Barack Obama : “No one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding hands with the person they love.”

WowbaggerMM · 2012-05-25T01:07:53.797707+00:00

FYI: Romney isn't the "official" nominee yet. He's the presumptive nominee.

WowbaggerMM · 2012-05-25T00:58:20.468205+00:00

Are you joking? An executive order is the easiest thing in the world to overturn. The next president would just have to sign an executive order overturning it. It would motivate the opposition to gay marriage while taking away any sense of urgency from supporters.

Nevermind the fact that marriage licensing is done by states, not the federal government. What do you imagine this executive order would say? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

This is what people were telling him to do about DADT. He explicitly said he didn't want to do it that way because it would be too easy to overturn. His way was slower, but it's permanent. DADT isn't coming back.

WowbaggerMM · 2012-05-25T00:47:26.331912+00:00

There are plenty of independents in places like Ohio and North Carolina who voted for Obama in 2008 but might but turned off by gay marriage. There are plenty of Democratic Senators and Representatives from red states who might not be re-elected if Democrats became the Gay Marriage party. Democrats were already expected to lose control of the Senate this year. If that happens, and they don't take over the House, Barack Obama will have nobody in Congress trying to work with him for at least two years. You live in a bubble if you think he had nothing to lose.

sweetjamsman · 2012-05-24T23:02:23.230272+00:00

My parents once accidentally bought "Pasteurized Process Cheese Food Substitute" (it was 20 years ago but those words are etched in my brain). We had a friend over, and he wanted a cheese sandwich, so we made him one with it. He couldn't even pretend-like it to be polite. He spit it out and said "there's something seriously wrong with your cheese!"

CareForChillyNuts · 1 day

Did you just copy and paste this from the AMA he did a few weeks ago?

HonestyTimeThrowaway · 1 day

I just dug up the old "upvote everything" javascript. Thank you all for making me feel better about my disappointing and deeply flawed but generally tolerable family.

kansasalps · 2 days

If tax rates were what they were in the 90s there would be no deficit. If income equality was what it was in the 70s, there would be no deficit. We wouldn't even need both of those things to be true at the same time. That's what it has to do with the countries problems.

Your problem is you suck at math.

kansasalps · 2 days

I got a raise this year, shOuld my tax rate go up too?

Tax rates on the top 1% have gone down -- way down -- since 1979. Meanwhile, their share of taxes paid has gone way up. You pointed that out as if it proved that they pay more than their fair share. I proved instead that it's only because they've taken more.

You got a raise this year. That means your tax expense will go up too, even if your tax rate stays the same. If you got a huge raise, your tax expense may increase even if your rate drops. Now imagine you're the only person in the country getting raises, and they're big raises -- 100% every year, let's say. Multiply that out over a long enough period and you may find that you, individually, will be responsible for the majority of taxes paid in the U.S. because you will earn the majority of wages made in the U.S. And you will think "One guy responsible for the majority of taxes paid? That's outrageous!" But everyone else will know that the real outrage is that you're the only one who's gotten a raise in recent history.

kansasalps · 3 days

Did YOU know that nearly 100% of real wage increases have gone to the top 1% of earners over the past 30 years? Maybe that's why they're paying more in taxes.

kansasalps · 3 days

The cut in capital gains taxes were part of the Bush tax cuts which are set to expire at the end of this year. The GOP is pulling out all the stops (again) to make sure that doesn't happen. Democrats need to win big in November to take away Republicans' leverage on the issue. So, if you really believe that what you said is important, you should vote Democrat.

kansasalps · 3 days

One party is campaigning on letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The other is campaigning on making them permanent. And a whole lot of people are sticking their fingers in their ears going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME!"

Mystery78748 · 3 days

Rubio is Cuban. The Hispanic population of Florida is mostly Cuban. Cubans typically vote for Republicans, because Republicans take a harder line against the Castro regime.

The vast majority of Hispanics in the U.S. are Mexican. They don't care about Cuban politics. They're more concerned with immigration reform and maybe ending the war on drugs, since it's tearing their country apart. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have been very good on those issues, but Democrats at least tried to pass the DREAM act. Rubio has his own version of the DREAM act, but it doesn't go as far as the Democrats' bill.

He will do better with Hispanics than other Republicans, but I doubt he will win them as a group.

Mystery78748 · 3 days

in 4 years they are going to put Rubio up for president and from that second forward they will be getting the majority of the Hispanic vote

Yeah, just like they won women in 2008 by putting a woman on the ticket. Oh wait...

ethicalking · 6 days

If someone is physically threatening your life, and you need to take them out first, fine. You can't expect anyone to take a beating without fighting back. But you also can't kill someone and expect that no one will question your actions just because the person you killed was black. I'm sure you'll disagree, but that's what this incident looked like to most people. The police investigation consisted of taking the killer at his word that the victim deserved it.

This shooting was avoidable. All Zimmerman had to do was not go looking for a confrontation. For that alone, it merits a trial. Going to court for shooting someone is not oppression. I expect he'll go free, if only because the prosecutor overreached with the charges.

Trayvon attacked because he felt threatened. We don't know what set him off. Was it the stalking in the car? Was it the chase on foot? Did Zimmerman brandish his gun? At what point is it fair to say that Trayvon was the one defending himself? How civil would you be to someone who followed you home at night?

Trayvon was bigger, stronger, and more violent. And as far as value to the community, he was the exact opposite of Zimmerman.

Remind me which one had a prior arrest for assault? And how do you compare the relative worth of a 17 year old and a 28 year old? What assumptions are you making to reach that conclusion?

ethicalking · 6 days

Self defense? Yes. "Stand your ground"? No. Zimmerman went looking for a confrontation, and he got one. I shook my head when the prosecutor decided to go with 2nd degree murder. It should have been manslaughter.

As for this:

white males always being the cultural villains and people of color always being the innocent victims ... an ideology that is crippling this country and endangering the lives of white people

This sound like an alternate reality to me. Think of all the negative stereotypes that have burdened every minority group, and women, with frequently fatal consequences for centuries. Outright oppression, denial of economic opportunities, harassment by legal authorities and demonization in popular culture. And you're worried that white men can't shoot black kids without being suspected of a crime anymore?

Matticus_Rex · 6 days

I think Keynes would say that any spending in a recession is better than no spending, not that all spending is equally good. Digging holes and refilling them is good to the extent that it puts money in peoples pockets and increases demand in the short term, but building bridges is better because it facilitates future economic activity.

johnleemk · 6 days

I'm not sure I get what he's saying. He takes a few shots at Krugman and Keynesians, but ends up arguing for higher inflation targets and fiscal stimulus. Isn't that what Krugman argues for? What am I missing?

Matticus_Rex · 7 days

Thank you. The article was frustratingly short on details, but it seems like nobody else read past the title anyway.

fuzzo · 7 days

With Mitt Romney as his opponent? Yeah, that won't backfire.

drdavidphd · 8 days

You should listen to this podcast, at least the 20 minutes starting from around minute 14. It will both confirm some of your fears about black voters (particularly older, more religious ones) and give you reason to be optimistic for November. The show features 3 young, liberal, gay-rights-supporting blacks, one of whom is also religious. In the linked episode, they talk about the reactions of their very religious mothers to Obama's support for gay marriage.

TL;DListen: None of the mothers liked it, but all of them are still voting for Obama.

schtum · 8 days

There's a lot of talk about blacks being against gay rights and what that means for Obama, after his announcement. Here are some first-hand observations suggesting that there is cause for concern that older blacks may sit out the election, but also hope that they can be brought around if the conversation is framed correctly, e.g. by drawing sharp lines between religious and civil society, and by personalizing the issue for them.

I know 20 minutes is a lot of time to ask from a redditor, but it's really worth a listen, even if you just have it playing in the background while you work.

Raineman · 8 days

I'm not sure where you got the impression that anyone thought the scene itself was racist. If you're wondering about the NSFW tag or why, according to the YouTube description, one company refused to air this episode in syndication, it's simply that "the N-word" makes a lot of people very uncomfortable. That's why we call it "the N-word". When this episode originally ran, there was probably some warning in the news about what was going to happen, or a disclaimer at the start of the episode about "mature content" so parents would know not to let their kids watch it alone.

Nick-at-Nite (the syndicator in question) is in the business of nostalgic fluff, not challenging their viewers. So they skipped this episode because they thought it might be too upsetting. It would be like a rape scene in a Pixar movie: No matter how sensitively they handled it, people would be upset.

AdamVR4 · 8 days

GOTO 10

AdamVR4 · 9 days

Here's Warren's explanation, as reported by the right-wing website cited by Mr. Doilies above:

Warren, locked in a campaign battle against Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), has said she never used her ancestry to get a career leg-up; instead, she listed her heritage in professional directories to connect with other faculty members.

“I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off.”

So, basically, she was trying to network. She checked a box in a directory, after she was already hired. It wasn't used the way she expected, and was apparently used in ways she hadn't expected. The only remaining question is, what does this silly gossip have to do with her unquestionable qualifications for the U.S. Senate?

schtum

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login