Gawker:Barack Obama’s Bullshit Gay Marriage Announcement (still says its up to each state to decide)

[stockholmer]

http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement#13366064585933&

ABC News has only released one brief clip http://abcnews.go.com/Video/video?id=16312904&tab=9482931%C3%82%C2%A7ion=2808950&playlist=2808979 of Obama's conversation about gay marriage today, but it seems fairly clear from the network's coverage that his announcement amounts to much less than meets the eye. He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn't believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?

The key language in the ABC News write-up is this:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

On this afternoon's special broadcast, Jake Tapper echoed that point: "The president said he thought this was a state-by-state issue."

Well, before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery. There are 44 states in which gay men and women are currently barred from marrying one another. Obama's position is that, while he would have voted the other way, those 44 states are perfectly within their rights to arbitrarily restrict the access of certain individuals to marriage rights based solely on their sexual orientation.

That is a half-assed, cowardly cop-out. There are currently at least three cases winding their way toward federal courts that address the issue of whether (among other things) the equal protection clause of the constitution guarantees gay men and women the same access to marriage rights as heterosexual men and women—the Proposition 8 case, in which David Boies and Ted Olson challenged California's ban on gay marriage, and several challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars gay men and woman from receiving federal marriage benefits and allows states to refuse to recognize valid gay marriages. Obama's Justice Department has admirably declined to defend the constitutionality of DOMA. But the position he enunciated today is in opposition to Boies and Olson: Obama is saying that if he were a judge, he would have rejected Boies and Olson's constitutional arguments and affirmed the right of Californians to enshrine bigotry in their state constitution.

snip

[SunsetDreams]

1. .

[Pirate Smile]

2. There is some legal analysis that says this is bullshit and it's been posted here a

few times already: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002667131

[nanabugg]

105. He gave his personal opinion...that is all. But that is what we were screaming for, wasn't it?

"Where does the President stand on gay marriage?" That was the cry. So he answers the question and gets hammered by friend and foe alike. The man can't win.

[woo me with science]

3. This part is particularly important:

There are currently at least three cases winding their way toward federal courts that address the issue of whether (among other things) the equal protection clause of the constitution guarantees gay men and women the same access to marriage rights as heterosexual men and women

....the position he enunciated today is in opposition to Boies and Olson: Obama is saying that if he were a judge, he would have rejected Boies and Olson's constitutional arguments and affirmed the right of Californians to enshrine bigotry in their state constitution.

[msongs]

4. Obama - "It's ok with me sorta, but YOU ban it if you want" nt

[elleng]

9. No, not at all.

'If the administration were still defending DOMA and had taken no position on the level of scrutiny to be applied to sexual orientation classifications, then Obama's statement might mean that his view is that states have unfettered rights to legislate as they they wish on marriage.
But, that is not the circumstances in which he makes these comments. Instead, Obama's position now is three-fold: (1) he personally supports same-sex marriage; (2) he believes as a policy matter that state, and not federal, law should define marriages, as it always has been in this country; and (3) he believes that there are federal constitutional limitations on those state decisions.

-snip-
As the lawyers then wrote, "The conclusion of the United States that heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation is unquestionably correct. Proposition 8 cannot survive the requirements of heightened scrutiny because its invidious discrimination against gay men and lesbians could not conceivably further an important government interest."
As that brief -- filed by Ted Olson, David Boies and the other lawyers representing those plaintiffs -- makes clear, Obama's legal, policy and personal views are not in any way contradictory and present a clear path forward toward the advancement of marriage equality across the country.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002667131

Heightened scrutiny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny

[Luminous Animal]

15. Heightened scrutiny on section 3. Not on the states rights Section 2.

His admin and the DOJ still support section 2.

Essentially what he is saying is that Loving v VA is A-Okay for the states but not for the Feds.

[FarLeftFist]

33. There will NEVER be another Democratic nominee for president that opposes marriage equality

Thanks to Pres.Obama.

[Blue_Tires]

39. exactly...and that's the bottom line...

[arely staircase]

104. no kidding thank you mr president

And that is huge.

[dionysus]

5. allow me to laugh my ass off at the outraged tears of the bitter dead enders.

the desperation is.... delicious...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. The ODSers can't handle the good news. They have to find something to hate Obama for.

[Luminous Animal]

17. So, you are okay with the NC vote. Because Obama is. He supports states rights.

So funny funny funny funny those bitter dead enders aren't equal.

Sure, federally employed LGBTQQ have Obama's support, but for those 32 states that treat you like shit? Oh well. "I feel your pain"...

[dionysus]

24. splendid strawman! you have vanquished it skillfully... and while you're at it, you

should boycott your entire home state of CA, for they voted for prop 8. so that must mean everyone there, included yourself, is against gay marriage... right? (of it doesn't mean that, but you should get the point...)

[JoePhilly]

60. Actually, Obama was against NC Amendment one ... here ...

http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/10866062/

[OnyxCollie]

6. It's campaign season!

Ponies for everyone!

[kestrel91316]

8. I disagree with ANYONE who says it's a states' rights issue,

even if that someone is Barack Obama. It's a constitutional rights issue, and I consider marriage equality to be a basic human right that NO ONE can legislate out of existence, just like voting rights for women and blacks.

[elleng]

10. Its not unreasonable that its somewhat confusing.

States determine who and when people therein may marry; its been one of the States' jobs forever; there is no Federal marriage license.

HOWEVER, States must comply with Federal Constitutional limitations on the way they may do things, so if they attempt to limit who may marry, the Constitution may examine those limitations. In this particular respect, courts will scrutinize the limitations the States impose using a heightened level of scrutiny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny, that is, the law or policy being challenged is OK ONLY if it furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.[1] [2]

[phleshdef]

14. Its really a Supreme Court issue. Thats how interracial marriage bans were ended and that how...

...gay marriage bans are going to end. The best thing the Obama administration can do is continue pursuing and end to DOMA an continue not defending it in court.

[Loudly]

19. And get a liberal majority on SCOTUS confirmed.

[NYC Liberal]

11. Oh we all knew this crap was coming. There are people who will attack Obama

no matter what. I do not take these people seriously. At all. I simply laugh at them.

[Luminous Animal]

18. Especially those ungrateful gays. (SARCASM ALERT)

Do you know that MLK who made a point of not endorsing a Presidential candidate came close to endorsing Nixon due to the Democrats foot dragging on equal rights?

[NYC Liberal]

23. And your point is, what, exactly?

Nixon was a fucking monster. A racist, anti-Semetic, misogynistic, authoritarian, criminal monster.

[EOTE]

25. Nixon would have been considered a liberal in today's day and age.

Nixon gave us the EPA. Nixon opened up talks with China. Gave us the first Earth Day. Spent more money on social programs than on defense. A lot of today's so-called democrats could learn quite a bit from Nixon's presidency.

[ProSense]

26. Bullshit!

"Nixon gave us the EPA. Nixon opened up talks with China. Gave us the first Earth Day. Spent more money on social programs than on defense. A lot of today's so-called democrats could learn quite a bit from Nixon's presidency. "

Nixon gave us those things because he had a Democratic Congress responding to massive protests.

I agree with NYC Liberal: "Nixon was a fucking monster. A racist, anti-Semetic, misogynistic, authoritarian, criminal monster."

[EOTE]

27. Protests to open up talks with China? Protests to create the EPA?

Give me a fucking break. Nixon was pressured to end Vietnam from the left, not to create the EPA or open up talks with China. Nixon did a lot of things which would be considered very progressive in this day and age, it just shows you how incredibly skewed the political spectrum is nowadays. As convincing as your "Bullshit!" argument is, those are the facts.

[ProSense]

29. No

Give me a fucking break. Nixon was pressured to end Vietnam from the left, not to create the EPA or open up talks with China. Nixon did a lot of things which would be considered very progressive in this day and age, it just shows you how incredibly skewed the political spectrum is nowadays. As convincing as your "Bullshit!" argument is, those are the facts.

...give me a fucking break!

Yes, Richard Nixon (1969-1974) also appears on our list of the 10 greenest U.S. presidents. As we noted, many of the nation's landmark environmental laws were signed by the Republican, largely due to intense public pressure.

However, Nixon also unleashed the biggest bombing campaign the world had ever known on Southeast Asia, and approved use of agent orange and napalm, which were ecological nightmares, as well as weapons of war.

At home, Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, put the country on track for a corn-syrup based diet that has led to record levels of obesity, as well as millions of acres of destructive industrial agriculture. As the documentary King Corn pointed out, Butz's mantra to farmers was "get big or get out." He urged farmers to plant commodity crops like corn "from fencerow to fencerow," encouraging the rise of big agribusiness over small family farms.

Butz was eventually ousted for telling offensive racist jokes, and later in life he pled guilty to tax evasion.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/presidents-worst-environmental-records-460808#ixzz1uTciX7wA

Nixon Tapes: Abortion Necessary "When You Have A Black And A White"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/nixon-tapes-abortion-nece_n_219746.html

There's your fucking "liberal."

[EOTE]

30. Yes, without a doubt a liberal when it comes to actual actions.

You use a portion of a single sentence to note this "intense public pressure", but don't list anything which is remotely objective. Nixon could have completely disregarded the EPA and talks with China and it wouldn't have affected his chances at reelection one bit. And if you're really going to use Nixon's actions in SE Asia to talk about his lack of liberal credentials, I think you've got a rude awakening coming to you. You are aware that Obama has escalated our military presence in Afghanistan, right? You do know that more drone attacks have been done under his administration than in any prior, right? Are Obama's drone attacks and military escalations so much better than Nixon's bombing simply because he's a democrat? Do the people mutilated and killed in Obama's wars go somewhere different and better than the mutilated and killed in Nixon's wars? You haven't thought this through much at all.

[ProSense]

34. Yeah,

"Nixon could have completely disregarded the EPA"

...and Mitt Romney could have vetoed health care in MA.

You're here advocating that a racist monster who bombed the shit out of another country and resigned in disgrace is a "liberal."

If you can't see how disturbing and pathetic that is, then enjoy the denial.

[EOTE]

41. Romney was governor of one of the most liberal if not the most liberal state in the country.

Nixon was elected to represent the entire country and after LBJ, he had a good amount of public support initially.

And somehow, I'm guessing you don't think that Obama is a monster who bombed the shit out of another country. Even though he's currently bombing the shit out of another country. Funny how that works.

[ProSense]

43. And

"Romney was governor of one of the most liberal if not the most liberal state in the country."

...Nixon had a 57 Democratic Senate majority. I suppose you're going to argue that he was more "liberal" than they were?

Do you think any of them supported aborting biracial babies?

And somehow, I'm guessing you don't think that Obama is a monster who bombed the shit out of another country. Even though he's currently bombing the shit out of another country. Funny how that works.

That was Bush, but it's likely you also think he was a "liberal."

[EOTE]

47. Obama has ESCALATED the Afghan war.

Bush didn't do that, Obama did.

Also, Nixon had ONE more Democrat than Obama did, yet Obama caved on things such as the stimulus, health care reform and MMJ. So you're telling me that we'd be better off having a republican president with 57 Democrats rather than a Democratic president with 56 Democrats in the senate? You're hilarious.

[ProSense]

48. A little bit

"Obama has ESCALATED the Afghan war."

...of history:

Obama: No Permanent Bases In Afghanistan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002633818

The End of the Iraq War: A Timeline


http://www.whitehouse.gov/iraq

This President will have ended two wars: The illegal one started by Bush, and the other one ignored by Bush.

Thank you President Obama.

"Also, Nixon had ONE more Democrat than Obama did..."

Holy shit, are you serioulsy making that argument?

[EOTE]

49. So wait, you're denying that Obama has escalated the Afghan war?

He even SAID that he'd do that during the campaign, are you calling him a liar? Really? You're calling Obama a liar? I never thought I'd see the day. Wow. So since you seem to be so challenged with facts, here are a few links you might want to educate yourself with:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/predictably-obama-chooses_b_375675.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/afgh-j28.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112401010.html

Even the most die hard of Obama's fan boys know that Obama escalated the Afghan war, yet somehow you missed out on all this. I have to ask once again, REALLY?

And as for this:
"Also, Nixon had ONE more Democrat than Obama did..."

Holy shit, are you serioulsy making that argument?


Ummmm, I'm not making an argument, I'm simply providing facts. Are you going to dispute any of these facts (and I know you and facts don't get along at all), or are you just going to act all incredulous as you always do? Really, it seems like facts are your wooden stakes or something.

On edit: Oh, and by the way, BOTH of the wars are illegal. You are aware that Afghanistan offered up Bin Laden if he would face trial in the world court, right? Nah, I'd be shocked if you were. Obama kinda ended one so that he could divert troops to the other. Both of the wars are completely, utterly illegal.

[ProSense]

50. Where

"So wait, you're denying that Obama has escalated the Afghan war?"

...did I deny that?

Are you denying that Nixon was a racist monster who bombed the shit out of a country and resigned in disgrace?

Nixon fans are a trip.

[EOTE]

55. So you're NOT denying it?

Nope, I'm not denying that Nixon was a monster, I'm just trying to get you to admit that Obama is certainly no better in that regard. I can't believe that you think Obama is a monster. I never thought I'd see the day.

[EOTE]

56. Wow, so you're saying that Obama is just as bad as Nixon in that regard?

You're admitting that they've both bombed the shit out of countries, killing thousands of innocents in the process. That's progress, I'm proud of you.

[SidDithers]

51. And you do think that Obama is "a monster who bombed the shit out of another country"?...nt

Sid

[EOTE]

53. He certainly bombed the shit out of another country, killing many innocent civilians in the process.

You tell me, does killing thousands of innocent civilians make one a monster? I will say this, it doesn't make Obama any better than Nixon, that's for sure.

[SidDithers]

57. You used the word "monster"...

I'm just trying to get clarification.

Sid

[ProSense]

59. Clearly

"You tell me, does killing thousands of innocent civilians make one a monster? I will say this, it doesn't make Obama any better than Nixon, that's for sure."

...you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Are you seriously trying to compare less than 2,000 civilian casualties by NATO since 2009 to the hundreds of thousands killed under Nixon?

War is hell, but your frame is utterly absurd. Your defense of Nixon is disgusting.

[EOTE]

62. Nixon certainly did NOT kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. Not even close.

And do only civilians matter now? 100K plus have died in Iraq alone and 60K+ of those were civilians. There have been more than 5,000 civilian deaths in just Afghanistan since Obama took over. The numbers are nowhere near as varied as you claim.

So let me get this straight, Obama killing thousands of civilians makes him a saint while Nixon's killing of thousands of civilians makes him a monster. You're nothing if not consistent.

On edit: I goofed and listed the American casualties, not total. Regardless, Nixon was simply continuing and expanding existing policies just as Obama has done. They're extremely similar in that regard.

[ProSense]

65. Again

"The total death count in the entirety of Vietnam was around 50k and most of those years Nixon wasn't president."

...you have no idea what you're talking about. More than 50,000 U.S. troops were killed. The civilian casualties were in between 2 million and 4 million.

[EOTE]

68. There's a wide range to the estimates and bear in mind that Nixon was president for only a fraction

of the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#Civilian_Deaths

With a low figure of 50K, your claim of Nixon alone being responsible for hundreds of thousands is far from accurate. Also keep in mind that this was during a Civil War, many of those deaths were caused by the North and South Vietnamese.

[ProSense]

71. There is

"There's a wide range to the estimates and bear in mind that Nixon was president for only a fraction of the war."

...a range for Iraq too, and it goes up to one million. Still, are you comparing the civilian casualty in Afghanistan since 2009 to Vietnam:

The Vietnamese government in 1995 estimated that 4,000,000 Vietnamese civilians on both sides died in the war.[4] Overall figures for North Vietnamese civilian dead range from 50,000[1] to 2,000,000.[27]

Ludicrous!

[EOTE]

73. Sure, it's a very valid comparison.

Both Nixon and Obama escalated unjust wars and thousands died because of it. But apparently not enough have died in Obama's unjust wars for you to be upset about it.

[The Magistrate]

70. Are You Seriously Claiming Only 50.000 People Were Killed In Viet Nam, Sir?

You are aware that is only the total of U.S. military casualties?

There were at least a million civilian casualties in South Viet Nam, with the bulk inflicted by U.S. forces, many being blended into body counts as Viet Cong.

North Vietnamese civilian casualties are a vexed question, with claims ranging to widely for shoprt summation.

Cambodian civilian casualties prior to the victory of the Khmer Rouge, the great bulk attributable to Nixon specifically, ranged to between a quarter and a third of a million.

Please do yourself a favor and get your history straight before trying something like this; it will save you getting cartons' worths of egg on your face....

[EOTE]

72. I edited my post.

But it's very disingenuous to suggest that Nixon was so much worse than Obama in terms of death count when they both continued and escalated wars unnecessarily. Also, the estimates for civilian deaths in Iraq especially and Afghanistan as well vary considerably as well. There are some reports which suggest that over a million have died in Iraq from the conflict. The most deadly years in Afghanistan in terms of civilian casualties have also been under Obama.

Are the tens of thousands of civilians or perhaps even hundreds of thousands killed under the current administration not horrific enough? Is Obama to get a pass on this? I simply don't understand the wisdom of decrying Nixon for his atrocities while completely ignoring Obama's.

[The Magistrate]

77. No, Sir: It is An Accurate Claim, And You Would Do Well To Accept The Fact

First, since President Obama openly opposed the Iraq war, and brought the U.S. out of it at the earliest practicable schedule once he had power over policy, any attempt to claim he is responsible for atrocities in its course is nonesense, though that you should even make the attempt to do so is instructive, and suggests the level and worth of your argument and political aims are third rate at best.

You cannot get to tens of thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands, of civilian deaths owing to the military actions of the present administration. United Nations figures for years after 2008 rise to slightly over ten thousand civilian deaths in Afghanistan, but attribute less than a quarter of these to U.S. led forces. Indeed, their figures show the proportion of the total civilian casualties which were inflicted by U.S. led forces has been dropping over the past four years.

Do yourself a favor, and drop the false equivalency line. It is drivel.

[EOTE]

78. How many of those 10,000+ civilian deaths would have occured had we not been there?

My guess is not a whole hell of a lot. If we left Afghanistan, civilians and military would stop dying pretty damned quickly. We had no business being in there in the first place, doubling down on an unjust war is bad policy and just stupid. We own every one of those deaths. Bush was damned stupid to get us involved in Afghanistan when it could have been easily avoided by allowing Bin Laden to come to justice at the World Court. But Obama was just as stupid for escalating our presence there.

[The Magistrate]

79. Not True, Sir: The Place Was In Civil War In 2001, And Local Festivities Will Resume On Our Leaving

Nor is one side 'responsible' for the actions of the other. The Taliban in Afghanistan chooses to fight by frequently attacking civilians directly; they could choose to fight in other manners. By your logic, President Roosevelt killed a few million Chinese and Indonesians, among others....

[EOTE]

80. So you think the bulk of those deaths would have still occurred had we not been there?

I don't believe that at all. Our presence in Afghanistan has made a bad situation worse. It's decreased our standing in the Middle East, in the rest of the world and won't do a damn bit of good for the great bulk of Americans. I'll be damned surprised if we're out by 2014, but every second we spend there is one second too many.

[The Magistrate]

81. You Have Made Very Clear, Sir, What Your Opinion Is Worth: As Little As The Extent Of Your Knowledge

"Surabaya, Johnny...."

[Ikonoklast]

107. Nixon expanded a secret war into Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos.

Nixon was a fucking monster, a real Fascist in the mode of Franco. The count of the dead under his direction will never really be known.

Anyone here who thinks that Nixon was even the slightest bit liberal is not playing with a full deck.

[EOTE]

58. Yes, because the poster I was responding to said that Nixon was a monster who bombed other countries

I simply asked if that same poster considers Obama to be a monster who bombs other countries considering he's doing the same thing. For some reason, a lot of people here seem to think that bombs only hurt and kill people during republican administrations.

[ProSense]

61. Well,

"Yes, because the poster I was responding to said that Nixon was a monster who bombed other countries"

...for that and his other positions, Nixon was a fucking monster.

"I simply asked if that same poster considers Obama to be a monster who bombs other countries considering he's doing the same thing."

Since you're drawing false equivalencies, why not answer the question: Do you think Obama is a "monster"?

[EOTE]

63. You've already admitted that you think Obama is a monster.

You condemned Nixon for doing the exact same thing that you've admitted that Obama does. So my only question is this, why are you so damned protective of a person you consider to be a monster?

[ProSense]

66. I did no such idiotic thing.

Evidently you're projecting, and again, your logic is flawed.

Why are you defending Nixon, a racist monster?

[EOTE]

69. Because Nixon achieved quite a bit.

And you have no idea how skewed the political spectrum has become today. If Nixon were to run for president today, he'd be crucified by today's republican party. He was a good deal to the left of Obama.

[ProSense]

74. Wow, that's

"Because Nixon achieved quite a bit."

...that's your response to this question: Why are you defending Nixon, a racist monster?

Seriously, wow!

"And you have no idea how skewed the political spectrum has become today. If Nixon were to run for president today, he'd be crucified by today's republican party. He was a good deal to the left of Obama."

You mean for wanting to abort biracial babies, his anti-semitism, his desire to bomb countries and use Napalm (Republicans have their sights set on Iran) and his general crookedness?

You obviously have a soft spot for Nixon. Not much more to say.

Kooky!

[EOTE]

76. Nixon's hangups and prejudices aside, he passed progressive legislation.

Did Nixon ever pass a law requiring that biracial babies be aborted? Did he pass any anti-Semitic legislation? In terms of actual legislation passed, he's to the left of Obama.

A president's personal prejudices don't mean anything to me if he doesn't enact legislation with them. Obama claims that he supports MMJ, yet his DoJ has gone after dispensaries like crazy. I'd much rather have a president that doesn't support MMJ, yet takes a laissez faire approach to it. But hey, I prefer actions to words. Maybe that's just me.

[ProSense]

87. What utter

"Nixon's hangups and prejudices aside, he passed progressive legislation."

...nonsense. You keep harping on the EPA and a few other legislation passed with a Democratic majority makes Nixon a liberal.

"Did Nixon ever pass a law requiring that biracial babies be aborted? Did he pass any anti-Semitic legislation? In terms of actual legislation passed, he's to the left of Obama."

Do you have any idea what he would have done with Republican majority? His cabinet included Butz, Kissinger and Schultz. He launched the careers of Cheney and Rumsfeld.

I could pull two or more progressive legislation enacted by Obama for every one you pull of Nixon, and all of them passed by Democrats.

[EOTE]

89. Yet Obama a DEMOCRAT with a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY.

Gave us only milquetoast legislation like health care reform that mandates one purchase insurance, yet does extremely little to control costs. And a Wall St. bailout that did nothing to help millions of struggling Americans, yet provided the banks with billions upon billions with almost no restrictions as to how the money was used. No republican would have been able to do that because it would have been too obvious and democrats would have screamed bloody murder. But because it happened under a democrat, it went right through. Both Obama and Nixon had Democratic majorities, so far, Obama has given us nothing nearly as sweeping as the EPA. If Nixon could give us everything he did, there's no reason that Obama shouldn't have been able to give MUCH more substantial legislation considering he had a similar Senate.

[ProSense]

91. Absurd!

"Gave us only milquetoast legislation like health care reform that mandates one purchase insurance, yet does extremely little to control costs... Both Obama and Nixon had Democratic majorities, so far, Obama has given us nothing nearly as sweeping as the EPA."

Right, because you're spewing nonsense about health care reform means Obama has done nothing "nearly as sweeping as the EPA"

Tell that to the 32 million people who it will directly affect, including the 16 million added to Medicaid.

It took 100 years, and even Nixon, your hero, couldn't get it done. The EPA was aided by massive protests and a Democratic Congress.

[EOTE]

100. Tell that to the ~7 billion people that the EPA directly affects.

And despite your stupid insults, I think Nixon was a horrendous asshole. It's just an incredibly shame that Obama is to the right of him.

[ProSense]

103. More nonsense.

"7 billion people that the EPA directly affects."

"And despite your stupid insults, I think Nixon was a horrendous asshole. It's just an incredibly shame that Obama is to the right of him."

Really, he was "a horrendous asshole" who you're adamantly defending and claiming that he's better or at least no worse than Obama?

So is Obama "a horrendous asshole" too?

Face it, you have no point except anti-Obama drivel. Otherwise, you wouldn't have spent the last few hours defending "a horrendous asshole."

[EOTE]

109. Personally, Nixon was a horrendous asshole.

Obama seems like a much nicer person than Nixon, but his presidency has definitely been to the right of Nixon's. Not defending Nixon, just pointing out what a horrendous shame that the political spectrum has been skewed so incredibly that Nixon now seems like a liberal. It's pretty fucked up.

[NYC Liberal]

82. LMAO. In no way would Richard fucking Nixon be a liberal then or now.

The guy was an authoritarian criminal, who stood against civil rights and stood against women's rights.

Nixon fired his Sec. of the Interior for cracking down on the oil companies and for criticizing him about the treatment of anti-war protesters.

Much of what he did was forced by overwhelming popular opinion and threats of veto overrides from the Democratic congress.

[EOTE]

83. Yet civil rights expanded quite a bit under his administration.

For Native Americans especially. The guy could have been satan, his administration was fairly liberal. Obama may be the greatest guy you could ever want to drink a beer with, but his administration has been center right or just plain right. Wall St. made out like a bandit in this administration, so has the health care industry. No way they could have done any better under a republican.

[NYC Liberal]

85. Absolute nonsense.

Nixon can in no way be called a liberal, or anything but right-wing. The notion is laughable on its face. Obama is not left-wing, but he is left-of-center - a liberal. And certainly quite to the left of Nixon and his administration.

The Nixon administration, a champion of civil rights. Now I have truly heard it all.

[EOTE]

86. Obama is moderate at most, center-right or right at worst.

Once again, Wall St. and the Health Care industry couldn't have done nearly as well under a republican.

And if you look at the facts of the Nixon administration, you'd know that his record on civil rights is pretty damned good. Nixon did more to better Native American relations than probably any other president. Noam Chomsky called Nixon "in many respect, the last liberal President". But I'm guessing Chomsky is a right-winger, then?

[ProSense]

88. More nonsense

"Once again, Wall St. and the Health Care industry couldn't have done nearly as well under a republican. "

Wall Street reform strengthened institutions created by FDR, like the FDIC, and created the first-ever consumer protection bureau.

When health care reform includes the biggest expansion of Medicaid since it was created and Medicare begins offering free preventive care for seniors for the first time ever, your claim about Republicans is beyond ludicrous.

None of those things were ever on the Republicans' radar, not in the 1990s and not now.

[EOTE]

90. Republicans would have LOVED to mandate insurance coverage.

There just would have been no way for them to realistically do that. They also would have loved to give many many billions to Wall St. with no strings attached, but once again, they wouldn't have been able to do that. But Obama did, that's a fact. You can try to deny that fact, but it's pretty pointless.

[ProSense]

93. Yes, please

"Republicans would have LOVED to mandate insurance coverage."

...ignore the point I made to focus on the one issue you prefer. Let me repeat:

Wall Street reform strengthened institutions created by FDR, like the FDIC, and created the first-ever consumer protection bureau.

When health care reform includes the biggest expansion of Medicaid since it was created and Medicare begins offering free preventive care for seniors for the first time ever, your claim about Republicans is beyond ludicrous.

None of those things were ever on the Republicans' radar, not in the 1990s and not now.

[EOTE]

98. And you ignore everything I've said.

Yes we got some token protections out of the deal, but Wall St. got nearly a trillion dollars. I'm kind of thinking they made out like the bandits they are on that one.

And if Republicans could have gotten mandatory coverage for 300 MILLION Americans in exchange for an expansion of Medicaid and Medicare, they would have jumped at the chance.

Those two issues are huge and in spite of the protests of republicans (because they'll scream and shout at anything Obama does), those were republican wet dreams.

[SidDithers]

92. ...

Stop. You're making my sides hurt.

Sid

[ProSense]

94. Nixon was the bomb!

Oops!

[EOTE]

99. Stop. Your oh-so-substantial counter points are too devastating.

Usually when I post something that makes others uncomfortable, yet they have no adequate response to, what I get is silly emoticons. Thanks for not bucking that trend.

[SidDithers]

106. Some arguments are so ridiculous...

The only appropriate response is laughter.

Thanks for the yuks.

Sid

[EOTE]

111. Substance noted. NT

[SidDithers]

121. Kent State...

there's your fucking 'more liberal than Obama' Richard Nixon.

What a fucking joke.

Sid

[NYC Liberal]

126. Nixon fired his Sec. of the Interior for criticizing him after Kent State

over the way protesters were being treated.

[EOTE]

131. Wow, I didn't realize that it was Nixon who shot those students.

Thanks for informing me on that matter.

[Yavin4]

101. And The Massive Daily Protests Against Nixon

Was just Liberals showing their love??

[NYC Liberal]

108. Keep telling yourself that. Obama has a record that has proven

time and again that he is a left-of-center president. If Richard Nixon had had his way, though, Obama would not be here — since Nixon supported aborting biracial babies.

But go on and continue defending Nixon and telling us how much better a Republican would be (since "Wall St. and the Health Care industry couldn't have done nearly as well under a republican&quot .

[EOTE]

110. Do you really think Nixon's personal hangups affected his presidency?

Nixon got his way, believe it or not, he was never able to mandate aborting biracial babies. That's pretty damned stupid to even bring up. Did he suggest congress create such legislation? None of that has anything to do with his presidency which was to the left of Obama, as well as pretty much every presidency since his with the exception of Carter's.

[NYC Liberal]

112. Thank you for proving my point.

Do you really think Nixon's personal hangups affected his presidency?

Nixon got his way, believe it or not, he was never able to mandate aborting biracial babies. That's pretty damned stupid to even bring up. Did he suggest congress create such legislation? None of that has anything to do with his presidency which was to the left of Obama, as well as pretty much every presidency since his with the exception of Carter's.

Much of what Nixon did was only because he was forced to by the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and threats of veto overrides. Richard Nixon was no liberal. And if he had had his way things way much of it would not have happened. You can thank the Democrats for preventing Nixon from that.

Racism, anti-semitism, and misogyny, by the way, are not mere "personal hangups". They are fundamental character flaws. And yes, Nixon's character absolutely affected how he acted and thus governed.

Let me ask you this: Would you rather have Richard Nixon or Barack Obama as president?

[EOTE]

113. Obama had a fairly strong Democratic majority and he did very little with it.

Nixon had about the same Democratic majority yet he passed quite a bit of progressive legislation. If Nixon could get the EPA with 57 Democrats, why the hell couldn't we have had actual progressive legislation when Obama had 56? There's just no good reason for it.

As for which I'd rather have as president, it's really hard for me to say. The political spectrum has become so incredibly skewed these past 40+ years, it's hard to say whether Nixon would be a better president if he served today. But the fact that it's hard for me to decide reflects very poorly on Obama.

[ProSense]

114. Please,

"Obama had a fairly strong Democratic majority and he did very little with it."

...cut the crap. There is a reason the 111th Congress is considered one of the most productive ever!

CQ: Obama's Winning Streak On Hill Unprecedented



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436116

[EOTE]

115. Considered by whom?

Health Insurance execs? You bet your ass. Wall St? They couldn't be happier. Everyone else? Not so much. Health insurance and health care are still unaffordable, it's not looking like that's going to change so much, even in 2014.

And that graph is fairly meaningless. So the congress supports the president? What difference does it make if THAT'S the legislation that we get? Obama had massive public support and a strong democratic congress. We should have been able to get actual progressive legislation from that. Instead, we get this corporatist bullshit.

[ProSense]

116. Here,

"Considered by whom? Health Insurance execs? You bet your ass. Wall St? They couldn't be happier. Everyone else? Not so much. Health insurance and health care are still unaffordable, it's not looking like that's going to change so much, even in 2014."

...these groups:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002599800

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002521617

Nixon fans will say anything!

[EOTE]

117. And Obama fan boys will defend anything.

It doesn't matter how incredibly low the bar is set or how many egregious actions which would have had them howling had GWB in office, so long as it's from their boy, they'll happily play the cheerleader. But hey, when the political spectrum becomes so fucked up that GWB is then considered a Liberal, you'll still be happy when there's a Democrat in office who's to the right of him. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

[ProSense]

118. Well

I'd rather defend Obama than Richard "abort biracial babies" Nixon.



http://www.seiu.org/2012/05/obama-backs-marriage-equality.php

[ProSense]

125. Ah

"Apparently you think asking more of Obama is defending Nixon."

...lame justification for defending "a horrendous asshole."

"I think it's pretty sick that Obama's presidency is to the right of Nixon's. "

I thinks it's beyond "sick" to spin nonsense to defend a racist monster like Nixon.

Your position is bullshit, not supported by fact and it's frankly disturbing that you can't see that.

[EOTE]

127. I've provided the facts a number of times, you respond with non-sequitors.

Obama provided a MASSIVE bailout to Wall St. with pretty much no strings attached while homeowners didn't receive even 1% of what Wall St. did. Homeowners are still struggling, but Wall St. is doing pretty damned good with all that NSA money given to them.

Obama has given the health insurance industry a HUGE gift as well, he's mandated coverage for everyone while doing almost nothing to control costs, not even a watered down public option so that health insurers might actually have to provide something relatively approaching value. So everyone is now forced to purchase health insurance, but the ones who most need it now, typically can't even afford to use it.

These are actions of a corporatist. If you're so blind as to not see it, don't blame me. Just keep up with your cheerleading.

[ProSense]

129. More nonsense

"Obama provided a MASSIVE bailout to Wall St."

That was Bush. In fact, Obama killed the second round of TARP.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion and was expected to cost the U.S. taxpayers as much as $300 billion.[1] The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

The money was distributed on Bush's watch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Participants

So basically, you're now using RW talking points in your "cheerleading" of the racist monster Nixon.

How does it feel?

[EOTE]

130. Obama had his very own bailout.

One that certainly cannot be attributed to bush and signed in 2010. He didn't get as much as he wanted as he was pushing to get even more than congress requested, but he still got Wall St. many, many billions of dollars while doing extremely little to prevent future bailouts. Not a RW talking point, you are aware that there were two bailouts, aren't you?

[ProSense]

120. Wow

"But hey, when the political spectrum becomes so fucked up that GWB is then considered a Liberal, you'll still be happy when there's a Democrat in office who's to the right of him. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? "

...now you're claiming "GWB is then considered a Liberal"?

I don't think it's only the "political spectrum" that's "fucked up."

[NYC Liberal]

123. Yes, a big "wtf". Who the hell considers GWB a liberal?!

[EOTE]

134. That's not what I said, you clearly have comprehension problems.

You're more than welcome to point out where I said that.

[EOTE]

133. I'm saying that's what's going to happen in the future.

Nobody at in the 60s and the 70s would have considered Nixon a liberal, that's for sure. But now, with the spectrum as fucked up as it is, by an objective standard, he was.

No one in their right mind would consider GWB a liberal now. But in the future, as the spectrum continues to lurch further and further to the right, at some point he'll be considered a liberal when Democrats are now to the right of him. That's where your incessant cheerleading is leading this country.

[NYC Liberal]

122. LOL! Now Obama is worse than Bush?

[EOTE]

132. Kindly point out to me where I said that?

You're not gonna have much luck with that because you pulled that right out of your ass.

[NYC Liberal]

137. My apologies, I misread what you wrote there.

[NYC Liberal]

119. "he passed", no Democrats in Congress did.

And it should tell you a lot. Yes, why wasn't some legislation passed in 2009-2011? Because of (a) an unprecedented level of obstruction by Republicans, and (b) many Democrats in Congress who are NOT progressives. If Congress doesn't pass it for either of those reasons then Obama can't sign it. So yes, there IS a reason for it. I don't like it but that's just fact.

[ProSense]

12. Wow

That is a half-assed, cowardly cop-out. There are currently at least three cases winding their way toward federal courts that address the issue of whether (among other things) the equal protection clause of the constitution guarantees gay men and women the same access to marriage rights as heterosexual men and women—the Proposition 8 case, in which David Boies and Ted Olson challenged California's ban on gay marriage, and several challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars gay men and woman from receiving federal marriage benefits and allows states to refuse to recognize valid gay marriages. Obama's Justice Department has admirably declined to defend the constitutionality of DOMA. But the position he enunciated today is in opposition to Boies and Olson: Obama is saying that if he were a judge, he would have rejected Boies and Olson's constitutional arguments and affirmed the right of Californians to enshrine bigotry in their state constitution.

...it's good to see these bitter clowns coming out of the woodwork. They seemed to be pissed off that the leader of the free world came out in support of marriage equality.

There are Libertarian candidates running around claiming to support marriage equality as a states rights issue, even some who claim it's an issue that should be left to the church. They want to have it both ways: free from Federal Government interference, but free to discriminate.

The President's statement eclipsed that ambiguity, and they hate that.

It's a bizarre thing to watch the few who are twisting in the wind to change the historic fact that for the first time ever, a sitting U.S. President (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002666708) stated his support for marriage equality.

Who is leading on this issue among the candidates: Ron Paul? Gary Johnson? Both support states rights and claim "it's up to the church."

Who is your candidate?

Ron Paul Condemns Obama's Decision to Abandon DOMA

Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement in response to Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement that the Obama Administration will cease to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) against legal challenges.

“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States. Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.

“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state. I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/

The notable exception was Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who said he would leave the definition of marriage to the states in accordance with the Constitution. He went one step further, though, suggesting the entire institution would be best left to the church.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57328247-503544/gop-debate-in-iowa-gets-weepy

Government should not impose its values upon marriage. It should allow marriage equality, including gay marriage. It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/civil-liberties

I notice the OP cites Olson. Here is his statement:

AFER’s Ted Olson Supports Obama’s Same-Sex Marriage Endorsement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002665147

This is a moment for celebration, not animosity.

"Obama's legal, policy & personal views are not in any way contradictory and present a clear path
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=667131

He did the right thing that so many challenged him to do, claimed he was too coward to do or insisted he was too politically opportunistic to do. He did it. Challenge met. Cowardly claims dashed. Opportunistic meme unraveled.

As a candidate, President Obama owns this issue with comprehensive and consistent actions.

President Obama Endorses Freedom To Marry

WASHINGTON – President Obama said this afternoon in an interview with ABC News that he believes that the freedom to marry should be extended to same sex couples.

Until now, the president has only favored civil unions, although he had said his views on same-sex marriage were “constantly evolving.” While in office, President Obama and his administration have taken critical strides toward LGBT equality by refusing to defend the discriminatory and unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act in court and pushing Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and reaffirming support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

“President Obama is doing the right thing and showing leadership by recognizing that lesbians and gays should be treated as equal citizens,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. “The freedom to marry whomever we love and want to share our life with is fundamental to who we are and what we stand for as a country. The fight for fairness and equal treatment under the law for all Americans took a critical step forward today.”

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/president-obama-endorses-freedom-marry

Transformational
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002666422

[Luminous Animal]

20. Oh us ungrateful gays who won't celebrate "states rights" discrimination.

[treestar]

37. The states have to make the laws, and then have them challenged in court

With Loving v. Virginia as precedent.

That's the system was have.

[Marr]

45. C'mon-- you got your words. Isn't that enough?

/sarcasm

[bigwillq]

13. Obama still needs to evolve more.

But I am still glad he said what he did. It still was a pretty big statement. That tends to happen in an election year!

[fujiyama]

16. Epic fail of a thread

I'd say some more nasty things, but I'll refrain.

[bluestateguy]

21. Where is the unrecommend button? I can't seem to find it.

Can someone help me with that?

[TriMera]

22. Yeah, it's called "Hide Thread". Anything else that I can help you with? n/t

[cali]

28. what crap. Anyone who can't see how important the President's statement is, isn't

looking at history or the big picture, or they've got an unsavory agenda.

[Evasporque]

31. Spin the statement however you want the fact is....

The President supports same sex marriage.....as for the rest just WTF is he going to do about it??

It is in the courts and will ultimately be settled for the entire country....and states with constitutional amendments and laws banning same sex marriage will be ruled unconstitutional by the Federal courts (that has already happened)

[Edweird]

32. Candidate Obama's 'support', plus $2, will get you a ride on the NYC subway.

[Marr]

46. Exactly. He "supports" all kinds of things-- especially in election season.

Then he either ignores them, or outright maneuvers against them later, as with single payer and even the "public option".

[white_wolf]

67. Candidate Obama also opposes lots of things like

mandates, but president Obama is all for them.

[Robb]

35. Nice try.

[treestar]

36. It was the Court that decided that states could not have those laws

It is true that Obama saying that does not really change anything. But his court appointments could affect the ultimate Court outcome.

Rmoney's court appointments could, too.

[SidDithers]

38. ...

Sid

[uponit7771]

40. ***********FUDr ALERT***********

[NoPasaran]

42. Well, that was a short honeymoon

[RZM]

44. LOL n/t

[WilliamPitt]

52. Unreal

If Obama walked on water yesterday, people like you would say it's because he can't swim.

[FSogol]

54. Unrec. Give the BS a rest. n/t

[MineralMan]

64. President Obama Publicly Declared His Support for Marriage Equality.

What other President has done that?

We do not yet have national marriage equality. President Obama has increased the chances that we will by his declaration of support for it. Where is the negative in that? He has no wand he can wave to make it happen. He can state his support for it.

What can we do? Well, we can elect a Congress that will send him the bills that will make it happen. We can elect state legislatures that will implement it. We can elect future Presidents and Congresses and state legislatures who will support marriage equality as well.

No other President of The United States has ever declared support for marriage equality. President Obama is the first to do so. That is a positive step.

Thank you, Mr. President, for your statement.

[ProSense]

75. It's upsetting

to the President's detractors, but the announcement and its implications are historic.

A bipartisan call for Congressional action on gay rights
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002669555

Message to fans of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and other Libertarians
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002668277

Celebrate, don't hate!

[Edweird]

97. I'm not 'upset' I just see it as election season pandering. I feel bad for those that

will be let down when the reality of the situation becomes clear to them.

[NorthCarolina]

84. OK, that's not so great BUT

the discussion is FINALLY out in the open, and the media is in a frenzy about it. If you watched Martin Bashir today, it is very clear where this will be heading. It was a simple matter for him to put the bigots on the defensive and appear simply....intolerant.

[TLM]

95. NEWSFLASH!!!! Marriage is a state level contract.....

And no matter how much you hate obama… he didn’t make marriage a state level contract, and he can’t unmake marriage a state level contract.

And guess what, state level contracts, are governed by…. Wait for it…. That’s right, THE STATES!


This will be resolved as an equal protection and a 10th and 14th amendment and an article 4, argument about access to and recognition of, contracts from one state to another. Just as state bans on interracial marriage were...

[Yavin4]

102. Stop Trying To Bring In Facts

You're ruining a good old fashion "don't-give-Obama-any-credit" thread.

Bottom fucking line is this, NO US President has done more and shown more support for equal rights of Gays and Lesbians than this president.

[Rex]

96. Some epic fighting going on in this thread

you got a license for that?

[pinboy3niner]

128. After Obama comes for our guns...

...he's gonna come for our fighting licenses!1!! Series!1!! This is HUGH!1!!

[Rex]

135. BAWHAHAHAHA!!

It really is hard to believe grown adults would believe that kinda stuff!

Obama the great Marxist, Fascist, Muslim radical (according to the finest scholars money can buy)! Coming to take all the Christian guuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnssss awayyyy!!!

BE SKEERD BE VERY SKEERD!!

[DevonRex]

136. ANYBODY WITH A FEDERAL MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

End of discussion.