North Carolina bans gay marriage, Prez O endorses it!
 

Here is a vid of the President endorsing gay marriage.



I was bummed about NC, but this lifts my spirits. Hopefully next term we'll get a national bill supporting marriage equality. Fuck DOMA!

He said he personally supports gay marriage but will let states decide on its legality. Honestly, I believe that is the best move on his part.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs...-marriage.html

His affirming his support is a small step but at least its forwards and not backwards.

Close election? What is he smoking?
This is gonna be a blowout.

Wow, the next NC Republican who bitches to me about how large and intrusive Government has become, and how the Government should stay the fuck out of his/her personal life....Really???? After what ya'll just demonstrated how you really feel about that in the poles?

It frames the tea party, Fox News, and Limbaugh disciples as advocates of hate, useless confrontation, and wacko extremism. And creates a problem for a moderate like Romney. He must now side with extremists or demonstrate the moderate he really wants to be.

Hateful extremists always need a bogeyman. bin Laden is gone. So gays make an easy target. Hate is necessary to recruit and rally extremists. And to even attack moderate Republicans who are openly condemning the hate and confrontation advocated by wacko extremists.

regular.joe accurately exposed the contradiction. The most hateful do not think for themselves. Are told that conservatives use government to impose religion and their morals on all others. The most naive are told how a conservative must think. Then parrot the propaganda. Do not even understand an obvious contradiction.

What minority will become the next extremist's target? We know extremist gain power by promoting hate. No decent, educated, or informed person has a problem with gay marriage. Those who promote hate need that bogeyman.

Every so often you really nail it, Tdub.

I love your post tw. This is the kind of rant I wish I could write so eloquently.

Huh? Who are you talking about?

WTF are you smoking?

That's interesting. Most of the problem for Obama is the registered 'independent' voters, with whom Rommers has an apparent 6 point lead. But they're also the group most likely to refuse to specify or not to have decided yet.

be interesting to see what happens with that 4% of indies going for other candidates. As the election gets closer, will they stick to their guns on a third party candidate, or throw in their lot with one of the two contenders.

Its the economy, stupid!

:runaway:

Ehh, fuck NC anyway. Maybe they'll change their license plates from "First in Flight" (thanks to the Dayton Wright Brothers fucknecks...Kittyhawk was just a LOCATION) to "Ain't No Gays Gettin' Married HERE." They've long needed something actually true to hang their brains, I mean hats, on

Bunch of backwards freaks anyhow.

Mark my words, MTP...
When things are broken down into useful information, this isn't going to be a close election at all.

When has that ever happened, though?

Whats the estimated electoral breakdown HM - even at this pointless stage in the process of estimating?

No idea. I just don't think that anything will get broken down into useful information.

What is the point of your opinion when its not based on any evidence whatsoever? You're not adding to the conversation by spouting off the completely wild guesses that you have about this election.

This chart pretty much says it all. In the near future gay marriage is going to simply cease to be an issue, just like interracial marriage.

Which is why the red line folks are frantically trying to change constitutions, so it will be all that more difficult for the people of the future to have what they want.

And they'd have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those crazy kids...

wait...no.

About 25 years are shown. Are people changing their views or just dying?

What event happened in 2004 to cause the sudden increase in polling?

Well, glatt, a few things happened:

The New England Patriots won Super Bowl XXXVIII.

The Pittsburgh Penguins lost their 12th consecutive home game, a NHL record.

The Republic of Ireland became the first country in the world to ban smoking in all work places, including bars and restaurants.

Dick Cheney and George W. Bush testified before the 9/11 Commission in a closed, unrecorded hearing in the Oval Office.

In New York, capital punishment was declared unconstitutional.

Fidel Castro announced that transactions using the American Dollar will be banned by November 8.

But I don't think most of those are related. ;)

Both.

What was happening then? Hate was especially popular. Hate of evil Muslims. Hate of the axis of evil. Hate of as quantum physics. Hate of financial regulations. Hate of hybrids and other fundamental innovations. Hate of anyone opposed to a new cold war in anti-missile deployments and other wasteful military spending projects. Hate of N Korea. Hate of the Germans, French and French Fries. Hate of anyone who was not conservative enough. Hate of stem cell research. Hate of anyone promoting nutritional foods. Hate of anyone who reported honestly (ie Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel) about an obvious quagmire in Mission Accomplished. Hate of research into environmental science. Hate of soldiers on swift boats who earned Bronze and Silver Stars. Hate of the UN. Hate of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets (even Mission Accomplished was never in the budget). Hate of the middle class by increasing welfare to the rich. Hate of anyone who said it was ‘their’ oil. Hate of anyone who properly identified the lies about Al Qaeda in Iraq; an insurgency created by no phase four planning. Hate of Colin Powell who was obviously too moderate.

Hate empowers and increases compliance among those who are least educated; who automatically believe the first thing they are told. Hate was how Senator Joseph McCarthy got popular among those same types. Hate in the name of extremism was no vice ... in 2004.

Hate and lies were strongly hyped in 2004 to get George Jr reelected.

And see? I mentioned george jr in my list. I know! ;)

But you completely forgot about the hate of smokers. (See list, entry 3)

I'm talking about experience and reality. Do a little research on your own instead of bitching at me. Don't like what I write? Don't read or respond.
Polls at this point in the cycle are less than meaningless.

Oh fuggit, I'll play along with you MTP - Here take a look for yourself at some numbers.

If that qualifies as "any evidence whatsoever" that is.

I would call that, classic, close enough to worry about. I think Obama is very likely to win, but to go as far as feeling like it's a sure thing - its still way close enough that if enough left-leaners feel like it's a shoo-in, it could drive down turnout enough to let Romney eke out a win. Granted, yes, it's far out enough now that polling is less-than-perfect, but... I think Romney's gonna give him a run for his money, so to speak.
I get the impression that, though I look at you and see a (relative) conservative, or at least right-leaning independent, that you support Obama over Romney (which to me makes sense, because i look at OBAMA and see a moderate-conservative, compared to, like, mainstream liberals like Elizabeth Warren or my idol Bernie Sanders). If Obama has your vote, I'd hate to see him lose it because you or anyone else thinks he's sure to win and therefore not worth getting out there on voting day for.

1) What part of that is close?
Obama - 294
Toss - 74
Rom - 170

2) I specifically addressed her since she got all shitty with me.

3) I couldn't possibly be more apathetic about this election.
I'm less inclined to vote for O this time than last and Romney ... ugh I dunno how I could at this point. :vomit:

If he needs 270 to win, and there are "247 Strong Obama" votes... I'd call that contestable, this far out. Maybe you parse it differently, fine. But I'd call that close enough to worry about. Especially considering the effect money will have on this race.

Obama needs 23 and Mitt needs 100. Mitts been campaigning for 4 YEARS compared to Obama's 4 days... I don't see this as being close. I guess its all about perspective.

Everything is perspective. Even math. ;)

I guess the difference is between your use of the word "close" and mine of "contestable". Given the distance from the election and the twists, turns, and outside events that could affect the race... I think Mitt hasn't LOST already. There's some conceivable path he could take that would win him the election, against today's odds. That's what I mean by contestable.

I'm confused admittedly. I thought classic meant that obama was gonna be blown out of office. Anyone else read it that way?

whatever.

Romney has virtually no chance whatsoever.

Hes behind by over 120 and there are really only 74 in play.

Do you really understand what has to happen for him to win?
You've got better odds of tw & Merc playing tiddlywinks while having tea on a Sunday.

ETA: Do you even understand how the electoral college works?

Wow, your rudeness was completely uncalled for. I was being a bit sassy but you're being outright mean.
Go take a bath or something to calm down.

And yes I do.

Of course I understand the electoral effin' college. And I also understand that every single "lean obama" state in that site's ranking - along with Pennsylvania, if the republican voter suppression/electoral splitting measures pass, and Nevada, according to other polling aggregates i've seen - is very much winnable by Romney, with a little luck and a lot of elbow grease (and by elbow grease I mean PAC money). Just because Obama's ahead half a mile into the marathon doesn't mean he's won, or that it's not worth watching.

ETA: are you honestly saying you think there's no way a republican could win VIRGINIA?

That post wasn't directed at you, Ibs.

ETA - But to answer your reply
Pennsylvania - Bwahahahahahaaaaaaaaa
Nevada - highly unlikely.
To use your own phrase - Obama's ahead half a mile with about a 1/4 mile to go.
You're buying into the BS again.

I retract my umbrage, then, except on MTP's behalf. But my point stands. I still don't think its quite a blowout yet. Once we get into september, october, and the numbers STILL look like they do now - then, it's in the bag. As yet, there's still a race to run.

No problem.
The race, if there ever was one, is over. The left is trying to create something of a contest so their voters don't become complacent.

Well, okay, if that's how you want to frame it. I'd still call that an actual race, even if it's theirs to lose.

Classic has a point about complacency. Ohio got complacent with obamas win and didn't bother voting for governor two years later! Yoo-hoo! Gotta keep at it people.

Vote early vote often! :lol:

Hey, it could happen! On another note, the vote in NC only proves that there are more conservative christians who vote living in NC then not. What is scary is that a religious agenda is now part of a state constitution.

Thanks ibz, although its my fault for even trying. I guess snarkiness by using someone's own terminology is just being shitty. I guess I should never point out the lack of evidence behind someone's claim.

You got yer ass handed to you. YOU started the snark. I simply finished it.

You made a completely unbased claim lacking anything remotely like evidence. Yes the electoral college fucks things up and voter apathy and we don't really know anything (even you) about the actual numbers until that night. You still didn't answer the question about who you were talking about and your pronouns were vague, so was your statement, about who you were talking about what being what. Snark, aka sarcasm, is not the same thing as being an asshole. You are being an asshole to me and I would like an apology.

True dat.

Listen at 4:14 of the video you posted. I figured you knew that already since you posted it. :eyebrow:

You are being an asshole to me and I would like an apology.

Uh-oh, looks like it's time for someone's regular self-imposed ban.......

This is probably already in here somewhere, but tis funny:

Good vid Dana.

I'm hoping O's position evolves to believing there needs to be a federal law protecting human rights.

I'm sure it evolved to that point a while ago but isn't ready politically. A federal law could fuel a strong backlash from conservatives, hurting both Obama and already established gay rights. It obviously isn't ideal but any means, but I think Obama's stance is more pragmatic and less what he actually believes.

:lol2:

evolves...

And while everyone obsesses over the presidential race, the right wing is working their ass off at what's really important... Congress, Governorships, State Legislatures.

Who's president makes a hill of beans compared to where the power to fuck up your life lies. This is how the religious right/ultra conservative block has wielded disproportionate power. They work the system... so should you.

HoF worthy post.

No one gives a shit about "Gay" marriage. It is a total distraction. Why? It is a States Rights Issue. It will never be passed as a Constitutional Amendment to ban it. Will never past muster. Get over it. It will not change. If Bleeding Hearts what to die over it let them, just remember that it was Bill Cliton that signed DOMA into law. The whole issue is stupid.