GUTS? No . . .not at all . . . I have to disagree with you here Obama doing this . . IMO . . .demonstrates he is a True Democrat They taking the Black vote for granted [as they have for decades] Feels if they piss off black folx. . .so what . .they still not voting republican and Him moreso . . . I think he pretty confident he will win the black vote so Scoring a few points with the Gay community . . .even if it means stepping on Black folx toes . . . is all good. That being Said. . . I am not surprised he did this . . .He had *nothing* to lose by it . ..and everything to gain I like the guy . . but . .. . it is what it is Rocket River
Does anyone else remember pgab and/or RR arguing vehemently that there is no more homophobia amongst black populations than in the general population? I just find it confusing that pgab would acknowledge that this is seemingly the case now. And of course RR has to opine that any democrat who doesn't kowtow to the black community (and by this of course he means blacks that feel like he does, not false blacks like pouhe) is taking them for granted...
Since when is standing up for equal rights for all, and being an advocate for other discriminated and exploited groups "stepping on Black folx toes". Obama also called out the scapegoating of undocumented persons for being major factors leading to poverty in African American communities (pointed out the racism and societal issues leading to those problems have been there long before). Undocumented persons (and even legal permanent residents) don't have votes for him. The man has spent much of his professional life canvassing and organizing in predominantly poor African American communities. But having a broader, more inclusive, social justice perspective is hardly selling them out as you seem to imply (apologies if this is not what you meant).
Standing up for gay rights isn't taking anyone for granted. It's standing up for people who are oppressed and discriminated against. But aside from that I disagree that he had nothing to lose. He has an enormous amount to lose. He isn't the nominee yet. To win Texas he needs people who support him to get out and vote. They need to do more than just not vote Republican. They need to energetically and enthusiastically support Obama. He needs every last person he can to vote for him, in race in Texas that is a dead heat according to the polls. So to lose some enthusiasm and possibly turn away voters that could secure him the nomination based on taking a principled stand is brave thing to do. Furthermore I don't think he was doing to score points in the gay community, because he would have done it a rally for a largely gay audience. That wasn't the case here.
Its easy to be the president that has done the most for gay folx when no pres has ever done anything for them. RR personal question, if you dont mind how do you personally feel about gay people?
I don't really remember that. But this doesn't necessarily negate that. This particular African American group isn't necessarily representative of all African American groups.
The Poster stated that it was GUTSY I stated there was nothing GUTSY about it So Based on the above statement. . . I would conclude that you DO NOT think doing so . . .is stepping on Black Folx's Toes. If it is not Stepping on Black Folx's Toes. . . . . How is it GUTSY? Rocket River
1. I honestly beleive he will win Texas Either way He is strong in the urban Areas and weakest in the rural areas The Urban areas have the most population and I beleive he will carry those 2. Black are not the monolithic ONE ISSUE voters that people beleive While black folx maybe oppose to Gay Marriage, etc I seriously doubt it will be the driving force from them voting for or against any particular candidate Rocket River
Not a Problem . . . I could drop the I HAVE A GAY FRIEND here but that is not relevent I have no problems with any homosexual person Generally speaking I cannot say any have done anything evil or bad to me so I have no qualms with them . . . . NOW - Have I argued against Gay Marriage? I have. 1. I think Marriage should not be a part of government period 2. I think it is an expansion of the definition of Marriage in order to claim a discriminatory situation that does not exist [No . . I don't want to derail this thread with this] I beleive Homosexuals should be covered by Hate Crime Legislation I beleive Homosexuals should NOT be discriminated against I do not hate gay people . . or even dislike them I really cannot think of any reason why I should Rocket River I could have just said that . . I AM COOL WITH HOMOSEXUALS but I don't think that type of shortlipped gip answer was what you looking for. QUESTION: What is the preferred term GAYS or HOMOSEXUALS?
You are quite correct I represent no one . . .but me I don't think PGab has claimed to be a representative either We are Black . . . I am sure we clash on many things In fact I beleive we have here before Rocket River
I don't know of any of my friends that are homo or anyone I have known personally but this is my solution: common law "marriage" is changed to common law union if a(man/woman)gets "married" by a judge or JP and not in a church it is a union. (this is what I did, I have no problem if I got a "union certificate" rather than a marriage license) man/woman married in a church gets marriage certificate, tradition, religion, blah blah gay couples get union if they want to for the legal benefits (and negatives) creating a new type of connection between church and state is a bad move. It's 2 wrongs make a right philosophy. You have to have a legal connection for society but you don't need to get the religion in there.
I wasn't referring to anyone on this board, but to the group he was addressing in Beaumont. But I agree that it is silly to make any one person representative of a whole group.
OK, see where your coming from, thanks. I still think being in favor of LGBT rights and being honest about immigration are pretty gutsy for a politican trying to win a general election. These are issues where having a sense of justice and compassion are not popular--thus lots to lose being strong and unambigious about them the way he has been.
Except that in 2004, Obama voted against Gay Marriage in the Illinois Senate. How convenient that he is for their rights during a presidential election but wasn't for it when he was in the Illinois senate.
Indeed, this guy can't be trusted. I posted the following a month ago, nobody from Obama camp could come up with any plausible explanation: Obama '04 at odds with Obama '08 -- * supported eliminating criminal penalties for mar1juana use or possession in January 2004 speech, opposed decriminalizing mar1juana in October 07 debate, and then offered two versions of explanation in less than 24 hours * supported health care benefits for illegal immigrants in 2003, said "No" when asked whether his health care proposal covers illegal aliens in a CNN debate on January 21 2008 * wanted to end the embargo with Cuba in 2004, flip-flopped in August 2007 * said he would "vote to abolish" mandatory minimum sentences in an October 2003 NAACP debate, now says on his website he wants to "review sentences to see where we can be smarter on crime" * told an AFL-CIO group in June 2003 that he "happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan," said in a recent debate he that never endorsed such a plan
Uhh, he's still against gay marriage. For someone that's so undecided, you do seem to be very good at the standard attack talking points, including all their incorrectness. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071030/NEWS09/710300384/-1/caucus Obama repeated his stand that he is against gay marriage, but for civil unions that offer the same benefits as traditional marriage. He told about 150 people at the library that he couldn't endorse traditional marriage for gay and lesbian families. "You want the word marriage and I believe that the issue of marriage has become so entangled - the word marriage has become so entangled with religion - that it makes more sense for me as president, with that authority, to talk about the civil rights that are conferred" with civil unions, Obama said. Individual denominations should make the decisions about what to recognize as a marriage, he said.
He is for civil unions because it accomplishes the same thing without the divisiveness of trying to change marriage. It fits right in line with his philosophy of trying to find common-sense middle ground on those types of issues. Where is the problem or inconsistency here? No, it wasn't. Your point was to try to find a "gotcha, you're a flip-flopper" situation, but you did it without knowing the facts.
