Jump to content

Welcome to mygnrforum.com Guns N' Roses Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Obama speaks out in favour of gay marriage


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#46
Graeme

Graeme

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,859 posts
  • 22-August 05

Romney is like an extreme version of our current prime minister in england. He wont get in because average americans aernt that stupid, well i hope they aernt...

I'm not so sure about that.

Also yeah, your Prime Minister in England sucks... shame that when you guys voted him in it meant that those North of the border got landed with him as well.

6tpc.gif


#47
Groghan

Groghan

    FRONTMAN

  • SILVER
  • 11,406 posts
  • 15-July 03

Cool for Obama to say that.

It is unbelievable to me that homosexuality is still such a huge issue that when the president says he supports gays, people lose their shit. Get over yourself already.

Not trying to argue......but what are you talking about?
Just use this forum as a fishbowl of the US. Go back in this thread and look at the difference in the two side's reaction.
The pro gay marriage people are insulting those who have a different opinion. They are making personal attacks.
The couple that don't agree with Obama are calmly and clearly stating why.
Shades isn't insulting or attacking anybody. But the other side is.

If anybody is losing their sh*t in here, it is the pro gay marriage people.

#48
Groghan

Groghan

    FRONTMAN

  • SILVER
  • 11,406 posts
  • 15-July 03
Look at the difference in shades posts compared to deja vu. When dis democratics become so ugly with their comments?

#49
Desperado

Desperado

    SUPER GOD

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,918 posts
  • 14-February 05


Cool for Obama to say that.

It is unbelievable to me that homosexuality is still such a huge issue that when the president says he supports gays, people lose their shit. Get over yourself already.

Not trying to argue......but what are you talking about?
Just use this forum as a fishbowl of the US. Go back in this thread and look at the difference in the two side's reaction.
The pro gay marriage people are insulting those who have a different opinion. They are making personal attacks.
The couple that don't agree with Obama are calmly and clearly stating why.
Shades isn't insulting or attacking anybody. But the other side is.

If anybody is losing their sh*t in here, it is the pro gay marriage people.


I can't understand your logic.
It isn't the supporters who wants to take away other humans their human rights. there is no reason to be against something that hasn't anything to do with you.
Are people in straight marriages going to feel so much better or happier just because gays can't get married? If they are it's them who have a problem not the supporters.

juhjj8.jpg
Sorry for my bad english.


#50
deja_vu

deja_vu

    Junior

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 104 posts
  • 06-May 12

Look at the difference in shades posts compared to deja vu. When dis democratics become so ugly with their comments?


And what was ugly about my opinion? Did I insult another poster here ? No, I did not.

Not sure what was so offensive about what I said.7

#51
Kill Devil Hill

Kill Devil Hill

    SUPER GOD

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,194 posts
  • 14-July 11

Look at the difference in shades posts compared to deja vu. When dis democratics become so ugly with their comments?


I actually thought shades was being more disrespectful than deja vu. . .

deja vu was reasoning out. shades was just condescending. :shrugs:

For the record, I only want Obama to win because I think he's the lesser of two evils. Obama's not even bad, just nothing special. If I had my way, Bill Clinton would be back, but that 2 term amendment fucked everything up.

In regards to Slash, I read a desperate fan's message about, what if one of us were to die and looking back I had the possibility of a reunion now, blah blah blah. And my thoughts are, "Yeah, and while you're at the show your baby accidentally kicks a candle and burns your house down, killing himself and the rest of your family."


#52
gabrielsevenn7

gabrielsevenn7

    Senior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • 06-October 06
I don't remember much rudeness that I perceive either way this time. Kind of surprising. I didn't think Deja Vu was rude and I don't recall Mr. Kushner as being rude. I think he misunderstoood me, though.
I don't think anyone on the right was really rude either.

I am not here being pro or against gay marriage. My observation was only as to how it I think it is going to affect his re-election. Which I will say again--I don't think his belief or stance will affect anything on its own. It is the nature of how and when and why he is doing it. You don't come out for something the day after one of "your" (blue state) state's rejects your belief when you are trying to win said state in an election. You keep your mouth shut. Obama's politics are going to do him in along with his policies on the economy, and people really are not happy with Obama care. I don't think voters really care what his beliefs are regarding gay marriage.

If the economy were good and this were an issue no one would care because if the economy is good people are for the most part happy (except gays and lesbians who want to get married really badly and will vote on 1 issue--or hard core supporters of gay marriage). If the economy is bad then no one cares about gay marriage because there are more important things to deal with.

If a typical voter has a choice between gay marriage or jobs they are going to pick jobs every time. Obama is not the man for jobs, I think we know that now. Romney-----remains to be seen but he at least has experience.

#53
gabrielsevenn7

gabrielsevenn7

    Senior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • 06-October 06

Romney is not even liked by his own party...look at the clowns he beat for the nomination and he still struggled. He is the greatest flipflopper of all time. The man will change his position in an eyeblink to curry votes.

Bush handed Obama a shit sandwich when he left office. An economy ready to collapse into depression and two pointless unwinnable wars to deal with.

Has he been perfect ? No but considering shitstorm he was left with he managed to stabilize the economy and things are slowly turning around.

Expecting him to turn the economy around in his first term is dreaming especially considering the Republicans fighting everything he wants to do.

Considering how the Republicans fuck the poor to favour the rich it amazes me the blue collar support them.



I am not a Republican and I am not pro Bush and I am not pro Romney and I don't put my hopes in man. I am conservative for the most part. All that simply means is that I believe the government is not the solution to problems and indeed usually creates more problems and the bigger it gets the more freedom citizens lose.

So, through those lenses I cannot understand these arguments against Bush or for Obama starting with this: Obama and the left drove Bush into the ground as much as they could. And Obama said he would fix it. His own words were that if he did not fix the economy he would be a 1 term president.

Now that its not fixed and is indeed worse in every measurable catagory (even with more lax criteria in the numbers that the Obama Admistration's Labor Department is responsible for) Obama is saying it is much worse than he thought. If he never said he would fix it in 1 term then ok. But he did. And to make it worse, he is still campaigning against Bush.

Under Bush there were 59 consecutive months of job growth and unemployment was under 5% most of his 2 terms. How could it have been that good if he were so bad? Did Clinton do it? Did Clinton spend 8 years to make it good and then it took Bush 8 years to destroy it slowly and then all of the sudden in his last 4 months in office it was by design or it just happened to be the time it would collapse? When Obama was elected unemployment was under 7% I believe and when he took office it jumped even higher and got over 10% Then they changed the way the numbers are counted and it is still over 8% but if it were counted the same way it has been counted for decades unemployment was closer to 15% and is now over 10%.

And the most baffling argument is that Republicans have stood in his way......You do realize that Obama had 2 years of Super majorities in Congress? Meaning Republicans could not win any vote in either house and could not even philibuster? What is the excuse there? He had 2 years to fix this the way he wanted and he did exactly what he wanted in those 2 years and nothing he has done has helped. In fact, Obama's best job growth period in his term has been while Republicans have had the House.

And Republicans fing the poor? Democrats have more money in Congress than Republicans. Democrats want to keep taking money from one group of people (but not their own) and giving to another rather than trying to address the reasons for poverty in the first place.

Look, if you believe in government as being the solution to problems and gay marriage that is how you want to believe and that is fine. I only ask to at least examine more closely what it is you believe in and what it is you are against. What you are saying is just cliches and word games out of the left handbook that aren't really based on any actual observation or fact checking. If you are convinced that what you already believe is true then ok.

I just don't see how someone could try to be objective and not see what is going on. Again, I am not Republican and I don't trust any government very well but the fact is that the Republican Party is much closer to be conservative than the Democratic party. I want less government--not more. If you want to say that gay marriage is less government I can see your point. But gay marriage has nothing to do with the economy.

Edited by gabrielsevenn7, 10 May 2012 - 11:42 PM.


#54
gabrielsevenn7

gabrielsevenn7

    Senior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • 06-October 06
http://www.youtube.c...&v=KVDs9mSG3AA#!

#55
lol_Dave_Kushner

lol_Dave_Kushner

    Full

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • 17-February 12
Man I wish we had todays technology in the 40s. The Nazi party would make some amazing propaganda videos...
Posted Image
I'm here to exercise my constitutional right to humiliate losers and crush their dreams.

#56
st0n3r

st0n3r

    DEMI-GOD

  • SILVER
  • 1,925 posts
  • 24-April 05
Marriage is the responsability of the church, civil union of the state. Gays can have civil union. That should be enough.
*If Satan Lived In Heaven He'd Be Me!*

#57
Guest_Len B'stard_*

Guest_Len B'stard_*
  • Guests
  • --

Man I wish we had todays technology in the 40s. The Nazi party would make some amazing propaganda videos...


They didn't need technology, they had Leni Riefenstahl

#58
sweetness

sweetness

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,948 posts
  • 01-February 06
"Obama is better than any Republican, FACT"

"I don't want to get into politics"

:lol:

Posted Image


#59
deja_vu

deja_vu

    Junior

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 104 posts
  • 06-May 12


Romney is not even liked by his own party...look at the clowns he beat for the nomination and he still struggled. He is the greatest flipflopper of all time. The man will change his position in an eyeblink to curry votes.

Bush handed Obama a shit sandwich when he left office. An economy ready to collapse into depression and two pointless unwinnable wars to deal with.

Has he been perfect ? No but considering shitstorm he was left with he managed to stabilize the economy and things are slowly turning around.

Expecting him to turn the economy around in his first term is dreaming especially considering the Republicans fighting everything he wants to do.

Considering how the Republicans fuck the poor to favour the rich it amazes me the blue collar support them.



I am not a Republican and I am not pro Bush and I am not pro Romney and I don't put my hopes in man. I am conservative for the most part. All that simply means is that I believe the government is not the solution to problems and indeed usually creates more problems and the bigger it gets the more freedom citizens lose.

So, through those lenses I cannot understand these arguments against Bush or for Obama starting with this: Obama and the left drove Bush into the ground as much as they could. And Obama said he would fix it. His own words were that if he did not fix the economy he would be a 1 term president.

Now that its not fixed and is indeed worse in every measurable catagory (even with more lax criteria in the numbers that the Obama Admistration's Labor Department is responsible for) Obama is saying it is much worse than he thought. If he never said he would fix it in 1 term then ok. But he did. And to make it worse, he is still campaigning against Bush.

Under Bush there were 59 consecutive months of job growth and unemployment was under 5% most of his 2 terms. How could it have been that good if he were so bad? Did Clinton do it? Did Clinton spend 8 years to make it good and then it took Bush 8 years to destroy it slowly and then all of the sudden in his last 4 months in office it was by design or it just happened to be the time it would collapse? When Obama was elected unemployment was under 7% I believe and when he took office it jumped even higher and got over 10% Then they changed the way the numbers are counted and it is still over 8% but if it were counted the same way it has been counted for decades unemployment was closer to 15% and is now over 10%.

And the most baffling argument is that Republicans have stood in his way......You do realize that Obama had 2 years of Super majorities in Congress? Meaning Republicans could not win any vote in either house and could not even philibuster? What is the excuse there? He had 2 years to fix this the way he wanted and he did exactly what he wanted in those 2 years and nothing he has done has helped. In fact, Obama's best job growth period in his term has been while Republicans have had the House.

And Republicans fing the poor? Democrats have more money in Congress than Republicans. Democrats want to keep taking money from one group of people (but not their own) and giving to another rather than trying to address the reasons for poverty in the first place.

Look, if you believe in government as being the solution to problems and gay marriage that is how you want to believe and that is fine. I only ask to at least examine more closely what it is you believe in and what it is you are against. What you are saying is just cliches and word games out of the left handbook that aren't really based on any actual observation or fact checking. If you are convinced that what you already believe is true then ok.

I just don't see how someone could try to be objective and not see what is going on. Again, I am not Republican and I don't trust any government very well but the fact is that the Republican Party is much closer to be conservative than the Democratic party. I want less government--not more. If you want to say that gay marriage is less government I can see your point. But gay marriage has nothing to do with the economy.



Depends on whose numbers you are using.



According to this report the Obama administration has added jobs since he took office

Through April, private employers have added an average of about 900 jobs per month since Obama’s inauguration. During the two terms of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, private payrolls shrank by an average of 6,700 jobs per month.


http://www.bloomberg...hite-house.html

And Bush inherited a strong economy from Clinton as there was a budget surplus the last few years of Clintons term and he was adding over 200K jobs a month so Bush was handed a pretty good deal when he took office and he quickly transformed the budget surplus into debt. In fact he had the largest debt growth rate since Reagan and under Obama it has gone down every year since he took office so he is making progress. Also your comment about the umemployment rate under Bush is also misleading as he inherited a strong economy from Clintom and in the last year of his presidency the rate started to climb and peaked under Obama and it is now slowly going down.

I never said Obama is perfect but it is going to take time for him to make change considering the trainwreck the Bush Administration left him. One thing I do agree with you on is he was stupid for wasting his majority in Congress when he had it and he never should have tried to govern by consensus by giving the Republicans a voice in the decisions. He should have adopted the strategy of the Bush Republicans and pushed his agenda despite any opposition. I hoping he has learned his lesson and if he gets another term he will much more hard assed.

Basing your judgement on him on the fact he said he would change things is short sighted I think. I think he was sincere in his belief that he could effect change more quickly but I doubt he understood just how bad our economy was as the shit was hitting the fan just as he was elected so things had not hit bottom yet and he spent the first year of his Presidency just trying to stabilize things. And lets face it every Politician promises change for the better when they are campaigning it is what they do.

We could debate this back and forth and pull stats off the internet but it really is a waste of time as we can both find things to support our beliefs and we won't change each others minds on our positions.

As far sa Romney is concerned while I don't trust him due to his fli flopping he is one of the most moderate candidates the GOP has to offer which is why I think they are not thrilled with supporting him as he is not conservative enough for their current model. As much as I would like to see Obama get another 4 years I think Romney is not a terrible choice in the end. Certainly better then Bush was IMHO.

Back on topic I agree with Stoner in that make civil unions legal so the couple can get the legal beneifts of a married couple. The religious right will never stop fighting the cause if people insist that gays be given the right to "marriage" but there should be more support for civil unions.

Edited by deja_vu, 11 May 2012 - 09:04 AM.


#60
gabrielsevenn7

gabrielsevenn7

    Senior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • 06-October 06



Romney is not even liked by his own party...look at the clowns he beat for the nomination and he still struggled. He is the greatest flipflopper of all time. The man will change his position in an eyeblink to curry votes.

Bush handed Obama a shit sandwich when he left office. An economy ready to collapse into depression and two pointless unwinnable wars to deal with.

Has he been perfect ? No but considering shitstorm he was left with he managed to stabilize the economy and things are slowly turning around.

Expecting him to turn the economy around in his first term is dreaming especially considering the Republicans fighting everything he wants to do.

Considering how the Republicans fuck the poor to favour the rich it amazes me the blue collar support them.



I am not a Republican and I am not pro Bush and I am not pro Romney and I don't put my hopes in man. I am conservative for the most part. All that simply means is that I believe the government is not the solution to problems and indeed usually creates more problems and the bigger it gets the more freedom citizens lose.

So, through those lenses I cannot understand these arguments against Bush or for Obama starting with this: Obama and the left drove Bush into the ground as much as they could. And Obama said he would fix it. His own words were that if he did not fix the economy he would be a 1 term president.

Now that its not fixed and is indeed worse in every measurable catagory (even with more lax criteria in the numbers that the Obama Admistration's Labor Department is responsible for) Obama is saying it is much worse than he thought. If he never said he would fix it in 1 term then ok. But he did. And to make it worse, he is still campaigning against Bush.

Under Bush there were 59 consecutive months of job growth and unemployment was under 5% most of his 2 terms. How could it have been that good if he were so bad? Did Clinton do it? Did Clinton spend 8 years to make it good and then it took Bush 8 years to destroy it slowly and then all of the sudden in his last 4 months in office it was by design or it just happened to be the time it would collapse? When Obama was elected unemployment was under 7% I believe and when he took office it jumped even higher and got over 10% Then they changed the way the numbers are counted and it is still over 8% but if it were counted the same way it has been counted for decades unemployment was closer to 15% and is now over 10%.

And the most baffling argument is that Republicans have stood in his way......You do realize that Obama had 2 years of Super majorities in Congress? Meaning Republicans could not win any vote in either house and could not even philibuster? What is the excuse there? He had 2 years to fix this the way he wanted and he did exactly what he wanted in those 2 years and nothing he has done has helped. In fact, Obama's best job growth period in his term has been while Republicans have had the House.

And Republicans fing the poor? Democrats have more money in Congress than Republicans. Democrats want to keep taking money from one group of people (but not their own) and giving to another rather than trying to address the reasons for poverty in the first place.

Look, if you believe in government as being the solution to problems and gay marriage that is how you want to believe and that is fine. I only ask to at least examine more closely what it is you believe in and what it is you are against. What you are saying is just cliches and word games out of the left handbook that aren't really based on any actual observation or fact checking. If you are convinced that what you already believe is true then ok.

I just don't see how someone could try to be objective and not see what is going on. Again, I am not Republican and I don't trust any government very well but the fact is that the Republican Party is much closer to be conservative than the Democratic party. I want less government--not more. If you want to say that gay marriage is less government I can see your point. But gay marriage has nothing to do with the economy.



Depends on whose numbers you are using.



According to this report the Obama administration has added jobs since he took office

Through April, private employers have added an average of about 900 jobs per month since Obama’s inauguration. During the two terms of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, private payrolls shrank by an average of 6,700 jobs per month.


http://www.bloomberg...hite-house.html

And Bush inherited a strong economy from Clinton as there was a budget surplus the last few years of Clintons term and he was adding over 200K jobs a month so Bush was handed a pretty good deal when he took office and he quickly transformed the budget surplus into debt. In fact he had the largest debt growth rate since Reagan and under Obama it has gone down every year since he took office so he is making progress. Also your comment about the umemployment rate under Bush is also misleading as he inherited a strong economy from Clintom and in the last year of his presidency the rate started to climb and peaked under Obama and it is now slowly going down.

I never said Obama is perfect but it is going to take time for him to make change considering the trainwreck the Bush Administration left him. One thing I do agree with you on is he was stupid for wasting his majority in Congress when he had it and he never should have tried to govern by consensus by giving the Republicans a voice in the decisions. He should have adopted the strategy of the Bush Republicans and pushed his agenda despite any opposition. I hoping he has learned his lesson and if he gets another term he will much more hard assed.

Basing your judgement on him on the fact he said he would change things is short sighted I think. I think he was sincere in his belief that he could effect change more quickly but I doubt he understood just how bad our economy was as the shit was hitting the fan just as he was elected so things had not hit bottom yet and he spent the first year of his Presidency just trying to stabilize things. And lets face it every Politician promises change for the better when they are campaigning it is what they do.

We could debate this back and forth and pull stats off the internet but it really is a waste of time as we can both find things to support our beliefs and we won't change each others minds on our positions.

As far sa Romney is concerned while I don't trust him due to his fli flopping he is one of the most moderate candidates the GOP has to offer which is why I think they are not thrilled with supporting him as he is not conservative enough for their current model. As much as I would like to see Obama get another 4 years I think Romney is not a terrible choice in the end. Certainly better then Bush was IMHO.

Back on topic I agree with Stoner in that make civil unions legal so the couple can get the legal beneifts of a married couple. The religious right will never stop fighting the cause if people insist that gays be given the right to "marriage" but there should be more support for civil unions.



you're right, you can pull anything off the internet to support claims. Your link provided no sources. I could go to Fox news and find an opinion article that cites no sources as well.

But those numbers don't really add up logically. How can Bush lose 6000 jobs per month when unemployment was under 5% most his terms? The only way you can come up with that kind of number is take the 3 month window of 2008 and try to average that out over 8 years but that wouldn't accurately portray all 8 years. I also don't know if that is still accurate anyway.

Also, Obama has a larger deficit in 3 years than Bush had in 8. There is no dispute there. They both had the same wars and infact Obama has had to spend less on war as the operation in Iraq is singnificanlty smaller. In fairness, he has increased troops in Afghanisatan but the trade off is a net reduction in troops and in operations and ground to cover. If you look at percentages of debt Reagan has the highest percentage of debt in the last 50 years. However, percentages are misleading because his total debt was 188 billion dollars over 8 years. And.....his deficit spending was a compromise with the Democratic Congress (where budgets originate). My brother sent one of those union pamphlets to me with the President's debt percentages trying to prop Obama up so I looked at the actual numbers and the percentages don't tell the story accurately. If Bush inherits a debt of 5 trillion and leaves with a debt of 10 trillion he percentage wise doubled the debt. If Obama inherits 10 trillion and leaves with 16 trillion his percentage is lower of increase but he has a higher net gain in amount of debt. Bush 5 trillion vs Obama 6 trillion. Bush was 8 years with larger scale wars and Obama 4 years smaller scale wars. Bush's highest deficit for 1 year is 488 billion dollars. Bush also compromised with the Democratic Congress for the last 2 years of his presidency, which is where his highest deficit came from.

Clinton. I remember the economy as being very good under Clinton and he appeared to be center left a bit. I would agree he was moderate in action--don't know about belief. In 1992 he won because the Repubilcan party was divided between Bush 1 and Perot. It was just enough to get Clinton elected. In 1994 he was down in the polls--he was pushing hillary care. The economy started to slide a bit. In the midterm elections Republicans won majority in both House and Sentate. Clinton moderated and went with the Congress. He was easily reelected in 1996. His balanced budgets should at least be half credited with the House because Newt Gingrich pushed Clinton hard to balance the budget.

Bush2 The economy started to sag a bit so he came up with the idea of the stimulus and the Bush tax cuts--which cut tax rates on nearly ALL Americans (Media and Obama leave that out in the war on the classes). Economy grew and unemployment went down even below Clinton years.

My dad and I got into a bit about the stimulus of Bush and of Obama. He tried to defend Obama's stimulus by saying Bush did it too. I told him the difference as to why Bush's worked and Obama's didn't was that under Bush you got money back in your own pocket. Under Obama it all went to bailouts of rich companies and public unions benefits packages. Quite frankly, we don't really know where the money went. He was quiet after that because he knew it was true. He was able to build a garage with the money he got under the Bush stimulus and he is a hard Democrat but has always been happy about the tax cut and stimulus under Bush. He also never missed a day of work under Bush or Clinton. 3 years in the Obama economy and he has missed about a year now. 1 year away from retirement and there is no work.

Now, I'm not saying Obama caused the 08 collapse. He didn't. He had nothing to do with it. Bush didn't cause it either. Bush spoke up about it a couple years before but Congress ignored him and said it was all ok. Google Barney Frank if you want to find out more. Carter and Clinton both pushed relaxed lending for low income families to buy houses. Look that up. That is what happened. I will also add that just about everyone was living beyond their means in credit.

My point is, take a sober look at the big pictures. Bush wasn't perfect and it isn't all Obama's fault. Clinton wasn't perfect either. What I will say is that since Obama took office, we do not have a net gain of 1 single private sector job. We still have less jobs than when he took office. It is simple math. His policies create uncertainty and quite frankly fear in small business. No one is hiring and everyone is sitting on what profit that can or savings they do have because the market is so uncertain about everything--interest rates, inflation, tax rates, health care costs.....




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users