Obama and Rick Warren

[Steve9347]

Yeah, I saw this and I laughed. They tend to assume that all of Obama's supporters and Obama himself are exactly like them. This is no big deal... at all.

Exactly.

[GoSox05]

Didn't Warren compare being gay to incest and Pedophilia?

 

 

 

It's a slap in the face to alot of people who helped get Obama elected. Not suprising though. Democrats always run to the right after elections.

[NorthSideSox72]

Democrats always run to the right after elections.

No... all Presidents who have had any real success in either party try to govern from closer to the center than they ran as during the election. Its the only way to be successful. To wit...

 

--Bush and Carter actually went further to party extreme, and they were both terrible Presidents.

 

--Clinton and Reagan, who were more successful, governed from closer to the middle.

 

[GoSox05]

No... all Presidents who have had any real success in either party try to govern from closer to the center than they ran as during the election. Its the only way to be successful. To wit...

 

--Bush and Carter actually went further to party extreme, and they were both terrible Presidents.

 

--Clinton and Reagan, who were more successful, governed from closer to the middle.

 

 

I don't think Reagan got anywhere close to the middle. Clinton and Bush Sr. went more to the middle.

 

I would say that for the time FDR went more to the left and it worked out ok.

[lostfan]

I fail to see how having a guy deliver an invocation is "running to the right." As far as I can tell, he has no influence on any policy decisions whatsoever, it's all symbolic. Correct me if I'm wrong. As has been said, Obama is not the president of the far left. Frankly the outrage over anything he does that's not in line with the far left agenda is starting to get annoying as hell IMO. How bout we see how and what he actually does as president?

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think Reagan got anywhere close to the middle. Clinton and Bush Sr. went more to the middle.

 

I would say that for the time FDR went more to the left and it worked out ok.

Reagan talked a big rightist game, but look at what he really did. It wasn't far right at all, with the exception of policy towards the Soviets.

 

[GoSox05]

I fail to see how having a guy deliver an invocation is "running to the right." As far as I can tell, he has no influence on any policy decisions whatsoever, it's all symbolic. Correct me if I'm wrong. As has been said, Obama is not the president of the far left. Frankly the outrage over anything he does that's not in line with the far left agenda is starting to get annoying as hell IMO. How bout we see how and what he actually does as president?

 

 

I don't see how being mad that he has a guy being involved in his inauguration who compared being gay to Incest and Pedophilia being far left. So you have to be far left to not hate gay people?

 

 

If its not that big of a deal why is he doing it? I hope he dosen't think this is going to help with the evangelical crowd. Most of them people would have voted for Francisco Franco over Obama.

[StrangeSox]

Didn't Warren compare being gay to incest and Pedophilia?

Here's a full quote on that. He didn't equate being gay with incest and pedophilia directly, but they're lumped into the same group of "marriages I think are wrong." You can point out that he's wrong about a "5,000 year definition of marriage," but that's another topic.

 

“I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

-Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church, December 15, 2008

 

 

 

It's a slap in the face to alot of people who helped get Obama elected. Not suprising though. Democrats always run to the right after elections.

 

Obama won because of moderates. They make up the bulk of the people who voted for him. He's running to his biggest constituency.

 

From CNN's exit polling.

 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

Political self-identification and Percentage voting for Obama

Liberals (22%) 89%

Moderates (44%) 60%

Conservatives (34%) 20%

Edited December 22, 2008 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

I don't see how being mad that he has a guy being involved in his inauguration who compared being gay to Incest and Pedophilia being far left. So you have to be far left to not hate gay people?

 

 

If its not that big of a deal why is he doing it? I hope he dosen't think this is going to help with the evangelical crowd. Most of them people would have voted for Francisco Franco over Obama.

I'm talking about the pattern of behavior the far left has established since Nov. 5, this happens to fit in that pattern. I go to the blogs, they cry about everything and act like the sky is falling because Obama is at least acting like he wants to engage the right which is what he said in his campaign. I just find it obnoxious, and at the same time it makes me laugh. I don't want a leftist version of Bush. That would be a disaster. The middle won the election for him, FWIW.

 

I just can't bring myself to care about this or see why I should. I'm more worried about what Obama ACTUALLY DOES in regards to gays once he's inaugurated, or at least things that come out of his mouth, or some official in his administration. This whole "he-said by proxy" BS went on through the whole campaign.

Edited December 22, 2008 by lostfan

[GoSox05]

Here's a full quote on that. He didn't equate being gay with incest and pedophilia directly, but they're lumped into the same group of "marriages I think are wrong." You can point out that he's wrong about a "5,000 year definition of marriage," but that's another topic.

 

“I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

-Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church, December 15, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

Obama won because of moderates. They make up the bulk of the people who voted for him. He's running to his biggest constituency.

 

From CNN's exit polling.

 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

Political self-identification and Percentage voting for Obama

Liberals (22%) 89%

Moderates (44%) 60%

Conservatives (34%) 20%

 

 

moderates voted for him, but the people who worked and volunteered for him were more to the left.

 

I don't know why people believe that governing from the middle automatically means you will be a great leader. There such a thing as the extreme-middle.

[GoSox05]

I'm talking about the pattern of behavior the far left has established since Nov. 5, this happens to fit in that pattern. I go to the blogs, they cry about everything and act like the sky is falling because Obama is at least acting like he wants to engage the right which is what he said in his campaign. I just find it obnoxious, and at the same time it makes me laugh. I don't want a leftist version of Bush. That would be a disaster. The middle won the election for him, FWIW.

 

I just can't bring myself to care about this or see why I should. I'm more worried about what Obama ACTUALLY DOES in regards to gays once he's inaugurated, or at least things that come out of his mouth, or some official in his administration. This whole "he-said by proxy" BS went on through the whole campaign.

 

 

I do agree we need to wait till he actually is President.

[NorthSideSox72]

moderates voted for him, but the people who worked and volunteered for him were more to the left.

 

I don't know why people believe that governing from the middle automatically means you will be a great leader. There such a thing as the extreme-middle.

Governing from the middle doesn't make a great President. But it makes it easier to do be effective.

 

[lostfan]

If they had a political party called the "Pragmatists" or something like that then that's what I'd be. When it comes to national politics I don't get hung up on ideology and specifics, I'm more concerned with solutions, what's actually going to be done, and how. I accept that there's probably never going to be a candidate or elected official that I agree with on everything, and that's ok. As long as I know they're competent, and I have a feeling they're working with the country's best interest in mind (which is relative, and open to argument or interpretation, but often the arguments are predicated on ideological disagreements).

 

I'm 100% pro-gay rights for the record, and I don't see any relevance between this, and the advancement of gay rights under Obama (which stands a good chance of happening if it's done right). Hence, like I said, this is not a big deal IMO.

[mr_genius]

Reagan talked a big rightist game, but look at what he really did. It wasn't far right at all, with the exception of policy towards the Soviets.

 

I don't think that is necessarily true. If you look in a historical context, Democrats were very harsh towards the Soviet Union as well. JFK is a good example; he played hardball with the same veracity as Reagan towards the soviets. Reagan actually did a lot of negotiating with the Soviet Union, even though he did like to give big anti-communist speeches. Both of which I approve of

Edited December 22, 2008 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

I don't think that is necessarily true. If you look in a historical context, Democrats were very harsh towards the Soviet Union as well. JFK is a good example; he played hardball with the same veracity as Reagan towards the soviets. Reagan actually did a lot of negotiating with the Soviet Union, even though he did like to give big anti-communist speeches. Both of which I approve of

 

Really they did more negotiating with him, than vice versa. His policy's really put them into a position of power because they were scared s***less at a few of his programs. They also were put at a huge disadvantage after Reagan cut their economic heart out by demolishing the prices of commodities that the USSR depended on for cash.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think that is necessarily true. If you look in a historical context, Democrats were very harsh towards the Soviet Union as well. JFK is a good example; he played hardball with the same veracity as Reagan towards the soviets. Reagan actually did a lot of negotiating with the Soviet Union, even though he did like to give big anti-communist speeches. Both of which I approve of

Fair enough. It was really an aside anyway, and I didn't describe it well.

 

[mr_genius]

Really they did more negotiating with him, than vice versa. His policy's really put them into a position of power because they were scared s***less at a few of his programs. They also were put at a huge disadvantage after Reagan cut their economic heart out by demolishing the prices of commodities that the USSR depended on for cash.

 

Reagan definitely negotiated from a position with leverage. But his willingness to give concessions just shows that he was willing to work with them and legitimately wanted to make the world a safer place. The only thing he wouldn't give up was the missile defense system, which the Russians hated and still do to this day.

[lostfan]

Reagan's Soviet policy was a strange hybrid of confrontation and reassurance.

[GoSox05]

This is getting way off topic but I don't think Reagan had much to do with the Soviet Union falling apart. Mikhail Gorbachev and the activists he inspired had more to do with it. Reagan and Thatcher were in power for years and never did much. Until Mikhail Gorbachev came along.

 

You could almost say that Reagan helped prolong it. American military spending for the cold war helped strengthen hard-liners in the Soviet Union. People in the Soviet Union were ready to rid themselves of the totalitarian state.

 

Also what Reagan did in Central America and Afghanistan was nothing short of criminal.

Edited December 22, 2008 by GoSox05