This Guy is a Sham

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama may be a sham in your view, but he's far better than those that actively politic against that in our society. That think being gay shouldn't be legal, that deny gays their rights, that call being gay an abomination, etc.

Obama has always been strongly anti-gay marriage, unfortunately, I don't expect him to change - although change would put him where the majority of society is now (in favor of it) I do appreciate he ended DADT.

did you watch the video? He's only been anti-gay marriage since he's been running for office. and now that the tides are turning, he might change his opinion. not because it's morally right to do so, but because he needs the most votes he can get.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

did you watch the video? He's only been anti-gay marriage since he's been running for office. and now that the tides are turning, he might change his opinion. not because it's morally right to do so, but because he needs the most votes he can get.

Obama's always been anti-gay marriage from a personal belief point of view - all the various "yes" and "noes" regarding what he'd do as a lawmaker were the flip-flop politicizing based upon current expediency. There's multiple quotes from him about his personal views, going way back.

But Obama doesn't make law - he signs it, yes. Now we have a Congress (House) filled with Republican religious zealots completely and actively and proudly against it, as is every single Republican Presidential candidate (perhaps not Huntsman, would have to check) Not good. And those people, the "big government control of your life, take away your individual rights" group, are the big danger.

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama's always been anti-gay marriage from a personal belief point of view - all the various "yes" and "noes" regarding what he'd do as a lawmaker were the flip-flop politicizing based upon current expediency. There's multiple quotes from him about his personal views, going way back.

But Obama doesn't make law - he signs it, yes. Now we have a Congress (House) filled with Republican religious zealots completely and actively and proudly against it, as is every single Republican Presidential candidate (perhaps not Huntsman, would have to check) Not good. And those people, the "big government control of your life, take away your individual rights" group, are the big danger.

Yeah democrats don't fall in that group...just Republicans.

Isn't that right, Republican?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Yeah democrats don't fall in that group...just Republicans.

Isn't that right, Republican?

Coming as a response to me pointing out a Democrat in "that group", not a very brilliant personal insult. Try again.

Originally Posted by Riot

Coming as a response to me pointing out a Democrat in "that group", not a very brilliant personal insult. Try again.

You moved the blame to congress and didn't single out any democratic congressman, just piled the responsibility on Republicans. You won't address it like an adult so you do the typical nitpick routine and try to convince others that Obama is the same as Congress. He's not.

If you'd like I can take the first paragraph out for you. That way you can comprehend which part of your post I'm singling out. But then we couldn't have these mundane troll replies over semantics because you're consistently wrong and deceptive.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

You moved the blame to congress and didn't single out any democratic congressman, just piled the responsibility on Republicans.

I didn't "move to blame" anybody. Re-read it. I simply pointed out, outside of Obama, the current political reality, and yeah, it's that the GOP has moved so far to the right that their public position is overtly anti-gay.

You won't address it like an adult so you do the typical nitpick routine and try to convince others that Obama is the same as Congress. He's not.

Oh, bullshit. Yip, yip, yip, with some obvious lack of reading comprehension added on top.

No, I did not say or imply Obama was the same as Congress. I said Obama was personally anti-gay marriage, but politically he waffles. I said the GOP are stringently anti-gay.

I other words, I made a contrast between Obama and the current GOP.

Sorry - I'm not responsible for the nonsensical assumptions you make up in your head about what your imagination thinks I meant, but that I didn't actually say.

If you'd like I can take the first paragraph out for you. That way you can comprehend which part of your post I'm singling out. But then we couldn't have these mundane troll replies over semantics because you're consistently wrong and deceptive.

It must be so difficult for you to live with such a constant hate-on.

Originally Posted by Riot

I didn't "move to blame" anybody. Re-read it. I simply pointed out, outside of Obama, the current political reality, and yeah, it's that the GOP has moved so far to the right that their public position is overtly anti-gay.



Oh, bullshit. Yip, yip, yip, with some obvious lack of reading comprehension added on top.

No, I did not say or imply Obama was the same as Congress. I said Obama was personally anti-gay marriage, but politically he waffles. I said the GOP are stringently anti-gay.



It must be so difficult for you to live with such a constant hate-on.

You're an aggressive person who is a hypocrite. You act like a man, quite frankly.

You're like the Martina Navratilova of internet trolls. Congrats.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama's always been anti-gay marriage from a personal belief point of view - all the various "yes" and "noes" regarding what he'd do as a lawmaker were the flip-flop politicizing based upon current expediency. There's multiple quotes from him about his personal views, going way back.

But Obama doesn't make law - he signs it, yes. Now we have a Congress (House) filled with Republican religious zealots completely and actively and proudly against it, as is every single Republican Presidential candidate (perhaps not Huntsman, would have to check) Not good. And those people, the "big government control of your life, take away your individual rights" group, are the big danger.

Huntsman, pro civil unions as are many. I am, I wish I was in civil union. It is just like being Puerto Rico. All the benefits, none of the cons. Lucky gays.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Huntsman, pro civil unions as are many. I am, I wish I was in civil union. It is just like being Puerto Rico. All the benefits, none of the cons. Lucky gays.

LOL. Good point.

Some (Ron Paul) want to take "marriage" out of government all together, and put it only in churches. Which I guess means atheists can't marry?

The first question is should the concept of legal marriage be recognized on a federal or state level. State is the obvious answer, but that's given us the disaster we have now. So against what I've always thought (that it's a state thing), I'm thinking the feds have to recognize and define what constitutes a civil union-marriage (all the religious stuff needs to be out of it) and yeah, gay couples can be part of that and equal to heteros.

Originally Posted by Riot

LOL. Good point.

Some (Ron Paul) want to take "marriage" out of government all together, and put it only in churches. Which I guess means atheists can't marry?

The first question is should the concept of legal marriage be recognized on a federal or state level. State is the obvious answer, but that's given us the disaster we have now. So against what I've always thought (that it's a state thing), I'm thinking the feds have to recognize and define what constitutes a civil union-marriage (all the religious stuff needs to be out of it) and yeah, gay couples can be part of that and equal to heteros.

Baseless claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...on_legislation

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[192] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[193] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[194] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[195][196] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[195]

In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Baseless claim.

Why don't you look at what Paul said during the last GOP debate.

Originally Posted by Riot

Why don't you look at what Paul said during the last GOP debate.

Paul is on the federal level. His whole purpose is to give the power to the states. When that happens his opinion is meaningless.

Then the states that are tolerant will benefit because gay people are oppressed and it will lead to a fashion revolution. Sure the people in the tolerant states will be broke and starving but at least they'll look good while doing so.