lostfan Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 9, 2012 -> 07:08 PM) I just find the exploitation of a group of politicized people (who, by the way, shouldn't be politicized, but whatever, that's a totally different point) rather grotesque. I assume it bothers you this much when Republicans use the same group as a whipping boy/boogeyman every election cycle, and go out of their way to create laws specifically against them to get people to come to the polls? (not sarcasm btw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 9, 2012 -> 05:51 PM) And if he cares about nothing other than getting elected, he's decided that putting his election chances out there on the line while being in favor of treating gay people like human beings would bring him benefit. And if that's the case, I still fully applaud the move and would be thrilled if Mitt Romney would also decide to risk his election chances on that same bold, honorable, decent stand. He doesn't which is the only reason he changed his mind. Just like Mitt Romney changing his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 9, 2012 -> 07:11 PM) He doesn't which is the only reason he changed his mind. Just like Mitt Romney changing his mind. And when a politician changes their mind in this direction I will applaud them and I assume you will join me in doing so, rather than supporting politicians who insist on continuing discrimination because of a different set of voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 WH aides tell me it's almost a given gay marriage will be new plank in the Democratic Party platform that's passed at this year's convention — @chucktodd via TweetDeck also great news. Especially with a convention in North Carolina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 9, 2012 -> 06:47 PM) And when a politician changes their mind in this direction I will applaud them and I assume you will join me in doing so, rather than supporting politicians who insist on continuing discrimination because of a different set of voters. No. I don't think he believes a word of what he is saying, and I don't get praising the man for something he obviously doesn't believe. I'd have more respect for the guy for having positions I don't agree with versus selling out for a few votes. It is the same reason I don't have any respect for guys like Mitt Romney or Jack Edwards. This isn't support. It is pandering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 9, 2012 -> 06:58 PM) No. I don't think he believes a word of what he is saying, and I don't get praising the man for something he obviously doesn't believe. I'd have more respect for the guy for having positions I don't agree with versus selling out for a few votes. It is the same reason I don't have any respect for guys like Mitt Romney or Jack Edwards. This isn't support. It is pandering. And he uses a bigot strawman to pander, which is even more disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 9, 2012 -> 07:58 PM) No. I don't think he believes a word of what he is saying, and I don't get praising the man for something he obviously doesn't believe. I'd have more respect for the guy for having positions I don't agree with versus selling out for a few votes. It is the same reason I don't have any respect for guys like Mitt Romney or Jack Edwards. This isn't support. It is pandering. If a politician in the 1960s decided to pander to the growing civil rights movement, history would remember them fondly for doing so, just as should happen here. I invite you to join me in condemning politicians who fail to join in this pander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 9, 2012 -> 08:19 PM) And he uses a bigot strawman to pander, which is even more disgusting. No, the bigoted position is the disgusting one. Whatever motivation moves a person away from that is a win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 9, 2012 -> 07:22 PM) No, the bigoted position is the disgusting one. Whatever motivation moves a person away from that is a win. That is a fallacy. If he would have had balls to actually say this 4 years ago, it *might* be different. Today, it's whore job. But you all are sucking it right up. *gasp* OMG HOW HISSSTORIC! Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Kap, Your line of argument is so hilarious, I just want to confirm the nonsense. So you are saying that we should be outraged because Obama is going to try and legalize gay marriage, but is doing it for the wrong reasons? So instead of supporting Obama, we should support someone else who doesnt want gay marriage, but actually believes that, so its better? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thats like saying Lincoln didnt really care about abolishing slavery (arguably true if you look at his position in the Lincoln/Douglass debate), so when he actually went and did it, the US should have stood against him, because he wasnt freeing the slaves for the right reason. HAHAHAHAHAHAA Thats a joke right? I mean seriously, we now are going to worry about whether or not politicians are standing up for something for the "right" reasons? Wow, Im in complete shock. I guess when you are supporting the absolutely wrong position when it comes to freedom (denying rights to humans due to sexuality, race, religion, etc) you just gotta make s*** up, because I assume you cant look yourself in the mirror knowing that you are on the same side as the people in NC. Just so we are clear, I dont care what reason someone does something, as long as what they are doing is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 AHAHAHHHAHAAAA This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. He sold you people down the river, and you're the sheep he wants. Rejoice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Explain to me how he sold me down the river? By taking a position I agree with, to gain more money, how is that selling me down the river? Who are "you people". Because all I see is an argument for why Obama did it for the wrong reasons, I have yet to see how this will in any way turn out negatively for people who support gay marriage. Please explain how it is negative for people who want equal rights for all humans, I just cant understand your position, it makes 0 sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 And Ive never been called a sheep before, so that was a new experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 It has nothing to do with HIS position, or mine for that matter. He's using gay people for a prop, and you all dig it. Sheeple. If he actually gave a damn, it might change the spectrum from which he preaches. He's the most unprincipled leader we have ever had. But whatever, you all don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) It has nothing to do with HIS position, or mine for that matter. He's using gay people for a prop, and you all dig it. Sheeple. Once again, this is nothing new. Every minority has been used as a prop, so what, the ends justify the means. Thats Machiavelli, basically the opposite of your nonsensical personal attack, which is the epitome of a weak argument by the way. Calling someone a sheep in an attempt to try and get them to change their position to show they arent a follower, weak sauce. If he actually gave a damn, it might change the spectrum from which he preaches. He's the most unprincipled leader we have ever had. And I dont care what spectrum he preaches from, I dont care about his principles, I care that a people who have been denied rights in this country. So lets recap: You said he sold me down the river, but in actuality he didnt. You now are trying to move the goal posts into a new argument that hes using gay people as a prop (who cares, I sure as hell dont) but at the same time actually going to be trying to give them rights. If that is a prop, I guarantee every gay person would prefer to be a "prop" and get rights, than to prefer to be treated like they are in the great state of NC. Youre comments are unsupported nonsense, you cant even respond. I cant believe how bitter people are in the world that they are going to try and convince people that its a bad thing that Obama is supporting gay rights, because Obama isnt doing it out of the kindness of his heart. Youre position is embarrassing if you believe in freedom and equality, it shouldnt matter what reason, all that should matter is that it happens. (Edit) Was this the brilliant argument that was used in the 60's to try and beat the Civil Rights Act? They are only giving you rights to get your vote and money, dont fall it for it!!!!! Dont vote for LBJ, he only wants to give you rights to get reelected!!! Edited May 10, 2012 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 9, 2012 -> 07:44 PM) It has nothing to do with HIS position, or mine for that matter. He's using gay people for a prop, and you all dig it. Sheeple. If he actually gave a damn, it might change the spectrum from which he preaches. He's the most unprincipled leader we have ever had. But whatever, you all don't care. I think it's silly to completely and unequivocally laud Obama on a statement that was made partly (or even wholly) for political gain. I think it's equally silly to completely write-off any possible positive effects of Obama's statement because it was done for political gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Farmteam, Even if it was done 100% for political gain, isnt that better for someone who has been denied rights, than for him to do nothing, which is seemingly what Kap prefers? Thats how ridiculous the argument is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 9, 2012 -> 07:57 PM) Farmteam, Even if it was done 100% for political gain, isnt that better for someone who has been denied rights, than for him to do nothing, which is seemingly what Kap prefers? Thats how ridiculous the argument is. I agree he's taking his argument to the extreme. I also agree (to the extent that I can empathize with a group of which I'm not a member) that if the only way I'll get rights everyone else in this country enjoys is if some politicians want to score some points with me/people who support me, then I won't care as much that he's only doing it for political gain. My first statement was basically taking a way-less extreme version of Kap's position -- this was obviously done for political gain, and to act as if Obama is now some sort of ultimate LGBT savior is sorta silly. The second was similar to what you're saying -- even if that's what was done, it's silly to think it might not have a positive effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 9, 2012 -> 08:57 PM) Farmteam, Even if it was done 100% for political gain, isnt that better for someone who has been denied rights, than for him to do nothing, which is seemingly what Kap prefers? Thats how ridiculous the argument is. One reading this thread might note that despite repeated prompting, there has been an absolute refusal to say that even if the motivation is bad, the decision is the right one, by these posters. A reasonable reader might well conclude that what truly angers those posters is that the Presidet no longer supports that legalized bigotry, and that is why they cannot condemn that bigotry despite prompting repeatedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Farmteam, Hes no crusader for gay rights, but hes the first President to support it, so you cant deny his role. Its like Lincoln, he was no abolitiionist, in fact he wasnt even strongly against slavery to start, but circumstances changed and thus he freed the slaves. History doesnt care about reasons, history cares about results. If Obama can get gay people equality, it wont matter the reason. To argue otherwise is nothing more than trying to create a smokescreen to obscure the actual facts, which is why Kap relies on the lowest possible form of argument, insulting the other person. You call a person a sheep, when you have nothing, when you cant respond with an actual argument, when you can not actually articulate a position. If he wants a sheep, he picked the wrong battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 9, 2012 -> 09:07 PM) Farmteam, Hes no crusader for gay rights, but hes the first President to support it, so you cant deny his role. Its like Lincoln, he was no abolitiionist, in fact he wasnt even strongly against slavery to start, but circumstances changed and thus he freed the slaves. History doesnt care about reasons, history cares about results. If Obama can get gay people equality, it wont matter the reason. To argue otherwise is nothing more than trying to create a smokescreen to obscure the actual facts, which is why Kap relies on the lowest possible form of argument, insulting the other person. You call a person a sheep, when you have nothing, when you cant respond with an actual argument, when you can not actually articulate a position. If he wants a sheep, he picked the wrong battle. Tweet I posted 2 pages ago. I'm going to bet people saying President Obama's support "means nothing" never comforted a 15 yr old gay kid asking why everyone hates him. @amaeryllis 2 hours ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 9, 2012 -> 08:04 PM) One reading this thread might note that despite repeated prompting, there has been an absolute refusal to say that even if the motivation is bad, the decision is the right one, by these posters. A reasonable reader might well conclude that what truly angers those posters is that the Presidet no longer supports that legalized bigotry, and that is why they cannot condemn that bigotry despite prompting repeatedly. I think its more about fear. Change is coming, social inequality can not last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 9, 2012 -> 08:07 PM) Farmteam, Hes no crusader for gay rights, but hes the first President to support it, so you cant deny his role. Its like Lincoln, he was no abolitiionist, in fact he wasnt even strongly against slavery to start, but circumstances changed and thus he freed the slaves. Right, I agree with this. Specifically the "you cannot deny his role" part -- things are so often done for political gain, but this is still the first time someone decided that the political gain was worth the political risk. Seems pretty momentous to me. Sorry if I was unclear (or am now confused in thinking we disagree! ha). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 9, 2012 -> 08:07 PM) Farmteam, Hes no crusader for gay rights, but hes the first President to support it, so you cant deny his role. Its like Lincoln, he was no abolitiionist, in fact he wasnt even strongly against slavery to start, but circumstances changed and thus he freed the slaves. History doesnt care about reasons, history cares about results. If Obama can get gay people equality, it wont matter the reason. To argue otherwise is nothing more than trying to create a smokescreen to obscure the actual facts, which is why Kap relies on the lowest possible form of argument, insulting the other person. You call a person a sheep, when you have nothing, when you cant respond with an actual argument, when you can not actually articulate a position. If he wants a sheep, he picked the wrong battle. No, a definition of a sheep is just allowing yourself to be sucked in, saying RAH RAH RAH!!! by a weak sauce president who is using a sensitized issue for a political prop and to shake a group down for more money. You all are praising a stance that may be right or wrong (which you keep assuming my stance but you don't know) that is 100% allowing your position to be used. He did it TODAY because the pollsters told him to. Quick. Call GMA, because now I'm for gay marriage! (sic). It's a disgusting, purely political bald face move. I'm glad you all support using gay people like that. I sure don't, and frankly I don't have a problem with the issue at all. But I sure do mind it for a political prop and you all cheer it on ... so hisssstoric!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Oh, and you know, LBJ was bigoted before he turned into a race hero, right? .... ..... ........ It's not (the) issue, it's that you all just jump right in and drain the swamp with someone who has no moral compass whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts