|
Post by Bingo on Apr 29, 2012 8:50:48 GMT -8
I was interested to see that Beth Lavinder, a hoop dancer, has posted a video, using "Ain't No Son" as her soundtrack.
She is posting it to highlight opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment in North Carolina to refuse domestic recognition of all unions that aren't between one man and one woman.
Newt Gingrich has posted videos supporting the amendment, saying that both marriage and American values are under attack, and seeking to link the attack to the philosophy of the Obama administration.
Governor Bev Purdue opposes the amendment, and she has convinced some Republican representatives to join cross party opposition, along with several business lobbies.
Polls suggest that most North Carolina voters are against the amendment - but voting will be at the same time as the Republican primaries, suggesting that Conservative-leaning voters are more likely to turn out.
|
|
|
Post by jwaldorf on Apr 29, 2012 9:25:46 GMT -8
Brilliant timing eh? Of course it was set up that way just to make it that much more unlikely to pass. I just wish that Democrats were as Machiavellian(I know, I spelled that wrong) as Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by myfavoritegirls on Apr 29, 2012 15:25:14 GMT -8
Doesn't she kinda resemble Emily too? I don't know how she did all that spinning without throwing up or passing out…it made me dizzy just watching it!
|
|
|
Post by eaglemaster on Apr 29, 2012 23:13:24 GMT -8
That lady is a very talented dancer! And I am just wondering why this amendment is so important for many Republicans, in the year 2012, where economic issues should be at the forefront of anyone's agenda, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Apr 30, 2012 5:18:45 GMT -8
And I am just wondering why this amendment is so important for many Republicans, in the year 2012, where economic issues should be at the forefront of anyone's agenda, in my opinion. The arguments (such as they are) that Gingrich uses show that this is a symbolic issue. For many of them it goes beyond the question of homosexuality as such, and becomes part of the "Culture war" and the imagined threat of "creeping Liberalism". Unfortunately, many people in the voting groups who traditionally support the Democrats (African-Americans, Hispanics, urban workers) also tend to be socially Conservative. The Right are using these constitutional amendments, with simplified claims about "defending marriage", to harness this feeling and getting some people more used to the idea of voting with Republicans. In North Carolina, I'm hoping it may be rejected. Governor Purdue has won support by calling the proposal a threat to women's rights and to the state's business-friendly image. Obama praised her fulsomely, but she is a somewhat controversial figure, and is standing down to avoid complicating his campaign. He is investing money and resources heavily in trying to hold this state (which supported him by a whisker in 2008) - and will hold his nomination convention in Charlotte.
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on May 9, 2012 18:22:30 GMT -8
Well, the constitutional amendment passed.
The vote represented a split that is only too familiar in many of the Southern and Western states - the cities of Charlotte, Asheville, Raleigh and Durham voted against, and the rural and suburban areas generally voted for.
President Obama responded by declaring himself (for the first time since becoming a national politician) in favour of Equal Marriage Rights. This reverses his stand in the 2008 election, when he opposed Gay marriage, and follows the stand in favour of Equal Rights already taken by VP Joe Biden.
North Carolina politics remain hard to predict - and is not clear how (if at all) this issue will impact on the President's chances of holding this highly marginal state in November.
|
|
|
Post by erik on May 10, 2012 5:42:35 GMT -8
Well, whatever might happen in the future, there is no nicer way to say this:
North Carolina just took one huge step backwards (IMHO).
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on May 10, 2012 6:05:36 GMT -8
Although this is a brave and principled evolution in thinking by Obama (he previously cited his Christian principles for opposing Gay marriage, but says he was persuaded in part by conversations with his wife and children), the electoral risk lies in the fact that many voters in three key demographics for the Democrats (African-Americans, Hispanic- Americans, and urban workers of European immigrant heritage) tend to be socially conservative on this issue.
However, it remains to be seen whether, in a national election, this "one issue" consideration will have much impact, when compared with the broader stance and image of the candidates.
|
|
|
Post by sthdvs2012 on May 12, 2012 12:53:59 GMT -8
So he's a flip flopper too? Who would have guessed? lol. What a loser. Just like every other president.
|
|
|
Post by redbarron on May 12, 2012 21:28:57 GMT -8
Flip flop? ? I think this is the first time he has changed his mind on the matter sthdvs2012.
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on May 14, 2012 5:54:53 GMT -8
This viewpoint from ABC suggests that both Obama's stands on equal marriage rights (2008 and today) are in line with the shifts in majority public opinion - and that it may benefit the Democrats more than the Republicans to keep issues other than the state of the economy in the headlines.
"Romney, of course, is hoping the economy is far more relevant to the campaign than social issues. That's primarily a mark of the uncertain jobs and housing markets, but it's also a measure of the cultural shift among voters. Barack Obama was on the side of a majority of the American people when he opposed gay marriage at the start of his career in national politics, in 2004. He's back there again now, having changed his position - a fact Republican strategists know as well as Democrats. The politics will be more complicated in several battleground states, notably North Carolina, where voters resoundingly moved to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage last week, just a day before the president announced his change of heart. But voters for whom opposition to same-sex marriage is the primary voting issue almost certainly weren't Obama voters in the first place. And to look at some early attempts by prominent Republicans to exploit the issue is to squirm. "Call me cynical," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said at Iowa's Faith and Freedom Coalition this weekend, "but I wasn't sure his views on marriage could get any gayer." The issue of same-sex marriage will fire up elements of the conservative base this fall, and will have more eloquent speakers than Paul to push it from the right. For now, though, the president has shifted on a major cultural issue where, polling suggests, demographics are on his side, if not necessarily politics. And the campaign has seen another week elapse where the Obama economy was not front and center."
|
|
|
Post by sthdvs2012 on May 14, 2012 12:58:11 GMT -8
Flip flop? ? I think this is the first time he has changed his mind on the matter sthdvs2012. I don't give a shit if it is his first or 9th time. Pick a stance... and stick with it and nobody can call you a flip flopper. Okay?
|
|
|
Post by redbarron on May 14, 2012 22:20:16 GMT -8
Flip flop? ? I think this is the first time he has changed his mind on the matter sthdvs2012. I don't give a shit if it is his first or 9th time. Pick a stance... and stick with it and nobody can call you a flip flopper. Okay? Flip flopping is when you keep flopping back and forth, not changing your mind once! It's a fool who never changes his/her mind once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by redheadedmomma on May 15, 2012 9:54:11 GMT -8
Redbarron, I agree with you. It's called evolving and growing with knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by sthdvs2012 on May 15, 2012 12:58:03 GMT -8
I don't give a shit if it is his first or 9th time. Pick a stance... and stick with it and nobody can call you a flip flopper. Okay? Flip flopping is when you keep flopping back and forth, not changing your mind once! It's a fool who never changes his/her mind once in a while. Well, regardless of how many times he changes his mind... that is a pretty big issue to change on. He was sternly against gay marriage in 2008... now, he is for it? What the hell? I'm not saying he's doing it because it is an election year... because he would be an idiot for doing so... because that would hurt him... not help him. Especially in swing states. He's an all around loser... just like every other president we've had.... and if you think that any of them are looking out for anything other than themselves... you're just going to be disappointed when you realize all they care about is their ego. So, I don't care. Not voting for him... not voting for Romney. I'll probably write "dumbass" in the blank... because that is what they all are.
|
|
|
Post by eaglemaster on May 16, 2012 10:27:10 GMT -8
He's an all around loser... just like every other president we've had.... and if you think that any of them are looking out for anything other than themselves... you're just going to be disappointed when you realize all they care about is their ego. So, I don't care. Not voting for him... not voting for Romney. I'll probably write "dumbass" in the blank... because that is what they all are. What other solution do you have, Sthdvs2012, to find someone or a group of people to govern your country? Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by sthdvs2012 on May 16, 2012 14:00:38 GMT -8
He's an all around loser... just like every other president we've had.... and if you think that any of them are looking out for anything other than themselves... you're just going to be disappointed when you realize all they care about is their ego. So, I don't care. Not voting for him... not voting for Romney. I'll probably write "dumbass" in the blank... because that is what they all are. What other solution do you have, Sthdvs2012, to find someone or a group of people to govern your country? Any ideas? Nope... the only thing I have to do is remain white and die... those choices aren't up to the people... and probably never will be. lol
|
|
|
Post by lahela on May 17, 2012 15:19:51 GMT -8
I get what sthdvs2012 is saying. Obama chose a clear stance in '08 and gave his solid reasons for why he stood the way he did on that issue. He didn't say he was on the fence or that he didn't have an opinion either way. He made a clear, conscious decision and made it very clear, as well as his reasons for it. I'm not saying people can't change their minds, but when you're a public figure, in a very high powered position and you so drastically "change your mind" on something that has been debated and debated and debated and you took such a solid stance in one direction and now go the other way ...it generally dubs that person as a "flip flopper". Had he gone the other way with it (been for it and is now saying he's against it) , the ones cheering him on NOW would probably be calling foul. You really can't win or please everyone all the time.
|
|
|
Post by erik on May 21, 2012 17:49:08 GMT -8
Quote by sthdvs2012:
I don't think there is anything in the political rule book that says you have to stick to one side of an issue if you find the other side's argument more persuasive. If anything, it takes a lot of guts and fortitude to admit such a thing, the kind of guts and fortitude that the current generation of Republicans totally lacks as far as I'm concerned. George W. Bush proved that with flying colors from the time of the 9/11 attacks until the moment he left office, never admitting one d***ed time in public that he was ever wrong on anything.
|
|
|
Post by sthdvs2012 on May 21, 2012 20:08:44 GMT -8
Quote by sthdvs2012: I don't think there is anything in the political rule book that says you have to stick to one side of an issue if you find the other side's argument more persuasive. If anything, it takes a lot of guts and fortitude to admit such a thing, the kind of guts and fortitude that the current generation of Republicans totally lacks as far as I'm concerned. George W. Bush proved that with flying colors from the time of the 9/11 attacks until the moment he left office, never admitting one d***ed time in public that he was ever wrong on anything. Look, argue about this all you want... in the end... it won't matter because we'll have another corrupt loser in the white house either in 2012 or 2016... so.... that is really all there is to be said.
|
|