How long until all the fundy blogs are aflame over Obama?

[dawn9476]

Disliking Obama for his policies is not an agenda. I voted for him because he called Bush's CRAZY spending unpatriotic and vowed to cut spending. The deficit is now three times what it should be and the man just bypassed Congress again, giving 192 million dollars to the PA.

The deficits looks so high because unlike Bush, President Obama put the spending for the wars on the books.

[dawn9476]

Obama's views on gay marriage are now exactly the same as Dick Cheney's. Tell that one to the fundies and see how they like it.

And the fundies would take Dick Cheney as their President over Obama in a NY minute.

[Fluffy-Boo]

Why should he? By doing so he would have just been pandering to the pillocks who would find any excuse. Even when he did there were accusations of forgery.

Because he ran on the platform of TRANSPARENCY. Just like with Mitt Romney's tax returns. If the people ask, and their tax dollars will be funding your job, then you DO IT providing this information is not dangerously personal.

Bullshit. Do you live in a bubble by any chance?

If by bubble you mean thriving urban metropolis, then yes.

Take a look at the spread of those votes. He won fewer votes among Caucasians in the Bible Belt.

And that of COURSE must be because he's half African American. NOT because the major voting point of conservative evangelicals is the PRO-LIFE movement and Obama supported a cause they feel very strongly against. His support for partial birth abortion was a coffin lid.

Now, since I don't live in a bubble, but because I do live smack in the middle of an extremely liberal city with a strong fundie presence, I can tell you that the majority of these voters are not driven by fiscal issues, but social. They don't understand the nuances immigration can have on society, or the differences between centralized power vs the private sector, they vote on social issues. Pro-choice, Pro-life, Pro-gay marriage, anti-gay marriage...saving fuzzy animals vs. strip malls...

Even if Obama was a wealth white landowner and strong fiscal conservative , his past support for partial birth abortion would knock out ANY love from the evangelicals.

As for the money to the Palestinian authority, this is a different issue entirely. First off I would ask you if you have any idea on what life is like in the West Bank and Gaza? If you don't, then I would advise you to learn. Israel has stopped handing over taxes which they collect for the PA (disclaimer: that was the last I heard, they might have backed down over that by now). Without those taxes the PA cannot pay it's teachers, it's doctors, it's road sweepers etc. Without aid to the PA, poverty will increase, resentment will increase and anger will fester.

Ya, I do. And do you have any idea what is going on right now, south of the border in Mexico? Where there is an INCREDIBLE amount of resentment and anger and excruciating poverty, and their world is overrun by cartels and children die daily without the smallest amount of food? Their need is EXTRAORDINARY as well. And they need US Aid, not guns being sold by the United States that are now killing both Mexican and US CITIZENS.

So what part of this gives our President the right to BYPASS CONGRESS and distribute funds when we now have legitimate reparations to make after Fast and Furious?

The US gives out foreign Aid to MANY countries, all of which have legitimate needs. And yes, wherever poverty exists there will be violence. But with half the country out of work and programs like Social Security without any backing for the future, YOU MAKE CUTS in areas such as the GSA and you spend money wisely and not on Solyndra projects.

Remember this: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-compa ... 6vk3VJ8vhU

One of my relatives set up the Fisker communications system in their NJ office, back when they were planning to build in the US. What happened to Fisker and the 500 million of taxpayer money that funded jobs in different countries, but now flopped so badly, they won't be building in their swank NJ location?

THIS IS WHERE YOU CUT. This is where sound and pragmatic energy policy is essential.

And yes, I'm very upset at Obama for his "algae" comment. It was a slap in the face to the entire nation.

You said "pro-LBGT legislation". That's what I was responding to, as repealing "don't-ask-don't-tell" was pro-LGBT legislation.

Yes, it is. But I meant "from this day forward". It is true that Obama has done more for the LGBT cause than any other president. However, when he stated that he would not infringe on the States' rights to decide on this issue, it's pretty much like saying "I feel for you, but I'm not going to go out on the line."

Equal right under the law is not a State issue. It's a Federal issue. As of 2010, the rate of STD's in the gay community is still rising. For their own sake, and the sake of public health, monogamy needs to be encouraged as a vision they can aspire to. Even taxpayers on the right don't enjoy funding STD treatments for the homosexual community, only they forget they are doing it in many cases. And people need to be reminded that these diseases do not stay in the gay community but often trickle out into the public.

Nope, gays can't marry, but this is what you get: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/1 ... 05916.html

Safe sex education is failing in the LGBT community. Social engineering may be more effective, but it's now a guarantee that Obama will do nothing.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Even if Obama was a wealth white landowner and strong fiscal conservative , his past support for partial birth abortion would knock out ANY love from the evangelicals.

But the language they would use to demonize him would be different. And that's not a trivial thing.

You seem oblivious to the entire concept of Othering.

To put it a different way, the people who reflexively hated G. W. Bush and everything the man so much as breathed on called him evil and they called him a cheater, they said that he usurped the election and that's why he was not fit to serve, or illegally serving - because of something he DID.

With Obama, it's all about his heritage (VERY much his blood heritage too) and about how he isn't a real American. It's all about having to "take the country back" from the foreigner. It's all about how Obama is illegally serving because of what he IS. That's why there's all the talk about his father all the time, about his birthplace, and why there's the endless stream of commentary about how he's going to be the president for black people only - because only they are "his people." Is it everyone saying that? Of course not. But it's a poisonous stream that has infected the general discussion of the issues - in a sane system, they would not deserve the light of day, but they get it.

If complaints about Romney's being a Mormon pop up (and I'd argue they already have in the primaries, it's a large part of why it was "Romney vs. anyone else") they will be somewhat in the middle, because people in the US seem to consider religion to be a "what you ARE" question (which I do not agree with, but I'll leave it at that). Kennedy got the same treatment.

[Fluffy-Boo]

My thoughts exactly. And now the rantings about birth certificates, deficits, and the Constitution - it is all so predictable.

So, now I'm a man too???

Let me get this straight, if an individual comes on this site and does not agree with what you believe, the following must be true:

• He's a man.
  He's a VF intern.
  His children must be of Nordic descent.
  He must listen to Rush and secretly craft explosives in his basement.

In which case, you would be wrong on every point.

And by the way, I would have to be a seriously metrosexual male, because my toes are adorned with Lippman's "Whatever Lola Wants", a perfect sheer and shimmering lilac manufactured without the use of several mainstream toxins, a color that would probably help lengthen the appearance of your stubby and boyish fingernails.

I worked in fashion journalism right out of college. Go ahead, challenge my femininity, I'll rip you a new one.

[fluttershies]

But the language they would use to demonize him would be different. And that's not a trivial thing.

You seem oblivious to the entire concept of Othering.

To put it a different way, the people who reflexively hated G. W. Bush and everything the man so much as breathed on called him evil and they called him a cheater, they said that he usurped the election and that's why he was not fit to serve, or illegally serving - because of something he DID.

With Obama, it's all about his heritage (VERY much his blood heritage too) and about how he isn't a real American. It's all about having to "take the country back" from the foreigner. It's all about how Obama is illegally serving because of what he IS. That's why there's all the talk about his father all the time, about his birthplace, and why there's the endless stream of commentary about how he's going to be the president for black people only - because only they are "his people." Is it everyone saying that? Of course not. But it's a poisonous stream that has infected the general discussion of the issues - in a sane system, they would not deserve the light of day, but they get it.

If complaints about Romney's being a Mormon pop up (and I'd argue they already have in the primaries, it's a large part of why it was "Romney vs. anyone else") they will be somewhat in the middle, because people in the US seem to consider religion to be a "what you ARE" question (which I do not agree with, but I'll leave it at that). Kennedy got the same treatment.

All of this. I also think that Santorum also had the same treatment and why he would never have won the nomination.

[Fluffy-Boo]

But the language they would use to demonize him would be different. And that's not a trivial thing.

I'm not unaware of the racial bias against blacks.

I've seen it when it came to Herman Cain. Funny how ALL allegations died down after he stepped out of the election. And several of the women who made claims against him had some very interesting records.

Democrats don't care when Bill Clinton brings his sex life into the White House. And he had some serious scandals behind him. Conservatives care way too much about lifestyle practices more than they do their own fiscal policies.

To deny that there wasn't racism and bigotry against Herman Cain when he ran in the primary would mean that some people weren't watching MSNBC where his race was CONSTANTLY brought to the forefront.

I already said within one of my first posts that there are individuals who are racist towards Obama. However, that is not the reason why he's not gleaming in the polls in 2012. If Obama loses this upcoming election, it will not be because of birthers. And the fact that Herman Cain dropped out of the GOP running, is not just because he can't find Libya on a map.

[Witsec7]

I've been biting my tongue reading this thread. But I happened to have a What the Fuck moment when I read this.

'm not unaware of the racial bias against blacks.

[hoipolloi]

Good to see the Foe list still works like a charm! :dance:

[Sprocket]

I'm not unaware of the racial bias against blacks.

I've seen it when it came to Herman Cain. Funny how ALL allegations died down after he stepped out of the election. And several of the women who made claims against him had some very interesting records.

Democrats don't care when Bill Clinton brings his sex life into the White House. And he had some serious scandals behind him. Conservatives care way too much about lifestyle practices more than they do their own fiscal policies.

To deny that there wasn't racism and bigotry against Herman Cain when he ran in the primary would mean that some people weren't watching MSNBC where his race was CONSTANTLY brought to the forefront.

I already said within one of my first posts that there are individuals who are racist towards Obama. However, that is not the reason why he's not gleaming in the polls in 2012. If Obama loses this upcoming election, it will not be because of birthers. And the fact that Herman Cain dropped out of the GOP running, is not just because he can't find Libya on a map.

You are incorrect. The allegations DIDN'T die down after Herman Cain dropped out of the race. I live in metro Atlanta and local news stories featuring at least one female associated with the scandal was featured for quite a while after Cain dropped his bid. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense for the national news to keep after the story after Cain dropped out.... he's not a candidate anymore, he's just a private citizen.... It's not news anymore.

[Fluffy-Boo]

You are incorrect. The allegations DIDN'T die down after Herman Cain dropped out of the race. I live in metro Atlanta and local news stories featuring at least one female associated with the scandal was featured for quite a while after Cain dropped his bid. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense for the national news to keep after the story after Cain dropped out.... he's not a candidate anymore, he's just a private citizen.... It's not news anymore.

But he's not just a private citizen anymore. He's still a public figure. And always will be after running for office. For reasons such as this, people are still following the John Edwards case which has some serious allegations behind it.

I can understand local news stations covering local news. But the vast majority of media sources dropped the Cain ordeal after he surrendered.

[BlackHawk]

Yes, it is. But I meant "from this day forward". It is true that Obama has done more for the LGBT cause than any other president. However, when he stated that he would not infringe on the States' rights to decide on this issue, it's pretty much like saying "I feel for you, but I'm not going to go out on the line."

Equal right under the law is not a State issue. It's a Federal issue. As of 2010, the rate of STD's in the gay community is still rising. For their own sake, and the sake of public health, monogamy needs to be encouraged as a vision they can aspire to. Even taxpayers on the right don't enjoy funding STD treatments for the homosexual community, only they forget they are doing it in many cases. And people need to be reminded that these diseases do not stay in the gay community but often trickle out into the public.

Nope, gays can't marry, but this is what you get: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/1 ... 05916.html

Safe sex education is failing in the LGBT community. Social engineering may be more effective, but it's now a guarantee that Obama will do nothing.

Okay uhm what? You link a news article about child porn in your rant on GLBT issues... uhm no, you don't get child porn from being gay. There is so much more I can say about your little rant (and you totally ignoring my other post, where I POINT OUT something you asked for) but alas, I need to get working on my field placements for school.

Either way, child porn does not come from glbt individuals... this story was that of a professor, male, who was looking at kiddie porn of females... last I checked male looking at female (kiddie) porn made him straight, and thus not a part of the GLBT equation.

[Witsec1]

Blah blah transparency blah, why didn't he release his birth certificate right away blah blah. But of course he did release the exact same document that every other person born in Hawaii uses to establish citizenship on his campaign website when the issue was first raised. And factcheck.org looked at the hard copy of the official document and verified that it was real and that is was the official birth document that is used by the state of Hawaii. The Republican governor of HI verified that it was real. This was all in 2008. Being transparent didn't make anything go away. it was only when he got the state of HI to release the original documents that no other citizen would have had to produce that it died down among all but the die-hards.

Please explain how his years in Indonesia indoctrinated him in anti-Americanism? Or do you maybe mean Columbia and Harvard Law aren't in the American part of America? Because we know that all Americans are American but some are more American than others. And when someone like Palin says "the American parts of America" we know what she means. The lighter parts.

[Sprocket]

But he's not just a private citizen anymore. He's still a public figure. And always will be after running for office. For reasons such as this, people are still following the John Edwards case which has some serious allegations behind it.

I can understand local news stations covering local news. But the vast majority of media sources dropped the Cain ordeal after he surrendered.

That's because he is on trial for committing an alleged C-R-I-M-E. Edwards held a public office which in and of itself makes him a public figure. Cain has never (and probably will never be) elected to a public office by any populace and the only thing he can be accused of is having poor judgment and bad taste. Again, now that Cain is not a candidate, he's not news -- on the national level (unless you count Steven Colbert's Rock Me Like A Herman Cain, which I do!). The best that Herman Cain can hope for is a guest spot on Fox News occasionally and when he goes to meet his maker, Brian Williams will give him a nod at the end of NBC Nightly News as 'former Republican Presidential Candidate'.

Edited in an effort to be more clear.

[keen23]

But he's not just a private citizen anymore. He's still a public figure. And always will be after running for office. For reasons such as this, people are still following the John Edwards case which has some serious allegations behind it.

I can understand local news stations covering local news. But the vast majority of media sources dropped the Cain ordeal after he surrendered.

John Edwards and Herman Cain both slept around. Herman Cain just was smart enough to pay off his piece on the side out of his own pocket and not with campaign funds.

[BravaAmica]

I read a study/poll that said that the gap between non-whites and whites was very marginal when it comes to support of gay marriage. I'll see if I can find it. I am only one black person, but to offer a little insight, the southern black baptist mindset is prevalent and spans generations. Christianity can be considered a poor man's religion to some and so slaves would hang onto it with both hands, and it got passed down. Not to say that all blacks are like this, because I don't know all of them, but most that I know take church just as seriously as evangelical whites. Just watch any late night church show (like Gino Jennings) and you can see the nonsense first hand.

Thank you for your answer.

I didn't think what I was hearing sounded accurate [i probably heard/read it on CNN or MSNBC or NPR or the Daily Show, I don't remember where I heard it.]

[GolightlyGrrl]

Well, to get back on topic, the Stinking Lousewife has weighed in:

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/201 ... mosexuals/

[gardenvarietycitizen]

To deny that there wasn't racism and bigotry against Herman Cain when he ran in the primary would mean that some people weren't watching MSNBC where his race was CONSTANTLY brought to the forefront.

I already said within one of my first posts that there are individuals who are racist towards Obama. However, that is not the reason why he's not gleaming in the polls in 2012. If Obama loses this upcoming election, it will not be because of birthers. And the fact that Herman Cain dropped out of the GOP running, is not just because he can't find Libya on a map.

The only person talking about Herman Cain in this thread so far is you. You started the whole race thing by complaining that people on the board were being racist toward white people by intimating that there are fundies (who are followed on this board) who have a problem with Obama's race. Now that you agree with that, I think we're good to go.

You're right though, I don't watch MSNBC. I don't have cable, and mostly don't watch American TV at all. Most of the commentary about Herman Cain's race that I heard was in the context of Obama though, namely (1) "Wow, another black guy is running. Obama has run into a lot of issues on that front, I wonder if it will be different when it's a GOP candidate?" (2) "The Democrats managed to be the first party to have a non-white candidate elected president, and some said that tokenism was a factor - people voting for him be part of that 'first'. But now a black guy is running for the GOP, he won't be first, but will he similarly get some 'token factor' support?" and (3) "If Herman Cain gets it, it will be two black candidates competing. Will Cain be able to pull of the segment of black voters who (supposedly - ed.) voted for Obama only because he's black?"

(Other critical commentary was about how "he's a pizza guy" and hasn't held office before, as opposed to the governors and senators also running. He isn't Donald Trump (speaking of candidates NO one took seriously) but he isn't former governor of Massachusetts, either. Plus of course the Tea Party factor, along the lines of "we can have some wackos in Congress, but for President? Seriously?")

When Hillary Clinton was in the Democratic primary against Obama, there was a lot of talk about how regardless of who won, the Democrats would be pushing a "first" candidate - first non-white, first woman. When the GOP then chose Sarah Palin for VP, there was talk about how they were trying to play "catch up" by making sure they had a "first" on their ticket too, even if only as VP. Also there was tons of talk about peeling off the segment of Clinton supporters who were supposedly voting for her only because she was a woman - is the GOP trying to play catch up with a token? Which is the same commentary that came up with Herman Cain.

(But won't someone think of the white people????)

As a serious response to the "will Obama's latest speech tank his chances" question, I think he's dropped in popularity from 2008 largely due to disappointing his supporters by playing Charlie Brown to the GOP's Lucy. This speech throws those people a bone. Whether anything real comes from it, I agree we don't know yet and people are wise to be cautious. But he at least comes off as "no longer trying to use weasel words and sit on the fence," which probably helps him with those supporters.

He's a savvy politician, of course he's run the numbers. No doubt he's calculated that the people who wouldn't support him before, EITHER because they find him an "Other" OR because "I would never vote for a Democrat because they're all the next thing to Stalin" OR because they're from the religious right and can't deal with the whole abortion thing, were NOT going to vote for him anyway.

He probably has considered that he might lose the votes of that segment of black conservative religious voters who were found in the polls to be supporting Proposition 8 in California[1]. However, he probably realizes that the worst they'll likely do is stay HOME - they're probably not going to go for Romney. (This is the same calculation every politician in the American "lesser of the evils" system makes - you can cheat your supporters to a certain extent, because you know damn well they're not going to actually vote for the "other guy" - they might stay home or vote third party, but that's about it.)

So... yeah. I suspect the fundy blogs will be all over this announcement, but I don't think it really matters. The people who are against gay marriage were already unhappy about Obama's "on the fence" stance to begin with, even apart from any other issues.

[1] As for why it was so surprising and newsworthy to find those people, I think it's largely because many people have a fuzzy idea that individuals oppressed on one axis are going to automatically be against oppression and fighting for the underdog on every other axis, which unfortunately is very much not the case.

[MLizabeth]

Re: white people and black people and gay marriage. What I'm seeing in MD is the split on gay marriage isn't along racial lines, it's about socioeconomic class, education, age, and conservative Christianity. As with whites, black people who are wealthier, more educated, younger, and attend more liberal churches tend to support gay marriage, while people who are older, less educated, and attend conservative churches tend to oppose gay marriage.

And that's not even getting into the issue of people who are Black and gay or Black and trans. I'm really interested to see how African Americans who strongly support Obama and strongly oppose gay marriage will vote in MD in November (we will have a referendum that will decide whether the gay marriage law voted in by the legislature actually becomes law).

[Fluffy-Boo]

Blah blah transparency blah, why didn't he release his birth certificate right away blah blah. But of course he did release the exact same document that every other person born in Hawaii uses to establish citizenship on his campaign website when the issue was first raised. And factcheck.org looked at the hard copy of the official document and verified that it was real and that is was the official birth document that is used by the state of Hawaii. The Republican governor of HI verified that it was real. This was all in 2008. Being transparent didn't make anything go away. it was only when he got the state of HI to release the original documents that no other citizen would have had to produce that it died down among all but the die-hards.

Please explain how his years in Indonesia indoctrinated him in anti-Americanism? Or do you maybe mean Columbia and Harvard Law aren't in the American part of America? Because we know that all Americans are American but some are more American than others. And when someone like Palin says "the American parts of America" we know what she means. The lighter parts.

Obama waited way too long to release his birth certificate. Even Dems wished it had gone faster:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/27 ... e-20110427

These were strange allegations, but when you're running for office, you release info immediately so suspicion doesn't arise.

I don't care too much about what Palin thinks, and I also suppose my reasons for believe Obama to be unAmerican differ from that of evangelicals, birthers, or conservatives, so I'll only answer this one based on my own opinions:

I don't think this man understands the constitution or has a fluid knowledge of American history. My mom is not a natural born US citizen. She knows quite a bit about European history, but little about America because she was not educated here. Her schooling involving America reflects European sentiment. How could it not? Do Obamas policies reflect historical American sentiment? For this reason, I feel that comments regarding Supreme Court decisions on Obamacare being "unprecedented" (Marbury vs. Madison???) are sad. Bypassing Congress? Also sad. Fast and Furious? WTF sad.

“What I’m not gonna do is wait for Congress. So wherever we have an opportunity and I have the executive authority to go ahead and get some things done, we’re just gonna go ahead and do ‘em,â€

This is not American. I get that we're in Congressional gridlock, but bypassing the legislative branch is not constitutional. And threatening the Supreme Court is also not constitutional. And that scares me because America is supposed to be "checks and balances" and I define American based on the Constitution...which in some desperate cases can be amended.

I DO value individual rights and liberties, although I am furiously against Big Tobacco because smoking is not an individual right as long as it creates a toxic environment that others breathe, thus violating the rights of others.

I might not have followed this election so closely if it weren't for strange constitutional violations such as the Senate recess-appointment nomination when the Senate wasn't in recess.

I know he went to Harvard Law. What I don't know is how well he studied the constitution at Harvard Law, because based on his actions and his administrative policies, I can't see how you can justify such things by law? Hilary Clinton went to Yale Law school and I'm pretty darn sure she studied there, even though she failed the D.C. bar. And I still feel she would have made for a far better president, as do many other Independent voters and Dems.

I don't find what the President is doing to be okay, and so I won't vote for him.

[Witsec7]

What an absolute pile of birther crap.

[fluttershies]

The first President was born a British subject, was he unAmerican too?

[Visionoyahweh]

100% certain fluffyboo is a man.

[Witsec7]

I know he went to Harvard Law. What I don't know is how well he studied the constitution at Harvard Law, because based on his actions and his administrative policies, I can't see how you can justify such things by law?

I'm just guessing, but I would suggest as the editor of the Harvard Law review he knows far more about constitutional law than you or I do. I would also suggest that the batteries of DOJ atnys, that advise him have a bit more expertise than us as well.

[GolightlyGrrl]

I'm just guessing, but I would suggest as the editor of the Harvard Law review he knows far more about constitutional law than you or I do. I would also suggest that the batteries of DOJ atnys, that advise him have a bit more expertise than us as well.

He was also a constitutional law professor at U of Chicago.