N.C. to add marriage amendment to its constitution Read more here: http://www.newsob

[Parkbandit]

RALEIGH -- North Carolina has become the 31st state to add an amendment on marriage to its constitution, with voters banning same-sex marriage and barring legal recognition of unmarried couples by state and local governments.

North Carolina is the last state in the South to add such an amendment, and supporters hoped for a resounding victory.

Incomplete returns show the amendment up 61.05 percent to 38.95 percent.

Marriage rights for gay couples has been a topic of national debate this year, and North Carolina’s amendment and the campaigns for and against it drew international attention.

North Carolinians think of the state as progressive, but that’s within the context of the rest of the South, said Andrew Taylor, a political scientist at N.C. State University.

“This is a socially conservative state,” he said.

The state has a 16-year-old law banning same-sex marriage.

At least two other states will be voting on gay marriage rights in November. Minnesota has a constitutional amendment on its ballot. Maine has a referendum to allow same-sex marriage. Voters in Maryland and Washington state may be asked to affirm new state laws allowing same-sex marriage.

Money from national interest groups poured into North Carolina. The National Organization for Marriage contributed $425,000 to the Vote for Marriage campaign, according to the latest reports, and the Human Rights Campaign and its affiliates contributed nearly $500,000 to the opposition Coalition to Protect All N.C. Families.

Vote for Marriage raised more than $1 million, and the Coalition to Protect All N.C. Families raised more than $2 million.

U.S. amendment called for

The Rev. Billy Graham appeared in a full-page ad supporting the amendment, and others in his family recorded pro-amendment messages.

About 250 amendment supporters crowded a ballroom at the Hilton North Raleigh for the celebration that was part standard-issue campaign victory party and part wedding reception.

There was a cash bar, and music that included love songs. The centerpiece was a seven-tier white wedding cake, capped by a plastic heterosexual couple embracing.

After the Associated Press declared that the amendment would pass, Tami Fitzgerald, the Vote for Marriage chairwoman, took the stage to thank the churches, political groups and other volunteers who had helped deliver the win.

“Ladies and gentlemen, through God’s great mercy we have won an overwhelming victory tonight,” she said.

The voters, she said, sent a clear and unmistakable desire to “protect marriage in our state, in our country.

“As you all know, marriage was not invented by government. Our creator established it as the union of a man and a woman in an exclusive lifelong covenant and it has merely been recognized by government as the key to a strong and flourishing society.”

Amendment opponents had former President Bill Clinton and his former chief of staff Erskine Bowles record telephone messages to voters. President Barack Obama’s campaign put out a statement saying he opposed the amendment.

Opponents worked to raise doubts about the amendment’s consequences, including running television ads that focused on weakened domestic violence protections for unmarried couples, and loss of health insurance for children of same-sex couples.

The early returns projected at the front of the downtown Raleigh event hall were mostly ignored by the crowd of amendment opponents who joined the gathering.

Jen Jones, communications director for Protect All NC Families, said the campaign would have done nothing differently.

“We had an unprecedented coalition,” she said. “We were on TV as much as we wanted to be. We talked to everyone we could about unintended consequences.”

Incomplete returns show the amendment losing in only a handful of counties, including Wake, Durham, Orange, Chatham, Buncombe and Watauga. The amendment was losing in Mecklenburg County, but results there were incomplete.

Opponents anticipate a slew of lawsuits with the courts ultimately deciding how the amendment will effect employment-related benefits and legal arrangements between unmarried couples.

Church involvement credited

The Vote for Marriage campaign has its foundation in churches and ran television ads featuring the Bible. They fought back against what they characterized as opponents’ myths, saying that the amendment would have no impact on domestic violence protections.

“The involvement of the local churches across this state was absolutely the turning point,” said the Rev. Mark Harris, president of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina.

The string of national amendment victories supports arguments for amending the U.S. Constitution to allow only heterosexual marriages, Harris said.

Before the campaigns ramped to full intensity, Harris called for a “civil conversation” on the issue.

Civility seemed to melt away by Tuesday.

A Cabarrus County man posted a YouTube video of himself firing a shotgun into a “vote against” sign. A Durham neighborhood listserv stopped taking comments on the amendment when the debate got too hot.

Campaigners for and against the amendment called a steady stream of complaints into the Wake County Board of Elections on Tuesday, each side complaining about the opponents’ illegal electioneering.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Gary D. Sims, Wake’s deputy elections director.

A strong election draw

For some voters, the amendment was the main or only reason they came to the polls.

Cameron Hughes, 25, was in the process of moving to Charlotte for a new job in banking, but came all the way back to Chapel Hill Tuesday afternoon and drove straight to his polling place on Estes Drive.

Fueling his trip in equal measure were gasoline and cold anger that the amendment was even on the ballot.

“It’s an embarrassment and it’s pathetic, and I’m ashamed to have to come out here and vote on something like this, and, if the polls are right, I’m ashamed that apparently a large majority of the citizens of my state are pro-bigotry,” he said.

Hughes made the long trip to ink in just one oval on his ballot. He said that he had been so focused on finishing up work on a graduate degree in recent months that he hadn’t been able to properly study the candidates for various offices.

Lynne Greene, of Cary, voted for the amendment, at the Fellowship of Christ Presbyterian Church polling site. She said she could support civil unions but not gay marriage.

“I have an issue with the use of the word marriage,” said Greene, a Republican who is retired. “I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman.”

‘People are conflicted’

Polling by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling and the conservative Civitas Institute both showed the amendment winning by double digits, but the Public Policy Poll showed that a majority rejected the amendment after they learned it would also ban civil unions and domestic partnerships.

“People are conflicted,” said Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, executive director of the Campaign for Southern Equality, a group advocating for full marriage rights for gay couples. “They hear one thing in their faith community, particularly that homosexuality is a sin. They have an LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) family member or neighbor or co-worker. People are trying to reconcile those two experiences.”

Voters said they were confused about the amendment’s wording, and that confusion continued in some polling places where some voters received ballots without the constitutional question on it that were intended for 17-year-old voters

A Triangle voter advocacy group says it has received numerous complaints from people who were given the wrong ballot while trying to vote Tuesday.

The N.C. Election Protection hot line, part of a nationwide voter education coalition coordinated by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, fielded calls from voters all day who were given a ballot without the amendment, said Elizabeth Haddix, staff attorney with the UNC-Chapel Hill Center for Civil Rights, which sponsored the hot line Tuesday.

“We’ve certainly gotten a heavy volume of calls, many more than we expected in a primary,” she said.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/08/2052643/marriage-amendment-latest-results.html#storylink=cpy

I didn't realize this is the 32nd state to put such definition into their Constitutions.

[Jarvan]

I don't know, and I don't really care much.

I just find it funny that some people are fine with 2 men getting married, but appalled by 2 women and 1 man getting married.

I really always thought that marriage itself was a religious institution not a government one. Next thing we know, people will be suing churches to force them to marry them.

[Tgo01]

I thought it was the other way around, marriage came first and religion kind of just usurped the idea and made it their own.

[diethx]

Such a shame.

[BriarFox]

I thought it was the other way around, marriage came first and religion kind of just usurped the idea and made it their own.

:yeahthat:

You can see a steady progression in the High Middle Ages (1100-1300) where the church slowly encroaches on marriage and makes it more and more a formalized religious affair.

[Jarvan]

Well Obama now supports Gay marriage due to him "Evolving". Is this the new code word for lying?

In 2008 he flatly stated it was between a man and a woman, Guess he just needed to say that to get elected. Just like I am sure he feels he needs to say this now to get re-elected.

---

And yet, even Obama stated that he felt marriage was a religious and spiritual institution.

[Parkbandit]

Well Obama now supports Gay marriage due to him "Evolving". Is this the new code word for lying?

In 2008 he flatly stated it was between a man and a woman, Guess he just needed to say that to get elected. Just like I am sure he feels he needs to say this now to get re-elected.


I think his base needs SOMETHING to get excited about.. and he certainly wants to keep focus off the economy.

[gs4-PauperSid]

I was wondering how that whole thing went down. Saw this video the day before the vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywImcNViPtc

"Clergy Rebukes Media for Asking Wrong Questions About North Carolina Amendment"


-J

--did i just post in a parkbandit thread......? :shocked2:

[Tgo01]

Romney just reiterated his stance that he's against gay marriage and civil unions. Pretty sure this just ended any chance he might have had of becoming president. He couldn't even phrase it in such a way to appeal to voters on both sides of the issue, like Obama did in 2008.

[Latrinsorm]

We're not still pretending that Romney is a serious Presidential candidate, are we? Trying to beat the incumbent is a sucker bet. Governor Romney has no frame of reference.

[Jarvan]

Romney just reiterated his stance that he's against gay marriage and civil unions. Pretty sure this just ended any chance he might have had of becoming president. He couldn't even phrase it in such a way to appeal to voters on both sides of the issue, like Obama did in 2008.

Oddly enough, this was one of the Issues that got Pres Bush re-elected. Of course there were a number of states with this on the ballot.

Obama is a numbers man, plain and simple. For example, he knows he could say or do almost anything and still retain approx 98% of the Black vote. Which is one reason why he has no problem saying this really. Generally, there is a significant portion of that subset of the populace that does not agree with gay marriage. But since these same people would also vote for a person who had a stroke and was deaf, blind and dumb as long as he was black and a dem, he doesn't really have to worry about disenfranchising them like Clinton would have.

The funny thing, is, this isn't a "change of stance" he is just saying what he needs to, just like he did in 2008. Just like Romney does as well.

[Tgo01]

We're not still pretending that Romney is a serious Presidential candidate, are we? Trying to beat the incumbent is a sucker bet. Governor Romney has no frame of reference.

Hey now it's happened before in recent history. And it would even fit the pattern, first a Democrat incumbent didn't get reelected then a Republican, so it's time for another Democrat to not get reelected.


Obama is a numbers man, plain and simple. For example, he knows he could say or do almost anything and still retain approx 98% of the Black vote. Which is one reason why he has no problem saying this really. Generally, there is a significant portion of that subset of the populace that does not agree with gay marriage. But since these same people would also vote for a person who had a stroke and was deaf, blind and dumb as long as he was black and a dem, he doesn't really have to worry about disenfranchising them like Clinton would have.

I don't know about that, blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat no matter who the candidate is. But yes you're correct, a significant portion of people are going to vote for Obama pretty much no matter what he does. The ultra extreme religious right aren't going to vote for Obama no matter what he does either so this move on his part isn't hurting him there and Romney's position on this isn't helping him either.

[Parkbandit]

Romney just reiterated his stance that he's against gay marriage and civil unions. Pretty sure this just ended any chance he might have had of becoming president. He couldn't even phrase it in such a way to appeal to voters on both sides of the issue, like Obama did in 2008.

Yes.. because whether or not 2 gay people can get legally married is the #1 issue of the next election...

Don't buy into the hype..

[Tgo01]

Yes.. because whether or not 2 gay people can get legally married is the #1 issue of the next election...

Don't buy into the hype..

I don't think Obama is the better candidate, I just think he's going to win. As you said Obama and his supporters will probably try to make this election all about civil rights and it will probably succeed. I think it will be hard for Romney to defend his position on this to undecided voters.

[Parkbandit]

I don't know about that, blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat no matter who the candidate is. But yes you're correct, a significant portion of people are going to vote for Obama pretty much no matter what he does. The ultra extreme religious right aren't going to vote for Obama no matter what he does either so this move on his part isn't hurting him there and Romney's position on this isn't helping him either.

By November, very few people will give two shits either way.

This election is all about the economy. If Obama can set aside his true agenda for 6 months and work at actually stimulating this economy to the point where you see a significant decrease in the unemployment rate and a slowdown on the crazy ass spending spree he has been doing for the past 3 years.. then he will be re-elected pretty easily. If he can't and Romney can articulate how he plans on fixing the economy, Romney will win.

This is yet another distraction by Team Obama to divide people and to take focus off the economy.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think Biden got it right when he said, and I quote, "I think ‘Will and Grace’ probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody’s ever done so far”.

ROFL.

Anyone scared we are one bullet away from THAT GUY running the country?

Oh, and more suited for the topic - all of this is pandering to the crazies and completely a distraction, intended or not, from the real issues.

[Latrinsorm]

By November, very few people will give two shits either way.

This election is all about the economy. If Obama can set aside his true agenda for 6 months and work at actually stimulating this economy to the point where you see a significant decrease in the unemployment rate and a slowdown on the crazy ass spending spree he has been doing for the past 3 years.. then he will be re-elected pretty easily. If he can't and Romney can articulate how he plans on fixing the economy, Romney will win.

This is yet another distraction by Team Obama to divide people and to take focus off the economy.Let me ask you this. Which do you think are more dramatically separated, in absolute terms:

The average American's economic well-being
now
vs.
X years ago

The average GLBT American's social well-being
now
vs.
what it God damn well ought to be

.

Or, put another way, we are still an economic superpower, yes? And yet apparently a majority of states in 2012 think it's a good idea to Constitutionally forbid equal rights in a certain sense, because that has historically been such a genius move.

.

Finally, Parkbandit, do you honestly believe that either candidate can have a significant, direct impact on the economy? Hasn't it been pretty clearly established that they can have a significant, direct impact on GLBT rights via DADT?
Hey now it's happened before in recent history. And it would even fit the pattern, first a Democrat incumbent didn't get reelected then a Republican, so it's time for another Democrat to not get reelected.Did it perhaps happen on or about 2001, TGO01???

Obama isn't Craggy Bush, and Romney sure-tainly isn't Reagan.

[Kembal]

This election is all about the economy. If Obama can set aside his true agenda for 6 months and work at actually stimulating this economy to the point where you see a significant decrease in the unemployment rate and a slowdown on the crazy ass spending spree he has been doing for the past 3 years.. then he will be re-elected pretty easily.

Those are mutually exclusive statements. Spending is stimulative. Not spending is not stimulative. (Important stat to note: The public sector (government) is currently the drag on job growth, having been negative for quite a while now. Private sector job growth has been pretty constant in terms of being positive for the past 5-6 months, if not longer.)

On the topic of Obama endorsing gay marriage, glad he did it. Will it fire up his base? Yes. Will it fire up the Republican base? Also yes, and they were not fired up for Romney. Which way do independents go? No idea if it'll affect them, and that's the risk. PB could be right and it could have no effect on them. It could also push them in either direction.

In short, it took political courage for this one. We'll see how it plays in November.

[Kembal]

Oh, and more suited for the topic - all of this is pandering to the crazies and completely a distraction, intended or not, from the real issues.

Are you calling LGBT people crazies?

[Showal]

Romney just reiterated his stance that he's against gay marriage and civil unions. Pretty sure this just ended any chance he might have had of becoming president. He couldn't even phrase it in such a way to appeal to voters on both sides of the issue, like Obama did in 2008.

If anything, this will help Romney with his base more than what obama has done will help him with his. I am on my phone and dont feel like linking the article, but a report was just put out saying of those opposed to gay marriage, 54% feel it is a "critical" issue while 14% think so out of those who support it. I didn't link the article, I know, but the numbers are not absurdly unbelievable.


Oddly enough, this was one of the Issues that got Pres Bush re-elected. Of course there were a number of states with this on the ballot.

Obama is a numbers man, plain and simple. For example, he knows he could say or do almost anything and still retain approx 98% of the Black vote. Which is one reason why he has no problem saying this really. Generally, there is a significant portion of that subset of the populace that does not agree with gay marriage. But since these same people would also vote for a person who had a stroke and was deaf, blind and dumb as long as he was black and a dem, he doesn't really have to worry about disenfranchising them like Clinton would have.

The funny thing, is, this isn't a "change of stance" he is just saying what he needs to, just like he did in 2008. Just like Romney does as well.

You're an idiot.


Yes.. because whether or not 2 gay people can get legally married is the #1 issue of the next election...

Don't buy into the hype..

I agree with you, partly because of what I have said, but for me, personally, I am attached to this issue from an emotional standpoint. It's not my deciding factor between the candidates though.


Let me ask you this. Which do you think are more dramatically separated, in absolute terms:

The average American's economic well-being
now
vs.
X years ago

The average GLBT American's social well-being
now
vs.
what it God damn well ought to be

.

Or, put another way, we are still an economic superpower, yes? And yet apparently a majority of states in 2012 think it's a good idea to Constitutionally forbid equal rights in a certain sense, because that has historically been such a genius move.

.

Finally, Parkbandit, do you honestly believe that either candidate can have a significant, direct impact on the economy? Hasn't it been pretty clearly established that they can have a significant, direct impact on GLBT rights via DADT?Did it perhaps happen on or about 2001, TGO01???

Obama isn't Craggy Bush, and Romney sure-tainly isn't Reagan.

I agree with the emotional sentiments behind what you're saying. But I don't know if the repeal on DADT can be wholly attributed to Obama. I'd like to think so, but honestly, this had a large part to do with our homosexual service members reversing what was previously thought about homosexuals along with a change in the social culture in general (you wouldn't guess it though, considering NC). I feel DADT had run its course and would have soon been eliminated, obama may have sparked the discussion though. I don't feel like the president could, by himself, affect much for the gay community.

[Ceyrin]

Did I read that right?

Did the Human Rights Campaign donate half a million dollars to assist in... denying... humans... rights?

Hypocrisy much?

[Showal]

Did I read that right?

Did the Human Rights Campaign donate half a million dollars to assist in... denying... humans... rights?

Hypocrisy much?

You did not read that right.

[Ceyrin]

You did not read that right.

Oh good. I can sleep tonight.

[Parkbandit]

Those are mutually exclusive statements. Spending is stimulative. Not spending is not stimulative. (Important stat to note: The public sector (government) is currently the drag on job growth, having been negative for quite a while now. Private sector job growth has been pretty constant in terms of being positive for the past 5-6 months, if not longer.)

That type of stimulate is short lived.. once the tit is removed, so does the stimulating effect. You saw this already after we pissed away almost a trillion dollars.



On the topic of Obama endorsing gay marriage, glad he did it. Will it fire up his base? Yes. Will it fire up the Republican base? Also yes, and they were not fired up for Romney. Which way do independents go? No idea if it'll affect them, and that's the risk. PB could be right and it could have no effect on them. It could also push them in either direction.

In short, it took political courage for this one. We'll see how it plays in November.

It's about as courageous as Obama ordering that we go after Bin Laden... after he put together a memo on which Admiral would be the fall guy for the operation if it didn't work out.

He's the least courageous person ever to hold the office in my lifetime.

Stop kidding yourself.

[Parkbandit]

ABC News has only released one brief clip 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.

Equality is not a state-by-state issue. There is no reason other than ignorance and hatred that two men can get married in New York and not North Carolina. At a time when vindictive hucksters are rolling out anti-gay marriage amendments across the nation, and when conflicting state and federal laws portend an insoluble morass of divorce, custody, and estate issues, and when gay Americans are turning to the U.S. Constitution and the courts to seek an affirmation of their humanity, "it's a state-by-state issue" is a shameful dodge.

Is it a politically wise dodge? Maybe. This was obviously a hastily arranged interview—we're told that ABC News' Robin Roberts, who is close to Michelle Obama, was only tapped in the last 48 hours by the White House to come down—designed to clean up the mess left by Biden's pro-gay marriage comments in as advantageous way as possible. And for Obama to declare that he considers North Carolina and other states' bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional would probably energize the GOP base. But those bans are unconstitutional. And anyone who supports their legitimacy—as Obama just did, in no uncertain terms—even if they oppose the policy, is adopting the retrograde position in the contemporary gay marriage debate. Obama is moving backward, not forward.

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

Courageous would be an adjective I would never, ever use for this President.

[Kembal]

It's about as courageous as Obama ordering that we go after Bin Laden... after he put together a memo on which Admiral would be the fall guy for the operation if it didn't work out.

Yeah, only a cynic or a partisan could read that memo that way. Give me a break. It set out chain of command for the operation and detailed out circumstances in which additional risks had to be brought back to President for his consideration.


He's the least courageous person ever to hold the office in my lifetime.

Stop kidding yourself.

Keep your tinfoil hat on. It looks good on you.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, only a cynic or a partisan could read that memo that way. Give me a break. It set out chain of command for the operation and detailed out circumstances in which additional risks had to be brought back to President for his consideration.

Keep your tinfoil hat on. It looks good on you.

Have you ever noticed how often Obama uses the term "me" and "I" when things are going well... and blames other people or events when things don't go his way?

That is not a characteristic of a "courageous" person... in fact, it's quite the opposite.

[Kembal]

That type of stimulate is short lived.. once the tit is removed, so does the stimulating effect. You saw this already after we pissed away almost a trillion dollars.

People can't sell stuff if someone isn't buying stuff. If people aren't selling stuff, they can't make money to buy their own stuff from other people selling stuff. And the cycle keeps on going.

In a depressed economy, consumers and businesses aren't going to go out on a limb and buy stuff. Government has the ability to do so, and literally is the only actor that can.

If government cuts spending instead, well, no one's buying anything. And the economy just gets worse. That's what they're starting to figure out in Britain and the other European economies right now.

[Tgo01]

People can't sell stuff if someone isn't buying stuff. If people aren't selling stuff, they can't make money to buy their own stuff from other people selling stuff. And the cycle keeps on going.

In a depressed economy, consumers and businesses aren't going to go out on a limb and buy stuff. Government has the ability to do so, and literally is the only actor that can.

If government cuts spending instead, well, no one's buying anything. And the economy just gets worse. That's what they're starting to figure out in Britain and the other European economies right now.

Are you saying government spending is the only thing keeping our economy afloat and government cutbacks in other countries helped destroy their economies?

[Parkbandit]

People can't sell stuff if someone isn't buying stuff. If people aren't selling stuff, they can't make money to buy their own stuff from other people selling stuff. And the cycle keeps on going.

In a depressed economy, consumers and businesses aren't going to go out on a limb and buy stuff. Government has the ability to do so, and literally is the only actor that can.

If government cuts spending instead, well, no one's buying anything. And the economy just gets worse. That's what they're starting to figure out in Britain and the other European economies right now.

I don't subscribe to Keynesian Economic Theory. Sorry.

[Kembal]

Have you ever noticed how often Obama uses the term "me" and "I" when things are going well... and blames other people or events when things don't go his way?

That is not a characteristic of a "courageous" person... in fact, it's quite the opposite.

I haven't seen any other politician to do otherwise in terms of blame/credit.

However, taking a position that just got trounced the day before by 20 points in a swing state you need to keep for re-election: how often do you see a politician doing that?

[Ryvicke]

Lol PB linked to Gawker and pretended to understand what Keynesian means. Fun day.

[Kembal]

Are you saying government spending is the only thing keeping our economy afloat and government cutbacks in other countries helped destroy their economies?

Government spending isn't the only thing. The Fed took quite a few actions in monetary policy that helped as well.

But if you were to compare the US and UK in terms of policy action, here's what you'd see:

US: mild to moderate fiscal stimulus, moderate monetary stimulus -> slowly recovering economy

UK: moderate to strong fiscal austerity, mild monetary stimulus -> economy suffering a double dip recession.

The other European economies (Spain, Italy, etc.)* have it even worse since the European Central Bank also raised interest rates along with the demands for fiscal austerity. There's also structural issues in the sense that the ECB is prohibited from lending directly to governments, giving them no lender of last resort.

*Not counting Greece. That's whole another ball of wax.

[Kembal]

I don't subscribe to Keynesian Economic Theory. Sorry.

Want to explain how Britain is in a recession then?

[4a6c1]

We should just abolish state recognized marriage in all forms. Convert all current marriages to civil unions. Jesus and Allah can still consider them whatever they want them to be.

Cross posting this quote from another thread. Practical. Efficient. Takes care of the primary issues and would satisfy everyone. No harm to religion and everyones "civil unions" recieve the same rights by the government. Tada?

Obama should earn his Nobel peace prize and do this quickly.


Are you calling LGBT people crazies?

Appears so. :-/

[Jarvan]

Cross posting this quote from another thread. Practical. Efficient. Takes care of the primary issues and would satisfy everyone. No harm to religion and everyones "civil unions" recieve the same rights by the government. Tada?

Obama should earn his Nobel peace prize and do this quickly.



Appears so. :-/

I have no problem with this really. People can be united, and then if they want, can have a religious ceremony as well.

As for the peace prize.. How does a guy that says that they can Kill any US citizen they want if that person is considered a threat, even be remotely considered for a peace prize.. granted, the stupid fuckers gave it to him before he did a damn thing. Which would be like giving a scientist a Noble prize in Chemistry on the off chance he discovers something.

I mean.. if he had ended the wars in the middle east, brokered a peace treaty between Israel and Hezbollah, and got Iran to release the Christian pastor on deaths row.. Then yeah, I could see a peace prize.

As it is, his biggest foreign policy claim is he assassinated OBL, and killed more terrorists with drones then anyone else.... yep, really peaceful.

[Jarvan]

I haven't seen any other politician to do otherwise in terms of blame/credit.

However, taking a position that just got trounced the day before by 20 points in a swing state you need to keep for re-election: how often do you see a politician doing that?

You forget, he is still counting on the Black vote to get re-elected.

Be serious for a moment, this guy could come out for pretty much anything, and still think he will get re-elected.

[Rinualdo]

For example, he knows he could say or do almost anything and still retain approx 98% of the Black vote. Which is one reason why he has no problem saying this really. Generally, there is a significant portion of that subset of the populace that does not agree with gay marriage. But since these same people would also vote for a person who had a stroke and was deaf, blind and dumb as long as he was black and a dem, he doesn't really have to worry about disenfranchising them like Clinton would have.



You forget, he is still counting on the Black vote to get re-elected.

Be serious for a moment, this guy could come out for pretty much anything, and still think he will get re-elected.

It's totally not racist at all to think 98% of race of people would vote for someone who is also, partially, of that race.

Totally not racist.

[Androidpk]

The only reason Obama got that award was for being the first black president in the White House.

[Showal]

You forget, he is still counting on the Black vote to get re-elected.

Be serious for a moment, this guy could come out for pretty much anything, and still think he will get re-elected.

Blacks, according to 2010 census reports, account for 12.6% of the US population. Blacks also have historically low turnout numbers for elections. Hopefully someone in Obama's campaign has said, "Um, maybe it's not the smartest to count on the black vote to get elected LOLZ because it won't get us there." Yes, in 2008, the black vote was said to help Obama in a swing state. But one swing state does not a president make. If you need to see why that was not a crucial component of Obama's 2008 election, here's a quick map:

http://jutiagroup.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/2008_us_presidential_election_final_results.jpg

Getting elected is a little more complicated than just having black people vote for you, even in overwhelming percentages. Let's not just cut this down and simplify it according to race. You can't just say, "If 50% of whites vote for Obama and 50% vote for Romney, who's gonna win? LOL blacks!" Preliminary polls show Obama with a decent lead across a majority of demographics. In fact, he's really only weak in whites without a college education.

And let's not be so simplistic and racist to think that black people only vote on the basis of race (or sorry, 98% of black people).

TL;DR: Not enough blacks in this country to get Obama elected.

[Showal]

Also, polls show the black community in NC was roughly in favor of Amendment One by 2 to 1. Blacks, as a whole, are shown in polls to be split roughly 50/50 in support (or opposition to) of gay marriage. This is a sharp drop from about 2008 when close to 70% of the black community was opposed. (Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76133.html)

You might call this, as Obama did for himself, an evolution of their beliefs. I'll say, by the way, that I believe Obama's evolution is bullshit for some of the reasons PB laid out (but not as harsh). And what I most agree with was this:


Equality is not a state-by-state issue. There is no reason other than ignorance and hatred that two men can get married in New York and not North Carolina. At a time when vindictive hucksters are rolling out anti-gay marriage amendments across the nation, and when conflicting state and federal laws portend an insoluble morass of divorce, custody, and estate issues, and when gay Americans are turning to the U.S. Constitution and the courts to seek an affirmation of their humanity, "it's a state-by-state issue" is a shameful dodge.

I don't think it's racist or stupid, at all, to say "Generally, there is a significant portion of that subset of the populace that does not agree with gay marriage. But since these same people would also vote for a person who had a stroke and was deaf, blind and dumb as long as he was black and a dem, he doesn't really have to worry about disenfranchising them like Clinton would have."

[Back]

LOL Biden!

[Jarvan]

Also, polls show the black community in NC was roughly in favor of Amendment One by 2 to 1. Blacks, as a whole, are shown in polls to be split roughly 50/50 in support (or opposition to) of gay marriage. This is a sharp drop from about 2008 when close to 70% of the black community was opposed. (Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76133.html)

You might call this, as Obama did for himself, an evolution of their beliefs. I'll say, by the way, that I believe Obama's evolution is bullshit for some of the reasons PB laid out (but not as harsh). And what I most agree with was this:



I don't think it's racist or stupid, at all, to say "Generally, there is a significant portion of that subset of the populace that does not agree with gay marriage. But since these same people would also vote for a person who had a stroke and was deaf, blind and dumb as long as he was black and a dem, he doesn't really have to worry about disenfranchising them like Clinton would have."

It's funny, when the left changes their stance, it's an "Evolution of Beliefs". When the right does it, it's flip flopping.

Why can't he just admit he lied in 2008? Since he WAS for it previously as an IL Senator. Then against it to get elected as a US senator, and to get elected Pres.. now for it.

So.. that's.. an evolution from for it.. to against it.. to for it.

Flip flop?

[Atlanteax]

+1 for States' Rights

[ClydeR]

However, taking a position that just got trounced the day before by 20 points in a swing state you need to keep for re-election: how often do you see a politician doing that?

Obama's 2008 victory in North Carolina was part of a wave. Unless Romney turns out to be an even worse candidate than I predict, then Obama is not likely to win NC in 2012.

My advice to Obama, were he to ask, would be to focus on improving his positive/negative numbers for the moment and then to focus on Virginia, Colorado and Ohio. And then find some other state in case he loses Ohio, possibly New Hampshire which Romney stands a good chance of flipping.

[ClydeR]

Romney just reiterated his stance that he's against gay marriage and civil unions. Pretty sure this just ended any chance he might have had of becoming president. He couldn't even phrase it in such a way to appeal to voters on both sides of the issue, like Obama did in 2008.

Here's the text of a letter Romney wrote when he was running for office from Massachusetts.


To the Members of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts:

I am writing to thank the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts for the advice and support you have given me during my campaign for the US Senate and to seek the Club's formal endorsement of my election. The Log Cabin Club has played a vital role in reinvigorating the Republican Party in Massachusetts and your endorsement is important to me because it will provide further confirmation that my campaign and approach to government is consistent with the values and vision of government we share.

I am pleased to have had an opportunity to talk with you and to meet many of you personally during your September meeting. I learned a great deal from those discussions and many thoughtful questions you posed. As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.

I am not unaware of my opponents considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent's record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.

We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employee Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and the bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.

As we begin the final phase of this campaign, I need your support more than ever. By working together, we will achieve the goals we share for Massachusetts and our nation.

Sincerely

W. Mitt Romney

More... (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/Gay_Marriage/)


Today, Romeny is 180 degrees in the other direction. He opposes the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, opposes homosexuals in the military, supports a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in all states, and, unlike Pres. Bush, opposes civil unions.

Based on his history of contributing money to marriage constitutional amendment efforts, I think he was lying when running for office in Massachusetts and is telling the truth now.

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/RomneyGayFlyer.png

[Latrinsorm]

Jarvan, I think you have forgotten about Senator Kerry's candidacy.
-He was widely and frequently described as a flip-flopper, even though he was a member of the left. If you put "flip-flopper" in GIS today, you get a bunch of pictures of shoes, a picture of Senator Kerry, and (shockingly) no porn.
-He also received 92% of the black vote. That last 6% could be due to Obama's race, but it could be due to him being an inarguably superior candidate than Senator Kerry, no?

[Showal]

It's funny, when the left changes their stance, it's an "Evolution of Beliefs". When the right does it, it's flip flopping.

Why can't he just admit he lied in 2008? Since he WAS for it previously as an IL Senator. Then against it to get elected as a US senator, and to get elected Pres.. now for it.

So.. that's.. an evolution from for it.. to against it.. to for it.

Flip flop?

I said I called bullshit about obamas evolution. I do believe people can evolve after 4 years though. One of my friends fathers hated gays. Then he met a gay coule. Found out a girl my friend is close with is a lesbian. Her father always loved that friend. In the three years i have known this guy, his beliefs have evolved.

I think it'd be a hard case to make to say obama has evolved on this issue. He gets into office and quickly made DADT a national issue. I'm not calling it flip flopping. Flip flops are what people wear at the beach. I hate when terms like that are overused.

And you got it wrong. When someone on the opposite side changes position, its bad. When your party changes, it is not bad.

And who gives a shit anyways? It may not be a lie, on its face. Moat likely, it wasn't his priority at first election. But to think being for gay rights would have held him back when he had a lot more critical things going against him and the anti-bush momentum going for him is ridiculous. So he is now for gay marriage. Good. We have had presidents in the past for gay marriage who have not said they are.

Now we have a president who said he is for it. I wish he made it a national issue, not a state issue, but its a start. Let's work off this and use it to start treating gays like humans. Seriously. And let's not get bogged down in the whole "you flip flopped!" shit that overtakes this country every four years on the most ridiculous issues.

[Parkbandit]

I don't think some of you people understand the term "Evolution"...

Obama's "Evolution":

1996 - "I am for gay marriage"
2008 - "I am not for gay marriage"
2012 - "I am for gay marriage"

He's evolution swings with the political tide. His "beliefs" are whatever is politically opportunistic for him at the time.

And the same exact criticism goes for Romney and most politicians. Who fucking knows what they really believe.

[Ryvicke]

Showal, attributing that excellent quoted paragraph from the Gawker piece to Parkbandit just blew my fucking mind, man. My whole worldview changed for a few seconds until I figured it out.

Don't be tricksy.

[Parkbandit]

Showal, attributing that excellent quoted paragraph from the Gawker piece to Parkbandit just blew my fucking mind, man. My whole worldview changed for a few seconds until I figured it out.

Don't be tricksy.

Smallest explosion ever.

[Jarvan]

Jarvan, I think you have forgotten about Senator Kerry's candidacy.
-He was widely and frequently described as a flip-flopper, even though he was a member of the left. If you put "flip-flopper" in GIS today, you get a bunch of pictures of shoes, a picture of Senator Kerry, and (shockingly) no porn.
-He also received 92% of the black vote. That last 6% could be due to Obama's race, but it could be due to him being an inarguably superior candidate than Senator Kerry, no?

No.. Generally, in the last few elections, the Dem has gotten 90% or so, the repub the other 10.

Obama would get the Black vote even if he said something horrendously offensive to the black community. He'd get it even if he said he was stopping affirmative action. He's Black. He will get at least 95% of the black vote this go around no matter what.

[Showal]

I don't think some of you people understand the term "Evolution"...

Obama's "Evolution":

1996 - "I am for gay marriage"
2008 - "I am not for gay marriage"
2012 - "I am for gay marriage"

He's evolution swings with the political tide. His "beliefs" are whatever is politically opportunistic for him at the time.

And the same exact criticism goes for Romney and most politicians. Who fucking knows what they really believe.

Actually, that would be an appropriate use of evolution. Evolution is selecting for qualities that are most advantageous at the time. Evolution does not have an end goal and can amd has caused old traits to come back.

I'm not here to argue semantics with you, but I think the appropriate argument is whether evolution is a proper term to reflect someones beliefs. I don't think for a minute obama was against gay marriage in 2008. I thought that then. In fact, there were a large number of important issues that no one knew where Obama truly laid on. As Latrin says, who knows truly what anyone else honestly feels. The important thing is do we not allow someone to openly change their beliefs and change? Or do we use it against them so that people are fearful of publicly changing? We don't know if Obama is truly for or against something by what he says anyways. We have to go by actions. If anyone was or is stupid enough to follow what a candidate says as gospel n their true beliefs, then thats really their own fault. Let's not be so naiive here.

[Showal]

No.. Generally, in the last few elections, the Dem has gotten 90% or so, the repub the other 10.

Obama would get the Black vote even if he said something horrendously offensive to the black community. He'd get it even if he said he was stopping affirmative action. He's Black. He will get at least 95% of the black vote this go around no matter what.

Man, you are a fucking idiot. I don't agree with PB on a multitude of issues, but i like hearing his opinion and it makes you think. I could put one of your posts on repeat and cover anything you might mention in a thread. Get over it. Your posts towards Obama should just read "blacks will vote for Obama because he is black". Despite any info to the contrary, you won't change that belief or talk about much else. You post and argue politics like a shallow child.

[Kembal]

I don't normally reply to Rep comments, but couldn't let this one pass that was on my first post explaining, well, Keynesian economic theory:

Neg N.C. to add marriage... 05-10-2012 10:29 AM Wow ... do you even have a GED?

I have a degree in Economics, and I'll have an MBA officially as of tomorrow. If you'd like to challenge my understanding of macroeconomics, feel free to post a reply.

[AnticorRifling]

If Adam Smith was a prostitute would he give invisible hand jobs?

[Parkbandit]

Actually, that would be an appropriate use of evolution. Evolution is selecting for qualities that are most advantageous at the time. Evolution does not have an end goal and can amd has caused old traits to come back.

Typically, the term "evolution" would be to "improve" a trait.. and that would be the evolutionary step. It wouldn't be considered evolution really to go from walking on 2 feet and then go back to walking on 4 legs for example. That was my point.



I'm not here to argue semantics with you, but I think the appropriate argument is whether evolution is a proper term to reflect someones beliefs. I don't think for a minute obama was against gay marriage in 2008. I thought that then. In fact, there were a large number of important issues that no one knew where Obama truly laid on. As Latrin says, who knows truly what anyone else honestly feels. The important thing is do we not allow someone to openly change their beliefs and change? Or do we use it against them so that people are fearful of publicly changing? We don't know if Obama is truly for or against something by what he says anyways. We have to go by actions. If anyone was or is stupid enough to follow what a candidate says as gospel n their true beliefs, then thats really their own fault. Let's not be so naiive here.

What is naive here is to believe that Obama's "personal convictions" and "soul searching" is nothing more than poll reading and opinion research. If Obama didn't believe he could get a political advantage of marching Biden out and "OMG He just spilled the beans!" and then to have this "courageous decision" to say he believes in gay marriage... he wouldn't have made it and would have stuck to the same guns he used in 2004 Senate election and 2008 Presidential election... that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Biden was nothing more than a barometer to gauge public opinion... if it went over well, then Obama enters on his white steed. If it doesn't, then chalk it up to Biden being Biden.. but Obama's stance is firm.

And all the time, we don't discuss how poorly Obama has been governing over the past 3 years... it's brilliant.

[Androidpk]

Obama, now in the 21st century.

[Showal]

Typically, the term "evolution" would be to "improve" a trait.. and that would be the evolutionary step. It wouldn't be considered evolution really to go from walking on 2 feet and then go back to walking on 4 legs for example. That was my point.



What is naive here is to believe that Obama's "personal convictions" and "soul searching" is nothing more than poll reading and opinion research. If Obama didn't believe he could get a political advantage of marching Biden out and "OMG He just spilled the beans!" and then to have this "courageous decision" to say he believes in gay marriage... he wouldn't have made it and would have stuck to the same guns he used in 2004 Senate election and 2008 Presidential election... that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Biden was nothing more than a barometer to gauge public opinion... if it went over well, then Obama enters on his white steed. If it doesn't, then chalk it up to Biden being Biden.. but Obama's stance is firm.

And all the time, we don't discuss how poorly Obama has been governing over the past 3 years... it's brilliant.

I cannot and will not argue that his timing and change in heart is nothing more than political grandstanding. That, however, was not my point.

[~Rocktar~]

I don't normally reply to Rep comments, but couldn't let this one pass that was on my first post explaining, well, Keynesian economic theory:

Neg N.C. to add marriage... 05-10-2012 10:29 AM Wow ... do you even have a GED?

I have a degree in Economics, and I'll have an MBA officially as of tomorrow. If you'd like to challenge my understanding of macroeconomics, feel free to post a reply.

I didn't post the rep, I sign mine so you know it comes with love from me however, I have to agree with the poster of the rep. You have a degree, great, you can use it to wipe your ass with because that is about what it is worth. The policies, tactics and spending plans didn't work in the past with Carter, they don't work now with Obama, Clinton was smart enough to not push it and possibly, that is his smartest political move ever.

Keynesian economic theory fails, just like Socialism fails, Communism fails and a myriad of other repeatedly tried failures. No matter how much professors, economic theorists and political vote buyers desire otherwise, it doesn't change the fact that it fails. Someone described insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, well, Keynesian economic theory is and has become insanity. You can know all there is to know in this world about economic theory, the practical facts suggest that the theory is incorrect. Science tests theories, if they fail, they discard them and investigate a new theory, Keynesian economists just keep saying "the stimulus wasn't big enough."

[Parkbandit]

I cannot and will not argue that his timing and change in heart is nothing more than political grandstanding. That, however, was not my point.

How fucking dare you not argue with me about his timing?

GOOD DAY SIR.

[Latrinsorm]

Typically, the term "evolution" would be to "improve" a trait.. and that would be the evolutionary step. It wouldn't be considered evolution really to go from walking on 2 feet and then go back to walking on 4 legs for example. That was my point.Biologically, it certainly would, so long as the environment favored "going back" to walking on 4 legs. Consider life forms that need oxygen to survive, such as humans. If for whatever reason the environment went back to one where oxygen was scarce, we would need to evolve the capability to function without it. That this capability was popular 3 Gya is immaterial to whether we are evolving. Evolving is not about being different from the past, it is about being adapted to the present.

Putting that aside, "[t]ypically" is such an interesting word to use here. Is there a common belief in the superiority of the present, and therefore the inferiority of the past? Certainly there is. Our guns are bigger, our cars are faster, our science is better, etc. (It's also super interesting that there are nevertheless strains that seek to hold onto the past, but that is a separate discussion.) There have been plenty of philosophers who see the world through this lens, and see progress leading inevitably to various perfect ideals, overcoming whatever errors / speed bumps we come up with. Hence, "evolution". We continue to hone our beliefs, systems of government, etc. by discarding those from the past that don't work (c.f. Rocktar's post preceding this one for a common phrasing of this).

Isn't this "that don't work" hysterically arrogant? Keynesian theory has been around what, 100 years? And some people would like to universally and unequivocally rule it out. It took us thousands of years to even get a tenuous grasp on physics in Newtonian theory, and another couple hundred to realize it was kind of all rubbish and start over. And that was with physics! A ball rolls down a hill, an ion hits the screen. Something as enormous and complex as national/international economics we can knock out by glancing at the Carter administration? Wow!

[Gelston]

http://paulhorton.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/keanu-reeves-whoa.jpg

[Jarvan]

Man, you are a fucking idiot. I don't agree with PB on a multitude of issues, but i like hearing his opinion and it makes you think. I could put one of your posts on repeat and cover anything you might mention in a thread. Get over it. Your posts towards Obama should just read "blacks will vote for Obama because he is black". Despite any info to the contrary, you won't change that belief or talk about much else. You post and argue politics like a shallow child.

Actually, I talk about allot of things, I was talking about how he changed his views for political reasons, and explained why I think he did so. The fact that it is true that some black people will vote for him only cause he is black is still true. The fact that some of those same black people would very likely vote against a white president that came out for gay marriage is also true. If you could find some way to prove that this is not true, I would gladly read it, and if it was not obviously trash, submit that maybe my opinion is wrong.

And frankly, contrary to what you believe, he has done a number of good things.. OBL.. good. Drone strikes against terrorists, good if we couldn't have captured them, and most of the times we couldn't. Played golf allot, good. Means he wasn't making bad choices.

See.. I can find good in the man.

[Showal]

Actually, I talk about allot of things, I was talking about how he changed his views for political reasons, and explained why I think he did so. The fact that it is true that some black people will vote for him only cause he is black is still true. The fact that some of those same black people would very likely vote against a white president that came out for gay marriage is also true. If you could find some way to prove that this is not true, I would gladly read it, and if it was not obviously trash, submit that maybe my opinion is wrong.

And frankly, contrary to what you believe, he has done a number of good things.. OBL.. good. Drone strikes against terrorists, good if we couldn't have captured them, and most of the times we couldn't. Played golf allot, good. Means he wasn't making bad choices.

See.. I can find good in the man.

I challenge you to find proof that blacks vote for Obama solely because he is black. The black community must have been torn when Herman Cain was running.

[Showal]

You know, considering blacks vote solely on the color of a candidates skin and are ignorant to any other qualities.

[Jarvan]

I challenge you to find proof that blacks vote for Obama solely because he is black. The black community must have been torn when Herman Cain was running.

Oh, you mean the Herman Cain that a number of liberals, including Black Liberals referred to as a "modern day uncle tom"?

Yeah, I am sure they would have voted for a man that their so called racial "leaders" pretty much called a traitor to their race.

As for Proof, well, Guess we will have to wait for 5 years. Then we will have my proof. I expect, at least 95-96% black vote for Obama. Then in 4 years, if we have two non black candidates and the dem only gets 90%, I guess that will show that a Number of black voters voted for Obama purely cause he is black.

I never said ALL black voters. Mainly cause generally 90% of the black vote goes Dem no matter what as well.

I have a black republican friend who was kicked out of his frat cause he was a repub. It's just one of those things that is not done.

Or I could always try to dig up data on every race where a black man was running against a white man and see if they had data for it.

or.. you know.. if you think I am wrong, you could do it.

[Latrinsorm]

As for Proof, well, Guess we will have to wait for 5 years. Then we will have my proof. I expect, at least 95-96% black vote for Obama. Then in 4 years, if we have two non black candidates and the dem only gets 90%, I guess that will show that a Number of black voters voted for Obama purely cause he is black.Let me offer you an analogy...

There are two cars, Car A and Car B. Car A is a red Sonata and gets 35 MPG. Car B is a blue Sonata hybrid and gets 40 MPG.

We agree that Car B gets more MPG than Car A. It would not be reasonable to conclude that this is because Car B is blue. In this case Car B gets more MPG because it is a hybrid, and hybrid cars get better MPG.

.

In the analogy, Car A is Senator Kerry, who is white. Car B is Senator Obama, who is black (enough) and a superior candidate. You can claim that Senator Obama got more votes because he is black, but unless you can rule out Senator Obama getting more votes because he is a superior candidate, your conclusion is pretty shaky.

[Showal]

Let me offer you an analogy...

There are two cars, Car A and Car B. Car A is a red Sonata and gets 35 MPG. Car B is a blue Sonata hybrid and gets 40 MPG.

We agree that Car B gets more MPG than Car A. It would not be reasonable to conclude that this is because Car B is blue. In this case Car B gets more MPG because it is a hybrid, and hybrid cars get better MPG.

.

In the analogy, Car A is Senator Kerry, who is white. Car B is Senator Obama, who is black (enough) and a superior candidate. You can claim that Senator Obama got more votes because he is black, but unless you can rule out Senator Obama getting more votes because he is a superior candidate, your conclusion is pretty shaky.

Herman Cain is more black. Due to his darkness and higher purity in blackness, he should have gotten 2/3 of 98% of the black vote while obama should have gotten 1/3. It's a matter of simple mathematics for a true simpleton.

[Showal]

98% of blacks vote according to skin color, the remaining 2% don't but they still don't pay child support.

[Kembal]

I didn't post the rep, I sign mine so you know it comes with love from me however, I have to agree with the poster of the rep. You have a degree, great, you can use it to wipe your ass with because that is about what it is worth. The policies, tactics and spending plans didn't work in the past with Carter, they don't work now with Obama, Clinton was smart enough to not push it and possibly, that is his smartest political move ever.

Keynesian economic theory fails, just like Socialism fails, Communism fails and a myriad of other repeatedly tried failures. No matter how much professors, economic theorists and political vote buyers desire otherwise, it doesn't change the fact that it fails. Someone described insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, well, Keynesian economic theory is and has become insanity. You can know all there is to know in this world about economic theory, the practical facts suggest that the theory is incorrect. Science tests theories, if they fail, they discard them and investigate a new theory, Keynesian economists just keep saying "the stimulus wasn't big enough."

....

Do you see Carter-era stagflation happening now? (The answer is no.) Since the two situations are not comparable, whereas the current situation is directly comparable to the Great Depression, why are you using stagflation as the criteria as to why Keynesian theory doesn't work for the current situation?

Have fun trying to justify austerity as the way to solve the problem. Because it sure as hell is not working for the UK and the Euro zone.

[Jarvan]

Let me offer you an analogy...

There are two cars, Car A and Car B. Car A is a red Sonata and gets 35 MPG. Car B is a blue Sonata hybrid and gets 40 MPG.

We agree that Car B gets more MPG than Car A. It would not be reasonable to conclude that this is because Car B is blue. In this case Car B gets more MPG because it is a hybrid, and hybrid cars get better MPG.

.

In the analogy, Car A is Senator Kerry, who is white. Car B is Senator Obama, who is black (enough) and a superior candidate. You can claim that Senator Obama got more votes because he is black, but unless you can rule out Senator Obama getting more votes because he is a superior candidate, your conclusion is pretty shaky.

Actually, Clinton -Bill- Was a much superior candidate to Obama, and he didn't achieve a 98% black vote.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_92.html#.T6xme8XkflY

and

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_96.html#.T6xmmMXkflY

So what you are saying then by the numbers, and your analogy, is that Obama was a superior candidate due to being Black.

or that Obama is the greatest candidate ever for Black people. ( or at least since 1976 since I couldn't find demographic data from before then )

So I guess what your saying is he is the second coming of Christ.

[Showal]

Actually, Clinton -Bill- Was a much superior candidate to Obama, and he didn't achieve a 98% black vote.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_92.html#.T6xme8XkflY

and

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_96.html#.T6xmmMXkflY

So what you are saying then by the numbers, and your analogy, is that Obama was a superior candidate due to being Black.

or that Obama is the greatest candidate ever for Black people. ( or at least since 1976 since I couldn't find demographic data from before then )

So I guess what your saying is he is the second coming of Christ.

King Dark didn't get 98% either. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.T6x0u-bCvrg

McCain got 4%? What were den blacks thinkin??

An increase of about 10% may be attributed to race, but that's not the only change that happened. How powerful was the anti-bush push to get a democratic candidate in there? Or were blacks too blinded by darkness to even notice that?

[Tgo01]

Clinton's approval among blacks averaged 81%, Obama's is around 90%. That's really not a huge difference. Blacks generally just vote for and support Democrats.

[Latrinsorm]

Actually, Clinton -Bill- Was a much superior candidate to Obama, and he didn't achieve a 98% black vote.I would say Clinton was a superior President (so far), but your numbers do not indicate he was a superior candidate to the public at large.
So what you are saying then by the numbers, and your analogy, is that Obama was a superior candidate due to being Black.Only if you think I was saying that a car is a hybrid due to being blue.

You should address the fact that Obama's largest improvement over Clinton was in the Asian demographic: an 18 point increase from 1996 to 2012 compared to only an 11 point increase in the Black demographic. The 1992 comparison is even more stark: a 35 point increase for Asians compared to only a 12 point increase for blacks. If one demographic had non-racial motives, it stands to reason a different demographic could as well.

Some other interesting comparisons: in 1992 only 12% of voters made $75k or more and they swung heavily non-Democrat, in 2008 that figure rose to 41% and was a dead heat. In 1992 77% of Dems and 73% of Repubs voted for "their" candidates, in 2008 these numbers were 89% and 93% respectively.

Personally, I don't think comparing candidates from 16 years ago makes a lot of sense, too much has changed since 1992. If you are going to do it, though, I think you may as well do it right.

[Showal]

I would say Clinton was a superior President (so far), but your numbers do not indicate he was a superior candidate to the public at large.Only if you think I was saying that a car is a hybrid due to being blue.

You should address the fact that Obama's largest improvement over Clinton was in the Asian demographic: an 18 point increase from 1996 to 2012 compared to only an 11 point increase in the Black demographic. The 1992 comparison is even more stark: a 35 point increase for Asians compared to only a 12 point increase for blacks. If one demographic had non-racial motives, it stands to reason a different demographic could as well.

Some other interesting comparisons: in 1992 only 12% of voters made $75k or more and they swung heavily non-Democrat, in 2008 that figure rose to 41% and was a dead heat. In 1992 77% of Dems and 73% of Repubs voted for "their" candidates, in 2008 these numbers were 89% and 93% respectively.

Personally, I don't think comparing candidates from 16 years ago makes a lot of sense, too much has changed since 1992. If you are going to do it, though, I think you may as well do it right.

blacks are sheep. They vote according to one issue, blackness. When thats not a choice, they vote democrat. Asians are capable of more complex thoughts. They dont apply to Jarvan's point.

[Jarvan]

I really do find it amusing.

If the white vote had jumped 5-8 points in favor of the white candidate it would be an obvious sign of racism. Hell, the Obama campaign and the Left accused anyone not voting for them of being a racist anyway. And he got more of the white vote then McCain did.

I'm sorry if you don' want to admit it to your fragile ego's but really, in most cases, the black vote is the sheep vote for the dems. For a number of reasons, non of which are repubs being racist. Add in the fact that the dem candidate was black, which I am sure also caused higher black turnout adding to the difference, some repubs and conservatives voted for him that wouldn't have.

Hell, Colin Powell endorsed him.

Of course, Obama also lied about being a moderate, if Obama was center left, as he claimed. Then McCain was a far right zealot.

[Showal]

I really do find it amusing.

If the white vote had jumped 5-8 points in favor of the white candidate it would be an obvious sign of racism. Hell, the Obama campaign and the Left accused anyone not voting for them of being a racist anyway. And he got more of the white vote then McCain did.

I'm sorry if you don' want to admit it to your fragile ego's but really, in most cases, the black vote is the sheep vote for the dems. For a number of reasons, non of which are repubs being racist. Add in the fact that the dem candidate was black, which I am sure also caused higher black turnout adding to the difference, some repubs and conservatives voted for him that wouldn't have.

Hell, Colin Powell endorsed him.

Of course, Obama also lied about being a moderate, if Obama was center left, as he claimed. Then McCain was a far right zealot.

Lol blacks

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Are you calling LGBT people crazies?

Actually the crazies I was thinking of was the evangelicals. The other more important issues I was talking about are things like the economy, jobs market, fed budget, Afghanistan, Israel, N. Korea, Iran... shit like that. In my mind, they are more important at this time than gay marriage.

[Back]

Keynesian economic theory fails, just like Socialism fails, Communism fails and a myriad of other repeatedly tried failures.

I don't know... China seems to be doing fairly well for itself.

These systems don't fail. People fail at implementing them properly. I'll go ahead and list greed as the number one human trait that fucks any system up.

[AnticorRifling]

Important to you, sure. You're allowed to get married so this wouldn't be important to you.

To the folks that want to get married and can't this might be as important as the issues you've listed that are more important (again to you).

Fixing the economy, job market, fed budget, the situations with other countries, etc, and gay marriage. All are on the table...which is the quick win action item that you can address with relative ease and then move on to the rest of the list? *hint it's not the economy*

[AnticorRifling]

I don't know... China seems to be doing fairly well for itself.

These systems don't fail. People fail at implementing them properly. I'll go ahead and list greed as the number one human trait that fucks any system up.

How's that retired work force working out for them?

[Tgo01]

I don't know... China seems to be doing fairly well for itself.

These systems don't fail. People fail at implementing them properly. I'll go ahead and list greed as the number one human trait that fucks any system up.

Wait...

What?

[Androidpk]

China is one gigantic bubble of fuck that's due for a pop.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Important to you, sure. You're allowed to get married so this wouldn't be important to you.

To the folks that want to get married and can't this might be as important as the issues you've listed that are more important (again to you).

Fixing the economy, job market, fed budget, the situations with other countries, etc, and gay marriage. All are on the table...which is the quick win action item that you can address with relative ease and then move on to the rest of the list? *hint it's not the economy*

This is actually kind of why the squabbling over various social issues really pisses me off.

On the one hand, I feel like I can't back down on my morals because I don't want women to suffer and not have abortion rights, I don't want gay people to not be able to get married. On the other, it makes me fucking furious with all of the politicians involved because its like they're bald faced stating, "Haha you're a minority, instead of fixing the major issues our country is staring down I'm going to use you and your group and your rights/lack of rights as worthless collateral in this epic pissing match to distract the masses while our economy goes down the drain".

Like seriously, it's 2012 and we're arguing if gays are ruining marriage and if women should be able to access cheap birth control. Why the fuck is this the "important" stuff people on either side give 2 shits about? It's a bunch of white noise.

TL;DR fuck the police. Also I just depressed myself.

[Androidpk]

Nikki.. even if we didn't have these "minor" issues do you honestly think they would focus on fixing the economy? Even if they did debate on the "important" shit do you actually think they would seriously attempt to fix them? This same shit happens every 4 years and people are too content to actually do something about it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

This is actually kind of why the squabbling over various social issues really pisses me off.

On the one hand, I feel like I can't back down on my morals because I don't want women to suffer and not have abortion rights, I don't want gay people to not be able to get married. On the other, it makes me fucking furious with all of the politicians involved because its like they're bald faced stating, "Haha you're a minority, instead of fixing the major issues our country is staring down I'm going to use you and your group and your rights/lack of rights as worthless collateral in this epic pissing match to distract the masses while our economy goes down the drain".

Like seriously, it's 2012 and we're arguing if gays are ruining marriage and if women should be able to access cheap birth control. Why the fuck is this the "important" stuff people on either side give 2 shits about? It's a bunch of white noise.


AR, Nikki pretty much stated my thoughts on it. I'm for Gay rights, if someone wants to get married, go for it (my caveat is that everyone gets all the benefits and disadvantages of marriage that anyone else does - nothing special). Shit like that should be a fucking NO BRAINER. Instead, it's a major fucking issue in this country. I'm not saying marriage is right OR wrong, just that ANYONE should be able to do it.

The other things I listed, I think are a little more complex.

[Back]

Obama Campaign Sells LGBT Gear After Gay Marriage Reversal (http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/obama-campaign-sells-lgbt-gear-after-gay-marriage)

http://store.barackobama.com/collections/lgbt-for-obama.html



http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2012/5/11/13/enhanced-buzz-3937-1336758979-15.jpg

[Showal]

Obama Campaign Sells LGBT Gear After Gay Marriage Reversal (http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/obama-campaign-sells-lgbt-gear-after-gay-marriage)

http://store.barackobama.com/collections/lgbt-for-obama.html



http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2012/5/11/13/enhanced-buzz-3937-1336758979-15.jpg

hahaha wow. How wildly inappropriate.

[Showal]

how much would my mom hate it if I got her new cat a "cats for obama" collar?

[Parkbandit]

how much would my mom hate it if I got her new cat a "cats for obama" collar?

My step-mom would love it... only because she's certifiable.

[Parkbandit]

Important to you, sure. You're allowed to get married so this wouldn't be important to you.


What actually changed though? Obama came out.. in a very "courageous" manner.. and said he was for gay marriage, but that it's up to the states to decide.

Fantastic!

He's also stated that he will not put this on the Democrat 2012 platform.

So.. nothing has really changed, despite Obama's "heroic" effort.

[AnticorRifling]

What has changed? Nothing. That's kind of Nikki's point which I agree with, it's all air.

Hell he doesn't have to put it on his platform, it's going to be on the minds of the people and that's enough for some swing vote.

I never said Obama was dumb, I think this was a smart move. I don't think anything will come of it and Obama didn't say anything would come of it so he can't be called a liar. Smart. Can't stand him but credit where credit is due.

[AnticorRifling]

Obama Campaign Sells LGBT Gear After Gay Marriage Reversal (http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/obama-campaign-sells-lgbt-gear-after-gay-marriage)

http://store.barackobama.com/collections/lgbt-for-obama.html



http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2012/5/11/13/enhanced-buzz-3937-1336758979-15.jpg

My brother is getting ready to have a kid, I'm ordering this because it's hilarious.

[Showal]

My brother is getting ready to have a kid, I'm ordering this because it's hilarious.

Hahahaha

[Showal]

I wish they had an adult one.

[Gompers]

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/the-friday-dar-15.jpg

;tldr version: gays lost

[Tgo01]

Wait they outlawed homosexuality too?! Damn North Carolina is tough!

[Jarvan]

hmmm

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/05/11/obamas_new_view_on_gays_doesnt_faze_black_voters/

If Obama needs to endorse same-sex marriage to be re-elected, said Jackson, so be it: "Look, man -- by any means necessary."

[Showal]

hmmm

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/05/11/obamas_new_view_on_gays_doesnt_faze_black_voters/

If Obama needs to endorse same-sex marriage to be re-elected, said Jackson, so be it: "Look, man -- by any means necessary."

Who would have thought black people could be more complex than just voting according to race? As this article illustrates, the black community has started to somewhat change their view on gay marriage. This article also says that Obama's "change" on the subject seems to be following black views, rather than lead them. Very briefly, this article mentions how Obama got 95% of the black vote. It also says that gay marriage was highly unpopular in the black community of NC. But given the changing trend in the black community, is it any shock that blacks who voted for him before would not be fazed by this? Maybe they feel other things Obama stands for are more important. Maybe they don't feel this is a critical issue.

If this was the best article you could find to prove blacks vote for Obama solely on the basis of race, you failed hard.

[Showal]

What im getting at, because I know you won't understand, is this article does nothing to establish the reason blacks voted for Obama initially. If you take your hard set belief that they voted for him solely for being black as true, then this article leads weak evidence that his recent announcement has not affected that for 2012. Why is it weak? The people in the article may say they don't agree with gay marriage for a number of reasons, but they never make it a serious issue. They say its between them and their god. This viewpoint is what the article highlights. It never establishes a reason that blacks vote for Obama.

By the way, the article you link was posted in a very liberal news source in a very liberal state, despite coming out of Philadelphia. You won't find what you're looking for on Boston.com. Anything you do find is going to be highly speculative and incredibly opinion based, sort of like the argument you're making or trying to make.

[Jarvan]

Btw.. how did Obama's viewpoint on Gay Marriage "Change" when he was for it as an Il state senator, not to mention they HAD all the gay merchandise ready for their store the second he came out "for" it.

It's not really a change when you stop lying you know.


Also, maybe it's just me.. but the phrase - Whatever it takes to get re-elected, sounds to me like it doesn't matter what his viewpoints or beliefs are.

Are not the repubs doing the same thing? Conservatives don't really like Romney, but they will do, "whatever it takes".

Whatever it takes doesn't sound like he is voting for someone based on their political views.

Of course I am sure you have a good explanation or spin for that as well.

[Showal]

Btw.. how did Obama's viewpoint on Gay Marriage "Change" when he was for it as an Il state senator, not to mention they HAD all the gay merchandise ready for their store the second he came out "for" it.

It's not really a change when you stop lying you know.


Also, maybe it's just me.. but the phrase - Whatever it takes to get re-elected, sounds to me like it doesn't matter what his viewpoints or beliefs are.

Are not the repubs doing the same thing? Conservatives don't really like Romney, but they will do, "whatever it takes".

Whatever it takes doesn't sound like he is voting for someone based on their political views.

Of course I am sure you have a good explanation or spin for that as well.

How many times do I have to say that I don't believe Obamas view has changed before it sinks in? The phrase "whatever it takes" does not mean "I have voted for obama in the past and will continue to do so because he is black". How are you not comprehending this? You are so set in this thought that a black man could say "I support Obama because of such and such" and you'd post it and say "see? It's because he is black."

[Jarvan]

How many times do I have to say that I don't believe Obamas view has changed before it sinks in? The phrase "whatever it takes" does not mean "I have voted for obama in the past and will continue to do so because he is black". How are you not comprehending this? You are so set in this thought that a black man could say "I support Obama because of such and such" and you'd post it and say "see? It's because he is black."

Your so set in your thought that people could say "I voted for him cause he's black" and you would be like, see, it's cause he is a great person, or cause he has done wonderful things for people, blah blah blah.

So your agreeing then that he is a Liar?

[Gelston]

http://www.theroot.com/samuel-l-jackson-obama-voted-because-black

[Showal]

Your so set in your thought that people could say "I voted for him cause he's black" and you would be like, see, it's cause he is a great person, or cause he has done wonderful things for people, blah blah blah.

So your agreeing then that he is a Liar?

For my thoughts on Obama's change, please refer to my other posts in this exact thread on that exact same topic. You seem to be completely incapable of complex adult logic and thoughts.

[Kembal]

Actually the crazies I was thinking of was the evangelicals. The other more important issues I was talking about are things like the economy, jobs market, fed budget, Afghanistan, Israel, N. Korea, Iran... shit like that. In my mind, they are more important at this time than gay marriage.

I thought that's what you meant. :)