Thursday, May 24, 2012

Black Americans Shifting on Marriage For Gays


Many observers thought that Obama's endorsement of marriage equality this month was unnecessarily risky in an election year.  Analysts looked at public opinion in important swing states and worried that he would alienate the voters he needed the most.

But the public in not an inert lump.  The public is fully able to change its opinion in response to leadership.  And it is presently appearing that the consequences of Obama's bold statement are positive.  Here's Huffington Post:
The expected backlash among blacks to President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage has yet to materialize. And a new Washington Post-ABC survey  suggests that black opinion is very quickly moving the other way, with a majority of African Americans now saying they support same-sex marriage.

Fifty-nine percent of blacks now say they support same-sex marriage, an 18-point jump since the president's announcement of his own support two weeks ago. Fifty-three percent of Americans now believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized, which also marks a substantial spike since 2006, when just 39 percent of those polled thought it should be legalized.  Poll: Majority Of Blacks Support Gay Marriage After Obama's Endorsement  
There is an interesting dynamic regarding black Americans' position on this issue.  It is controversial to compare the struggle for gay rights to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, though the similarities are inescapable (and check this out).  Black pastors have a tendency to promote the straight-and-narrow and have been at times a powerful force against gay rights.  Groups like NOM have intentionally stirred up anti-gay animosity in the black community.

On the other hand, 96 percent of black voters favored Barack Obama in the last election.  And when he takes a position on something like this, they will take him seriously and reconsider their own attitudes.  His statement was risky but in the long run it was the right thing to do on several levels.

30 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Though statistically significant, it is a tentative result because of the relatively small sample of black voters in the poll."

this was the qualifier that the Post included in the article on the survey

given that qualifier, it would be prudent to wait for some other confirmation

it would be remarkable if large numbers of blacks had decided to forsake their religious beliefs based on the lame statements and stance of the President who says he thinks this is a civil rights issue and then says we should just leave it to the states

there are scores of issues that should cause blacks to reconsider Obama

black children in the inner city, for example, might stand a fighting chance at an education if Obama would stop attacking school voucher programs

school voucher: the only domestic program Democrats have ever suggested cutting

May 24, 2012 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

May 24, 2012, PPP: Maryland Polling Memo

"A new Public Policy Polling survey in Maryland finds a significant increase in support for same-sex marriage among African American voters following President Obama’s historic announcement two weeks ago. The referendum to keep the state’s new law legalizing same-sex marriage now appears likely to pass by a healthy margin. Here are some key findings:

-57% of Maryland voters say they’re likely to vote for the new marriage law this fall, compared to only 37% who are opposed. That 20 point margin of passage represents a 12 point shift from an identical PPP survey in early March, which found it ahead by a closer 52/44 margin.

-The movement over the last two months can be explained almost entirely by a major shift in opinion about same-sex marriage among black voters. Previously 56% said they would vote against the new law with only 39% planning to uphold it. Those numbers have now almost completely flipped, with 55% of African Americans planning to vote for the law and only 36% now opposed.

-The big shift in attitudes toward same-sex marriage among black voters in Maryland is reflective of what’s happening nationally right now. A new ABC/Washington Post poll finds 59% of African Americans across the country supportive of same-sex marriage. A PPP poll in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania last weekend found a shift of 19 points in favor of same-sex marriage among black voters.
While the media has been focused on what impact President Obama’s announcement will have on his own reelection prospects, the more important fallout may be the impact his position is having on public opinion about same-sex marriage itself.

Maryland voters were already prepared to support marriage equality at the polls this fall even before President Obama’s announcement. But now it appears that passage will come by a much stronger margin."

Full results here

"Public Policy Polling surveyed 852 likely voters, including an oversample of 398 African Americans, on behalf of Marylanders for Marriage Equality between May 14th and 21st. The survey’s overall margin of error is +/-3.4% and for the African American sample it is +/-4.9%."

May 24, 2012 6:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"While the media has been focused on what impact President Obama’s announcement will have on his own reelection prospects, the more important fallout may be the impact his position is having on public opinion about same-sex marriage itself"

well, that would be uncharted territory for Obama

in the past, his support has always doomed any other cause

think about the Chicago Olympics, Martha Coakley, and single payer health insurance

Maryland voters were already prepared to support marriage equality at the polls this fall even before President Obama’s announcement. But now it appears that passage will come by a much stronger margin.

May 24, 2012 8:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Maryland voters were already prepared to support marriage equality at the polls this fall even before President Obama’s announcement. But now it appears that passage will come by a much stronger margin."

that's what they always say before the public discussion gets going

it was a lock in California four years ago

the people who favor it apparently don't vote

May 24, 2012 8:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Obama and the Fight for LGBT Rights

May 25, 2012 8:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Colin Powell Same Sex Marriage

May 25, 2012 8:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, "Anonymous" when you conflate the civil and religious interpretations of marriage you create an issue that becomes inflamed when there is an insistence that marriage is exclusively a religious ritual.

Our Constitution, in a number of places in which I am sure even you are aware, establishes a civil responsibility of "equal justice under the law" for all of our citizens, regardless of religious requirements, beliefs, or paractices. If you and your like-minded friends want to discourage or ban a marriage ceremony in your church, do that.

In doing that, however, you do not have the right to legally discriminate against others because they do not agree with, or support, your Church's religious definitions or beliefs and who do not even seek the sanction of any religious body for their marriage.

Many people wonder why other civilized nations (England, France, Sweden, Italy, Japan, et al., can find a way to recognize the coexistence of marriage as a civil institution as well as a religious institution and find it to be illogical, as well as a violation of rights guaranted in the Constitution, the insistence of those in our country who believe in the exclusivity of marriage as only a religious right.

May 25, 2012 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If crybabies like our Anonymous Troll want to preserve the "sanctity of the family" or the Biblical interpretation (that is, by their interpretation) of what marriage is meant for, perhaps they would lend support to a movement to outlaw divorce in our country.

What more insidious evil has the destructive force of divorce on a family (other than our huge incidence of infidelity)?

Or maybe if they cannot swallow that, perhaps they would be supportive of amending our Constitution to require polygamy which would have the effect of extending and multiplying the sacredness of the family?

Maybe they support Romney because of the hope that he might dip into his Mormon heritage and support that idea.

May 25, 2012 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=10151747349335360&set=a.10150153795460360.410207.758070359&type=1&theater

If the link does not pop up, here is the text: "Redefining Marriage -- The fact that you can't sell your daughters for three goats and a cow means we've already redefined marriage."

May 25, 2012 12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Consider Obama's recent "evolution" on gay marriage, in which he embraced same-sex nuptials just in time to collect a boatload of big checks from his socially liberal and increasingly impatient donor base. Amid the fanfare over his "principled" stand for gay rights, mainstream media reports ignored the fact that Obama already had taken that stand 16 years earlier as an aspiring Illinois Senate candidate, only to later repudiate it when support for gay marriage threatened to torpedo his national political ambitions.

""Anonymous" when you conflate the civil and religious interpretations of marriage you create an issue that becomes inflamed when there is an insistence that marriage is exclusively a religious ritual"

secular society has always considered marriage to be a union represented by two genders

there is no seperate secular "interpretation" of marriage although lunatic fringe gay advocates are working hard to create one magically out of nothing, fairy-tale style

"secular" and "gay advocacy" are not synonymous

"Our Constitution, in a number of places in which I am sure even you are aware, establishes a civil responsibility of "equal justice under the law" for all of our citizens, regardless of religious requirements, beliefs, or paractices"

as has been pointed out repeatedly, if you are to hold that defining marriage is denying "justice" to anyone who wants to define it otherwise, why stop at the gay perversion of the meaning? there are so many other ways you could redefine it. why not say that bestialiters, participants in incestuous relationships, and pedophiles are being denied "justice"?

"If you and your like-minded friends want to discourage or ban a marriage ceremony in your church, do that"

gay "marriage" is not marriage

no one is banning marriage ceremonies

"In doing that, however, you do not have the right to legally discriminate against others because they do not agree with, or support, your Church's religious definitions or beliefs and who do not even seek the sanction of any religious body for their marriage"

all societies have always agreed with the Church's position

the dichotomy you present is fictitious

dozens of states have conformed this at the ballot box

none have disagreed

"Many people wonder why other civilized nations (England, France, Sweden, Italy, Japan, et al., can find a way to recognize the coexistence of marriage as a civil institution as well as a religious institution"

we do too. it just that the civil authorities agree that marriages means a union between the two genders

"If crybabies like our Anonymous Troll want to preserve the "sanctity of the family" or the Biblical interpretation (that is, by their interpretation) of what marriage is meant for, perhaps they would lend support to a movement to outlaw divorce in our country"

yes, we know, any position other than TTF's is whining, by definition

while I think there are many in the pro-family movement that would agree that we should cut out divorce, your statement is a non sequitur

May 25, 2012 1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The crybabies are the birthers like Anon who can't stand the fact that a black man was elected President of the USA. They cry, "Wah wah wah, we want our [white] country back." Even boneheaded politicians who play to birthers' "baseless distractions," are just playing you for the fools you are.

Mike Coffman: Obama comment was boneheaded

By Mike Coffman

Since the issues surrounding President Obama's birth certificate began during his campaign in 2008, I have rejected the notion that he is anything other than American.

I have been asked and I have answered hundreds of questions about where the president was born, and I have said what I believe — that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen.

Last Saturday, at an event in Elbert County, I made an inappropriate and boneheaded comment. I misspoke and I apologize for doing so. I have never been afraid to admit when I am wrong, and I was wrong here.

I have always viewed this matter as not only baseless, but as a distraction from the real issues facing our country. I believe that today.

More importantly, I was also wrong in another respect. I should never have questioned the president's devotion to our country. The president and I disagree on many issues — his approach to health care, jobs and energy independence, to name a few. But disagreeing on these issues was not license for me to question his devotion to our country.

I believe President Obama loves this country and wakes up every morning trying to do what is best for our nation, even if I disagree with his approach. To question the president's devotion to our country based on the fact that we disagree over policy issues was wrong of me and I am sorry.

Elected officials have always been held to a higher standard, as we should be.

The truth is, we are all human and we all make mistakes. This was my mistake, and I'm not afraid to own up to it."


U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman is a Republican who represents Colorado's 6th Congressional District. [for the time being]

May 25, 2012 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The crybabies are the birthers like Anon who can't stand the fact that a black man was elected President of the USA."

Jim, this asshole has just made a defamatory comment and you should delete it.

"They cry, "Wah wah wah, we want our [white] country back." Even boneheaded politicians who play to birthers' "baseless distractions," are just playing you for the fools you are."

it's probably not wise to dignify this comment with a response but no one ever accused me of being wise so let me just say that the one of the few positive aspects of Obama's presidency is that a barrier was broken down and our country is better for it

"Since the issues surrounding President Obama's birth certificate began during his campaign in 2008, I have rejected the notion that he is anything other than American"

good to know

can you explain why?

"I have been asked and I have answered hundreds of questions about where the president was born, and I have said what I believe — that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen."

thanks for sharing what you believe. nice that we live in a country where people like you are free to believe what they want, even if you have no basis for your beliefs.

that's freedom of religion, baby!

"Last Saturday, at an event in Elbert County, I made an inappropriate and boneheaded comment. I misspoke and I apologize for doing so. I have never been afraid to admit when I am wrong, and I was wrong here."

oh me gursh, what did you say?

"I have always viewed this matter as not only baseless,"

baseless? in just the last week, it has turned out that the publisher of his first book stated that he was born in Kenya

oh, she says now that she just didn't check her facts, but unanswered is why she ever thought that to begin with

and, while we're at it, if i was having my first book pubished, i think I'd read my official bio

I guess I'm just not a cool cat like Sir Barry

or maybe he wasn't aware he would someday run for President

"but as a distraction from the real issues facing our country. I believe that today."

oh, so you're just saying this, not because it's true, but because you don't want to cause a distraction

a lost cause, Barry will still get distracted

he's always doing things like writing childrens' books, redecorating the Oval Office, flying his family to Hawaii and other exotic locations at taxpayer expenses

not to mention, raising more campaign funds than anyone in history and making sure inner city children aren't afforded the opportunity for decent education

"I believe President Obama loves this country and wakes up every morning trying to do what is best for our nation, even if I disagree with his approach."

you must not have read much by and about him

he thinks we're a colonial power and that our country is not exceptional

he sees himself managing our decline

his wife said the first she was proud of America was when he clinched the Democratic nomination

he attended a church for decades where the pastor would regularly do things like change the words of God Bless America to God Damn America

Obama contributed tens of thousands of dollars to this church

most of his extended family is foreign and he may be too

May 25, 2012 5:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reading comprehension failure, again.

The comments you are poopooing ["Since the issues surrounding President Obama's birth certificate began during his campaign in 2008, I have rejected the notion that he is anything other than American," "I have been asked and I have answered hundreds of questions about where the president was born, and I have said what I believe — that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen.", "Last Saturday, at an event in Elbert County, I made an inappropriate and boneheaded comment. I misspoke and I apologize for doing so. I have never been afraid to admit when I am wrong, and I was wrong here." "I have always viewed this matter as not only baseless," "but as a distraction from the real issues facing our country. I believe that today." and "I believe President Obama loves this country and wakes up every morning trying to do what is best for our nation, even if I disagree with his approach."] were made by a GOP member of the House of Representatives, Mike Coffman of Colorado. Rep. Coffman is now eating crow for his self-admitted "boneheaded" comments doubting Obama's citizenship and love for America, comments which are as hateful and ignorant as comments you make here on this blog.

Your failure to comprehend is stunning.

You need parents like George Tierney has, to teach you right from wrong and how to apologize after making your boneheaded, hateful public comments.

May 26, 2012 8:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, I realized that the comments were made by a GOP congressmen

so what?

they are bunch of statements without basis that he was obviously pressured to make since he explains none of them

May 26, 2012 9:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"they are bunch of statements without basis"

You mean like this?

Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you're elected -- why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you'd like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course.


Romney explains that austerity, during the recovery from a Great Recession, would cause catastrophic damage to our nation. The problem, of course, is that the Republican congressional leadership is committed to imposing austerity on the nation and Speaker Boehner has just threatened that Republicans will block the renewal of the debt ceiling in order to extort Democrats to agree to austerity -- severe cuts to social programs. Romney knows this could "throw us into recession or depression" and says he would never follow such a policy.

Romney, however, has not opposed Boehner's threat to use extortion to force austerity on the nation. Romney has the nomination sown up. Will he stand by and let Boehner try to throw us into a Great Depression rather than upset the Tea Party-wing of the Republican Party? Flip-flopper Romney will probably attack Democrats who have the political courage to defend our nation against his Party's demands for austerity that would throw us into recession or depression.

What does one call a politician who, solely to advance his personal political ambition, supports his Party's efforts to coerce austerity even though he knows that the austerity would cause a national economic catastrophe and states that he, "of course," would never adopt such self-destructive austerity if he were president? Romney is failing the tests of courage, integrity, and loyalty to our nation and people.

May 26, 2012 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's a little trip down memory lane:

in May 1980, Jimmy Carter lead Ronald Reagan in the polls by 49-41

the similarities are manifold

I'm getting a warm and fuzzy feeling

May 26, 2012 11:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, lots of similarities -- Carter was the first black President ever elected -- by a landslide no less, and Reagan's pre-political career was vulture capitalism.

Your memory is as fuzzy as your feelings you so commonly mistake for facts.

May 26, 2012 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What does one call a politician who, solely to advance his personal political ambition, supports his Party's efforts to coerce austerity even though he knows that the austerity would cause a national economic catastrophe and states that he, "of course," would never adopt such self-destructive austerity if he were president?"

you're twisting his words

he said taking a trillion out of government spending in one year would hurt the economy

moving in the direction over four, in his view, would be more sensible

Boehner isn't suggesting balnacing the budget in 2013 either, just moving in the right direction

you may remember that we were going to be paying higher interst rates when the rating of US government debt dropped

didn't work that way

global investors saw that the Tea Party was gaining strength and moving toward a blanced budget so they flooded our markets with requests for Treasury debt, driving down interest rates

Michelle Bachman was right

the economy can be energized without government spending

look at Germany

government borrowing is, by definition, less efficient than if private concerns borrowed and invested so a balanced budget economy will be stronger than a government borrowing into oblivion

tax reform and sensible regulation reduction would do more than Obama's plan to borrow a trillion a year as long as he's President

this should be the last year of that

May 26, 2012 7:43 PM  
Anonymous friendly neighborhood narco agent said...

Obama is apparently ony cracking down on marijuana so all the weed confiscated can be sent to the White House for his personal use.

New details have emerged of Barry smoking marijuana with his buddies at the Punahou School in Hawaii:

"When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted 'Intercepted!' and took an extra hit." But Obama's buddies, who called themselves the "Choom Gang," didn't mind him messing up the rotation. (After all, this was Hawaii.)

That's not all. Obama was known for starting a trend called "TA," short for "total absorption."

"When you were with Barry and his pals, if you exhaled precious pakalolo (Hawaiian slang for marijuana, meaning "numbing tobacco") instead of absorbing it fully into your lungs, you were assessed a penalty and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around.

Obama had a technique of "roof hits" while hot-boxing cars. "When the pot was gone, he tilted his head back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling."

May 27, 2012 9:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dead Friendly, did you ever hear of a guy named George W Bush, who was president of the United States? His history of alcohol and cocaine use was well known but you didn't see people making stupid jokes like this about it. There was some legitimate concern about his white-knuckling but we didn't suggest he was using the government to acquire drugs.

It does not appear that getting high in school damaged Obama's brain or clouded his judgment. As far as criticisms of the President go, this is about as dumb as saying that Michelle Obama is fat.

May 27, 2012 9:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

George W Bush didn't preside over a crackdown on states that have legalized medicinal marijuana

Barack Obama is an enemy of Americans' freedom and a hypocrite to top it off

May 27, 2012 3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama's policies have pulled our economy from the brink of the precipice Bush's policies left us careening over.

Mitt Romney wants to reinstate Bush's economic policies, deepen the Bush tax cuts for the already wealthy like himself, and set us on the path to that precipice again.

The red lines on this graph show the job losses under Bush. The blue lines show the changes Obama's policies have brought.

Electing Romney to reinstitute Bush's economic policies will put us all in the red again.

And let's not forget what Colin Powell recently warned us about too. Too many of Romney's foreign policy advisors are people who supported Bush's war in Iraq but couldn't be bothered hunting down and killing bin Laden.

May 27, 2012 5:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama's policies have pulled our economy from the brink of the precipice Bush's policies left us careening over."

what you don't realize, you fool, is that every recession ends eventually

what's different about this one is that the rebound has been so tepid

in the Reagan era, which ended in 2006, the economy rebounded with a recovery equal to the downturn

didn't happen this time because of Obama's tendency to move toward European style socialism

our economy is now very similar to the kind Europeans suffered under for years

"Mitt Romney wants to reinstate Bush's economic policies, deepen the Bush tax cuts for the already wealthy like himself, and set us on the path to that precipice again."

the biggest problem with Bush's recession was the timing

right before the election, so Democrats exaggerated the depth for political gain and the public loss of confidence was a self-fulfilling prophecy

tax cuts for the wealthy?

Republicans had already cut income taxes for the lower economic half of Americans to zero

that's right, over half of all Americans pay no income tax at all

our way of the life is already being bankrolled by the wealthy

so, because the poor get complete relief from taxation in our benificent society, any attempt to shift to less government involvement is an excuse for demogogue to accuse responsible government officials of only trying to help the rich

but a prosperous society is to the benefit of all

May 28, 2012 1:04 AM  
Anonymous Facts over opinion said...

What you apparently don't realize is the tiny little recession Reagan faced was nowhere near as deep or severe as the one Bush's policies caused and left for Obama to repair.

The Great Recession of 2008 was the closest we've come to the Great Depression, which took years to recover from.

Check out the graphs on this page.

First, click on the first graph entitled "Percent Job Losses in Post WWII Recessions."

Then compare the recession Reagan faced shown by the bright yellow line to the Bush recession left for Obama to clean up shown by the red line.

Then click on the second graph which shows the same data aligned at the point of maximum job losses.

Any fool can see the little recession Reagan faced shown by the bright yellow line at the very top of the graph was insignificant compared to the disaster Bush left for all of us to deal with -- the red line at the very bottom of the graph that Obama has already turned around.

Reagan's recession was meaningless in comparison to the one Obama is leading us through.

And don't forget Reagan had a Congress that was willing to compromise and get things done for the good of the country rather than getting things done for the good of their party, unlike the obstructionists of today's GOP Congressional delegation. Today's GOP leaders have clearly stated their Number One Goal is to "deny President Obama a second term",, rather than to help struggling American citizens survive the damages Bush's policies caused.

May 28, 2012 9:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

our way of the life is already being bankrolled by the wealthy

The truth is our way of life it being BANKRUPTED by the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

May 28, 2012 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no, the tax "cuts", which are actually are tax structure for the last dozen years while we absorbed multiple calamities and wars are not the problem

Barack Obama passed a "stimulus" plan when he first got into office and America still trusted him

he assured us that the stimulus would guarantee that unemployment would top off at 8% and then decline, at a point long since passed

though the stimulus was meant to be temporary spending to jumpstart the economy, it became the new setpoint and now government spending exceeds revenues by a trillion a year regularly

btw, if you count people who have given up looking for work, unemployment is the worst since the Depression, three and a half years after Mr Hopey-Changey took office

although promising a new era of bipartisanship, Obama is currently trying to stir up every wedge he can find to excite his base (Trayvon Martin, war on women, gay marriage)

he is the most polarizing President ever, has recently promised unspecified concessions to the Russians after his re-election and has suggested the Supreme Court shouldn't overrule Congress on constitutional issues and is engaged in a campaign of intimidation against the Chief Justice

new questions have been recently raised about whether he is qualified to be President since the promotional materials for his first book stated that he was born in Kenya- it seems that was either true or he led people to believe that

Americans can't trust him, so they don't

"Ever since the recall wars erupted in the battleground state of Wisconsin, the Obama campaign has been faced with a dilemma: how involved does the President get in a polarizing fight with huge national overtones?

Less than two weeks to go before the June 5 election, the answer seems pretty clear.

The President has avoided taking a vocal role in the conflict, and there is little expectation of an Obama visit to Wisconsin in the homestretch of the campaign.

In an interview Wednesday, national GOP chairman Reince Priebus attributed Obama’s low public profile in the Wisconsin conflict to fears about the outcome June 5.

“What good can come from Barack Obama being tied to a losing effort in Wisconsin?” said Preibus, former chair of the Wisconsin GOP, who said national Republicans “are all in as to whatever we need to do” in the recall.

Recent polls have shown Republican Gov. Scott Walker with a solid lead over Democrat Tom Barrett."

May 28, 2012 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no, the tax "cuts", which are actually are tax structure for the last dozen years while we absorbed multiple calamities and wars are not the problem

Bush made multiple blunders (invading Iraq, claiming Mission Accomplished well before it was, letting bin Laden escape at Tora Bora), which along with his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, turned the Clinton budget suplus into an ever deepening Bush budget deficit.

he assured us that the stimulus would guarantee that unemployment would top off at 8%

Show us the quote and its source of Obama making such a promise. That lie is but one of the many privately funded Rove magical history rewriting lies making the swift-boating TV tour of the nation.

though the stimulus was meant to be temporary spending to jumpstart the economy, it became the new setpoint and now government spending exceeds revenues by a trillion a year regularly

Obama's 2009 stimulus did stop the freefall Bush and the GOP created, and additional stimulus spending is needed to finish the job. Obama is not the only one who realizes that stimulus spending stabilizes depressed economies. Haven't you heard?

China set to ramp up stimulus spending

At Camp David, world leaders agree on more spending to boost Europe’s economy

The lack of US revenues is in large part due to the temporary Bush tax cuts that have become permanent. The GOP refuses to end them or even negotiate about them.

although promising a new era of bipartisanship, Obama is currently trying to trying to get the GOP to pass laws that help people suffering from the effects of Bush's overspending and undertaxing, while the GOP's NUMBER ONE GOAL is to make Obama a one-term president. The GOP couldn't care less about people who are suffering. Instead of helping, the GOP has been busy cutting unemployment benefits, busting unions, forcing women to have useless trans-vaginal probes, demanding papers from anyone with darker skin or a Spanish accent, not allowing seniors who have voted for decades to vote to name a few of the GOP priorities. Talk about divisive!

new questions have been recently raised about whether he is qualified to be President

That single question is only asked by fools and it was answered by the researcher who made the error the day after it was asked. But but by all means, please keep bringing up your fringe birtherism and enjoy all the independents it will send flocking to support Obama. Rove knows that, that's why he thinks Karl Rove: Birtherism Is A ‘White House Strategy’ (VIDEO)

Maybe you would learn something if you read up on George Will's most recent statements about the Donald and his birtherism stupidity.

"I do not understand the cost benefit here. The costs are clear. The benefit — what voter is gonna vote for him (Romney) because he is seen with Donald Trump? The cost of appearing with this bloviating ignoramus is obvious it seems to me."

"Donald Trump is redundant evidence that if your net worth is high enough, your IQ can be very low and you can still intrude into American politics."

May 28, 2012 11:03 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon asked:

“why not say that bestialiters, (sic) participants in incestuous relationships, and pedophiles are being denied "justice"?”


All of those people are allowed to get married, as long as it is a person of the opposite sex. In some cases, the pedophiles have even married their own victims and had children with them. First cousins are allowed to marry in a number of states, despite the genetic risk to their children.

They are not being denied marriage, families, children, or justice.


From Wikipedia:

“Mary Kay Fualaau (née Schmitz; born January 30, 1962), formerly known as Mary Kay Letourneau, is an American schoolteacher who was imprisoned from 1997 to 2004 for having sexual intercourse with her 13-year-old student, Vili Fualaau. She gave birth to two of Fualaau's children while incarcerated. After her release from prison in 2004, Letourneau married Fualaau and took his name.”


Yet gays are denied the opportunity to marry to “preserve the sanctity of (heterosexual) marriage.”


Next stupid question?


(Please put them in prioritized order, you have so many of them, and I have so little time.)


Have a nice day,

Cynthia

May 28, 2012 9:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you have to provide a serious answer to that question before we allow you any others, cinco

May 29, 2012 4:44 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anonymous said...

“you have to provide a serious answer to that question before we allow you any others, cinco”



I provided an answer that was just as serious as the question Anon.


Your problem is you can’t ask a serious, and actually relevant question. Your intent is solely to degrade LGBT people, not ask serious questions.


I already showed you that pedophiles are allowed to get married and you can look it up for yourself to see that it’s true. Of course, many pedophiles are already married when they commit their crimes – most of them don’t appear to want to actually marry their victims, just have sex with them. They’re already happily married. Seems we had a few pedophiles in the news recently that were like that.


Since you seem to need even more evidence about these other people, allow me to provide it for you.


From the webpage at: marryyourpet (dot) com


“Happiness would never end if you'd only marry your furry friend”

And

“Marry your pet the pet and people wedding specialists.”


“So, you adore your pet, consult him when channel switching and give him fish every Sunday. But if you really love him and you're in this for life, isn't it time you married your pet”


Of course, there is nothing stopping a man with a record of bestiality from marrying a woman. They don’t ask about your sexual perversions before handing over the marriage applications at the court house. You could have every sexual perversion listed in the DSM-IV, and they would still give you a marriage license, just a long as you want to marry someone of the opposite sex in most states. I doubt even the churches ask about your sexual perversions before they allow you to get married. If they do, and you say “No” with a straight face, it’s unlikely they’d ever know.


I believe it was a “Sixty Minutes” episode I saw a number of years ago about a Mormon Polygamist living out west. He had a mult-million dollar home, 12 wives, and 75 children. (In case you’re not familiar with Fundamentalist Mormons, they believe that “God’s definition of marriage” includes one man and many wives.) He only reported his first marriage to the state so that his other wives could claim “single parent” benefits from the state and federal government. They like to refer to this practice as “bleeding the beast.” It is their method of trying to slowly bring down the federal government. As a conservative, I’m sure you can appreciate this technique.


Form the same show they also talked about a Man who married a woman who already had kids – he married one of her daughters.


Kind of reminds me of the Woody Allen story… although he didn’t have a “marriage” with Mia Farrow, they adopted two kids and had one of their own. Things were going well until Mia found nude pictures (in Woody’s possession) of her daughter from another marriage (Soon-Yi Previn), whom she says Woody admitted to a relationship with.


Allen went on to marry Soon-Yi and adopt kids with her too. All perfectly legal. I’m sure I could find more examples if I bothered to spend some time searching on the web.


Have a nice day,

Cynthia

May 29, 2012 8:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home