Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Obama Is Running On It

Posted by on Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM

 

Comments (23) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1

Obama destroyed Black wealth:

To date, Black wealth has been decimated by the recession (dropping from 1/10th to 1/50th that of whites over the last three years) and there are no signs that it’s going to improve anytime soon.


Note...last 3 years!!

http://newsone.com/1444335/black-unemplo…
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on May 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM · Report this
2
Opponents of marriage equality should be on the defensive. They have no legs to stand on.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on May 10, 2012 at 10:59 AM · Report this
Dingo 3
#2 and yet, in North Carolina...
Posted by Dingo on May 10, 2012 at 11:28 AM · Report this
4
IS THERE A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE ? ? ? ?

Dr. Jill Stein for president in 2012 --- No More Neocons ! !

http://www.jillstein.org/

http://www.jillstein.org/bio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein

And for all those frigging potheads at The Stranger:

http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2012/04/2…
Posted by sgt_doom on May 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM · Report this
Tim Stalin in Accounting 5
#3 I think she meant intellectually speaking. Sadly, there will probably be more tragedies like NC, but the mainspring of the anti-equality movement has been broken.
Posted by Tim Stalin in Accounting http://www.facebook.com/portraitinflesh on May 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM · Report this
6
I love how 1 and 4 pop up in every Obama thread. Obama sux vote Republican! Wait, Obama sux vote green!
Posted by gloomy gus on May 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 7
Meanwhile, in case you missed it, there's a Budget Surplus this month in the US.

Yes, you heard me.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on May 10, 2012 at 12:02 PM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 8
@1: Yep, that was definitely solely Obama, and nothing else had anything to do with it.

Even the article you link does not support what you said, and even highlights how Obama's policies have improved their employment prospects.

You do know the recession began before Obama took office, right?

Damn Bailo, at least try to show your work.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on May 10, 2012 at 12:13 PM · Report this
passionate_jus 9
Yep,

this was all planned and it really has knocked Romney off his game.

Most Americans either support marriage equality or at least civil unions.

It is Romney who is the radical here.
Posted by passionate_jus on May 10, 2012 at 12:21 PM · Report this
10
"Calling it marriage creates a whole host of problems, for families, for the law, for the practice of religion, for education -- let me say this: 3000 years of human history shouldn't be discarded so quickly."
--Mitt Romney


It's great fun to hear Gov Romney invoke his fanciful view of history. Look at him pretending that the definition of marriage has remained constant across societies for 3000 years -- what a kidder! Coincidentally Romney believes 3000 years is also roughly the length of time between when Jaredites migrated from Israel to North America and when God wrote the Constitution. And in that time, he can't think of a single exception to the "One Man, One Woman" rule.
Posted by Proteus on May 10, 2012 at 1:04 PM · Report this
Gay Dude for Romney 11
Yes, no doubt about it. I congratulate President Obama for his brave and historic stance. There’s no way anyone can detract from the significance of what happened yesterday. Imagine, the lesbian and gay children and youth of today growing up knowing that the President of the United States has affirmed their right to love who they want to love. It is truly outstanding.

Some, like Dan, are dismayed that the President said ‘personal decision’ instead of casting an executive tone in light of the North Carolina referendum vote to ban same sex marriage and civil unions. But as we know, the president has no executive power to amend the U.S. constitution on his own. Quite thankfully actually, as it is easy to imagine scenarios in either political direction of an overreaching executive branch establishing social policy as it pleases. In addition, the president does not even have the power to veto an amendment resolution passed by the Congress.

Supposing such executive power were in place, I’d have no choice but to support President Obama and forever tie my sexuality as the only deciding factor on who I vote for president. But our country is far more resilient and sophisticated than that nonsense.

Not all women in America cast their vote always for the pro-choice candidate, and not all gay people cast their vote for pro-marriage equality candidate, precisely because these battles are fought in our courts, state legislatures, and in Congress.

It always astounds me how the Democratic party, as well as cable personalities like Rachel Maddow, will expose that Democrats are the only party for which women, LGBT, blacks, should give their allegiance when we all know full and well that our elected representatives of all parties have worked over the decades on a consistent upward trajectory for equality and freedom for all minorities (for the most part anyway). This is still true despite setbacks like North Carolina’s vote on Tuesday and recent draconian laws passed in the states related to abortion. I certainly do not fault any gay person, woman, or black who feels that these issues are of such paramount importance that they nullify all other issues they hold dear that may run counter to prevailing dispositions of those that hold power in the Democratic Party.

With a significant amount of reluctance, I remain fully in support of Mitt Romney to be the next president of the United States. My altruism does not permit me the luxury of turning a blind eye to the damage that another four years of Obama would do, just for the sole issue of marriage equality. And I admit, it’s painful for me to have to say that.

Indeed, social issues in this presidential campaign is like debating dance moves in the ballroom of the Titanic as our nation is sinking fast. I desperately want a president who:

- Takes deficit reduction and entitlement reform seriously. His own Secretary of State, in light that our debt is about to surpass our GDP, warns that our deficit is a national security issue. When was the last time Obama even commented on Bowles-Simpson, his own commission? However I do agree that the Bush tax rates should expire and be raised to Clinton levels.

- Takes his oath of office seriously and does not seek harm to the United States Constitution. Having the government require a citizen to purchase a product simply for existing on the planet is obnoxious on the federal level as it is on the state level – and I believe that Mitt now fully realizes that. It’s also an exceedingly dangerous slippery slope of government intrusion and power in multiple scenarios. It is also quite disturbing to see that medical school enrollments are down and doctors growing dread of Obamacare.

- Limits the power of federal agencies and laws on private affairs and business. Case in point, the SCOTUS recently ruled against the Obama adminstration that citizens have the right to appeal EPA decisions. Property rights as well as gun rights, and the freedom of religion as well as religious institutions is critical to a free society Mr. Obama.

- Loves our country and is not embarrassed by its heritage and culture, and who professes the power and strength of individualism and success as opposed to the collective salvation shared misery philosphy of Obama's leftist aspirations.

Finally, there is every reason to believe that Mitt (weathervane as he is) will change his stance on marriage equality to some degree or another. It’s worth it to put America back on track first and work for that.
More...
Posted by Gay Dude for Romney http://mittromney.com on May 10, 2012 at 1:18 PM · Report this
RTam 12
So you expect a multi-millionaire with a Swiss bank account to take entitlement reform seriously?

You don't think Obama, the former Constituional law professor seeks to harm the Constitution, but Romney, who is campaigning on limiting the rights of some of the citizens of this country doesn't?

You think Romeny, who wants to take away abortion rights and who has proven to be easily swayed by the far right on topics like birth control, will limit federal agency power and intrusive laws on individuals?

You think Obama doesn't love the country that gave the child of a teenaged single mother the opportunity to go to Harvard and made him president?

You GOProud folks are just freaking weird with your "logic".
Posted by RTam on May 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM · Report this
pfffter 13
@11 God, you're an idiot. "Finally, there is every reason to believe that Mitt (weathervane as he is) will change his stance on marriage equality to some degree or another." Yeah, that $10K to NOM really speaks volumes about how flexible he is.
Posted by pfffter on May 10, 2012 at 2:33 PM · Report this
14
If you follow the link @1 posted, the article claiming "past 3 years" is from July 2011. I.e. 3 years after July of 2008, when Bush was in office.
Posted by teddy2147 on May 10, 2012 at 4:01 PM · Report this
Gay Dude for Romney 15
@13: Considering that you only took issue with my final paragraph, I must be making progress.
Posted by Gay Dude for Romney http://mittromney.com on May 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM · Report this
16
Gay Dude For Romney - whatever self hate trap you're in, I hope you find your way out.
Posted by Racing Turtles on May 10, 2012 at 9:03 PM · Report this
Tim Stalin in Accounting 17
Gay Dude For Romney = Black Dude For Goldwater
Posted by Tim Stalin in Accounting http://www.facebook.com/portraitinflesh on May 10, 2012 at 9:14 PM · Report this
TLjr 18
Ho Ho Ho.
Posted by TLjr on May 10, 2012 at 10:38 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 19
@11 - playing the single issue card huh?

I think it's funny that supporting a party that has fully embraced my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness makes me "single issue."

You aren't jsut supporting Rmoney, you're supporting his entire administration on his party in charge of the levers of government. That party gave us amendment one in Borth Carolina. Your candidate supports enshrining that same filth in our country's constitution and yet you claim Obama is the threat to our nation.

Are you high?

Also, how is it that just a few days ago, you were claiming Obama would never be for marriage equality. Now your saying your constitutional amendment supporting candidate will as well? After he had a chance to and then reiterated his opposition to our liberty? How can you even expect anyone to take you seriously with such rank hypocrisy?

You are the very definition of a blinded tool. I pity you.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on May 10, 2012 at 11:04 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 20
Apologies for all the grammatical and spelling errors. Typed this on the mobile.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on May 10, 2012 at 11:05 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 21
@15 - No. You're delusional.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on May 10, 2012 at 11:07 PM · Report this
Gay Dude for Romney 22
@19: The interesting thing here is that you devote yourself to a political party simply because they're accepting of gays. That's understandable and expected in the short run, but ultimately short sighted if you want to be a savvy and patriotic citizen.

Allow me to digress into a PowerPoint:

On one level there is the eternal fight between left vs. right, D vs. R, which is quite healthy actually. On another layer we have peoples’ sexual identity, expression, relationships, and other intrinsic personal human factors. How one votes on the ‘political’ level is guided by a myriad of confluences from the ‘psycho-social’ level.

We can list predictable and expected voting patterns and party make up only to an extent. The relationship between these levels is fluid. But we can say that very often people’s desires and expectations from the ‘psycho-social’ level are often compromised from the choices on the ‘political’ level. In almost every election, people are holding their noses and voting for the lesser of two evils.

I am no different.

@16 – That I would get peppered by the ‘self-hate’ card was glaringly predictable. It’s the only thing liberals have left to say when they can’t fathom why anyone would have the audacity to disagree with them. Fundamentally, liberalism is an authoritarian ideology.

@17 – But Barry Goldwater changed in his later years. From From a liberal blog:
Hostility towards the extreme right wing which has taken control of the Republican Party is not the same as openly opposing formerly mainstream Republican beliefs. Many former conservatives have rejected this extremism. In his later years Barry Goldwater rejected the influence of the religious right on the Republican Party and referred to himself as a liberal. Despite the frequency with which his name is brought up, it is also doubtful that Ronald Reagan would be happy with the current direction of his party.

More...
Posted by Gay Dude for Romney http://mittromney.com on May 11, 2012 at 8:33 AM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 23
@22: There's a difference between "I disgree with this candidate on one or two issues, but his views align with mine on several issues which are all important to me, so I'll vote for him anyway," and "This candidate believes I am not worthy of the same rights as other citizens, but his views align with mine on several issues which are all important to me, so I'll vote for him anyway."

How the fuck anyone can vote for a candidate who literally considers them less than a full citizen is utterly beyond me.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on May 11, 2012 at 2:53 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy