|Caminante Nocturno - 2012-05-09 |
Why, this comes completely out of nowhere. I never would have guessed.
Neither would he have, until he met some people and talked to some people.
|memedumpster - 2012-05-09 |
"I support and oppose many things, but not strongly enough to pick up a pen."
|Millard - 2012-05-09 |
I woke up this morning and Romney had already won the election.
I am having a hard time differentiating the two
Obama is only 1/2 black, but Romney is 3/2 white, so it's sort of the same thing?
|violenza - 2012-05-09 |
Fucking finally indeed.
Also, awesome submitter/description combo.
|poorwill - 2012-05-09 |
Now I'm kind of ashamed that my country recognises civil unions but not gay marriages and that there's a chance the super-conservative US might beat us to it because we went the cowardly route. I didn't think much of it til recently, thought it was a semantics thing, but it really is about more than the name. because if people opposing gay marriage are willing to allow the *same thing* to be legal by another name, then what they really want is the social status that comes with that name, and to deny it of others. So that is why I have come to accept their claim that gay marriage really is an attack against these people and their institution, and that is why I will always support it.
If the opposition to giving the same legal status to same sex unions is the religious and sacramental connotations of the word marriage, I've no problem with a system in which the state ONLY recognizes civil unions (marriage registrations requiring civil union paperwork), and the couples are on their own to find a church to give them a entirely symbolic ceremony.
|13.5 - 2012-05-09 |
Wow looks like someone made a strategic political decision about something he can't legally do anything more about than he was already doing
Three stars for bully pulpit (such as it is when occupied an ILLEGAL COMMUNIST MARXIST NAZI AFRICAN, etc.) and the concept of marriage equality, but it's hard to get that excited about much the Prez does at this point
I would think that, but I *have* to think this is some kind of strategic decision. I mean, there's no other reason he'd *do* it. Maybe it's designed to energize the base or something.
It either says something about me or says something about Obama's presidency that the fact that he does something makes me think there's some sort of cold political calculation in it.
Mitt Romney used the words "delicate" and "tender" in his response to this, which is sound bite gold. Obama is great at trolling the right.
Not a significant risk to reelection, or it would not have been done in an election cycle. Obama's got it sewn up against Romney, who has to win every right-leaning state and then every fence-sitting state to even stand a chance. Look at the data.
It's a slight gamble. Obama stands to galvanize the right slightly, but again, people in South Carolina were going to vote for Romney anyway and people in California are going to vote for Obama no matter what. The numbers are just not there for Romney. You can have all the red states you want; they don't add up to victory in electoral votes.
It also throws some social issue red meat to Obama's progressive-liberal base, which had been threatening to stay home in light of what seemed like inertia. I think on balance he gains more votes than he loses, though again the electoral college in almost any projection you look at has Obama taking it in a walk.
Waaah why can't the president do everything all the time my way without having to think about politics waaah
All Obama could dream of would be for Romney to turn 2012 into a Christian conservative crusade, playing in territory that is clearly not his own. If Obama had come out and said that he was for gay marriage on the campaign trail (he did not) or on his first week in office, nobody would care about this.
The timing is perfect. Who cares if it's political. Everything a politician does has to be done with mindfulness of the news cycle and recent events (Romney firing Grinnell, being a big one).
This was a well played move politically and it's one of the greatest pluses in Civil Rights history, so stop whining.
"The blacks.... not so much."
If there's one demographic I imagine Obama could persuade to stop being such homophobic jerks, it's black voters. Bear in mind that a lot of black opposition to homosexuality is a holdover of black churches' quest for respectability via orthodoxy, not a desire to find inferiors to hate.
|dairyqueenlatifah - 2012-05-09 |
Welp, it's official, Romney is our next president.
No need to even have any further debates or speeches, press conferences or college visits. Just put the booths out there and watch the 2/3rds vote give Romney the oval office.
Sorry Obama. I admire your ballsy, I question your intent. I mourn your inevitable loss. Good bye.
As a fucking faggot, I find your demands that Obama be a simpering appeasing pussy on this issue disgusting. It's bad enough that he's obviously lying his ass off for political points, but to even bash him for pretending to give a shit is too much.
Now I'll be disappointed when Obama doesn't do that stuff in the debates. What a letdown this presidency has been.
Bitch, please. I'm a faggot too.
I'm not bashing him, or demanding that he be a simpering appeasing pussy on the issue. I'm simply lamenting the current social state of our society, which is full of people who will undoubtedly let this determine whether they vote for Obama or not.
That's true, there are a lot of morons about. The thing is, maybe it's important on a longer reaching level that those people will actually have to stand up and make that vote, willingly, in front everyone, over never being put on the spot at all. Yes, as Bort points out above, raising issues in the face of an overwhelming majority of blindness does create long and far reaching problems for the entirety of our way of life, but isn't it worth it? Isn't it better to leave our children a legacy of problems created by our insistence on doing what's right than problems created by our fear of addressing what's wrong?
I think there's gonna be some athletic makeup gaysex in memedumpster's and dairyqueenlatifah's futures.
|Jet Bin Fever - 2012-05-09 |
Ahh, I don't think you guys should decide the election yet. People may not be in support of it, but Romney wants a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT prohibiting it. That's something even conservatives (Libertarians and such) should be against, regardless of their stance. How much more intrusive can you get?
|kamlem - 2012-05-09 |
|Toenails - 2012-05-09 |
|Hooker - 2012-05-09 |
Now wouldn't it have been nice if he came to this conclusion when he wasn't losing the youth vote?
|Hay Belly - 2012-05-09 |
Looks like I'm voting for the second time since Clinton.
So I should thank you personally for letting the Teabaggers sweep into office in 2010. Thanks a lot, dumbass. People like you are the Republicans' secret weapon.
You're either with Obama, or with the terrorists. Moderates don't deserve citizenship.
I remember what happened the last time we tolerated voter apathy.
|Riskbreaker - 2012-05-10 |
THAT'S IT, THE GAY STORM IS GOING TO DROWN US! IT'S GONNA BE RAINING MEN!
|cognitivedissonance - 2012-05-10 |
If nothing else it just impresses upon the undecideds that Romney is a robot incapable of sincerity or honest self-reflection.
|Potter - 2012-05-10 |
too little, too late...
| Register or login To Post a Comment|