a campaign issue. Doing something about it doesn't leave him with a juicy tidbit of something to promise for his next term. I find it abhorrent. It's also reflective of the President's inability to build a coalition. Reagan was a master of it (with a Democratic House his entire presidency). Clinton was very effective with it (his presidency became good when he had a GOP Congress against him). CLinton and Reagan had balls. Clinton and Reagan had vision and they both put together people to make it happen. QuoteHow would losing such a fight to an anti-compromise House benefit anyone besides his opponents? Anti-compromise is a two-sided thing. For every House GOP member who won't compromise there is a Harry Reid in the Senate who has made his recent CAREER about stalling and blocking. It's not a one-sided thing at all. But what is Obama's goal here? You are pointing to it. The goal is not to help anybody. The goal is to make political hay. "We can't propose a law. It won't pass and then I'll look weak." Is that leadership, Dave? Is that what you want off a President? Someone who won't try to do something in support of his position because he probably won't win this round? What would Clinton do? He'd try something. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #39 May 16, 2012 I was going off of memory. It was James Buchanan, Dave. I dunno why I thought it was Pierce... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #40 May 16, 2012 I thought that might be it. The guy Buchanan was supposed to be involved with was Pierce's VP. That's why you connected it. I don't see a compelling argument on Buchanan unless you are first inclined to want him to be gay. Could have been, but the evidence is incredibly scanty and ambiguous at best. Given the time period, scanty evidence is understandable. That doesn't make an argument in favor of, however. It just explains why you can't draw a conclusion.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #41 May 16, 2012 QuoteWhat would Clinton do? He'd try something. He signed DOMA into law. That was certainly doing something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
