Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on July 29, 2008, 08:43:28 AM
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/07/16/2008-07-16_im_a_lifelong_conservative_activist_and_.html
I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm backing Barack Obama
BY LARRY HUNTER
Wednesday, July 16th 2008, 7:39 PM
I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America.
This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.
When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost everything I believe in?
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
Taxes, economic policy and health care reform matter, of course. But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats - these are of greater importance.
John McCain would continue the Bush administration's commitment to interventionism and constitutional overreach. Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That's what conservatism used to mean - and it's what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.
Plus, when it comes to domestic issues, I don't take Obama at his word. That may sound cynical. But the fact that he says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn't bother me as much as it once would have. After all, the Republicans said all the right things - fiscal responsibility, spending restraint - and it didn't mean a thing. It is a sad commentary on American politics today, but it's taken as a given that politicians, all of them, must pander, obfuscate and prevaricate.
Besides, I suspect Obama is more free-market friendly than he lets on. He taught at the University of Chicago, a hotbed of right-of-center thought. His economic advisers, notably Austan Goolsbee, recognize that ordinary citizens stand to gain more from open markets than from government meddling. That's got to rub off.
When it comes to health care, I am hoping Obama quietly recognizes that a crusade against pharmaceutical companies would result in the opposite of any intended effect. And in any event, McCain's plans in this area are deeply problematic, too. Take drug reimportation. McCain (like Obama) says he's perfectly comfortable with this ill-conceived scheme, which would drive research and development dollars away from the next generation of miracle cures.
But overall, based on his embrace of centrist advisers and policies, it seems likely that Obama will turn out to be in the mold of John Kennedy - who was fond of noting that "a rising tide lifts all boats." Over the last few decades, economic growth has made Americans at every income level better off. For all his borderline pessimistic rhetoric, Obama knows this. And I believe he is savvy enough to realize that the real threat to middle-class families and the poor - an economic undertow that drags everyone down - cannot be counteracted by an activist government.
Or maybe not. But here's the thing: Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I'm still voting for him.
These past eight years, we have spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil - and lost countless lives - and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution.
If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It's not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years.
Hunter is the former staff director of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee and president of the Social Security Institute.
-
"I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America."
He sounds like a real lib to me. Who is this "Reagan" guy, anyway?
-
I can sympathize with Hunter. I too would prefer a Conservative President, but I think that Obama will be the lesser of the two evils.
-
I can sympathize with Hunter. I too would prefer a Conservative President, but I think that Obama will be the lesser of the two evils.
Obama has done more to repair national relations between the USA and Eur/M.E. in the last week than Bush has done in 7 years.
Isn't that sad?
-
Obama is centrist. His UHC plan doesn't castrate private insurance companies, it works with them. I think that's a big mistake but that's the platform the man chose.
I mean it's damn near impossible to paint Obama as a big spending liberal in comparision to McCain who was a partner in crime to the most debt-ridden, free-spending administration in history.
McCain/Bush have just about doubled the national debt in only 7+ years.
This is a point where being a green senator helps Obama--no nasty record to look at.
-
I can sympathize with Hunter. I too would prefer a Conservative President, but I think that Obama will be the lesser of the two evils.
That does seem to be his position and it's pretty much my feeling too.
-
Mccain looks more like Dole every day.
He is aging terribly. He had more of that mole removed yesterday and biopsied, then stood in the sun to talk about it. What was he thinking there?
He's reacting to obama's moves with identical, smaller moves. He's imitating him.
He can't stop contradicting himself in interviews... he oddly keeps denying he said things that video proves he did say.
Obama is a weak candidate, and he's looking like JFK next to mcccain.
-
Mccain looks more like Dole every day.
He is aging terribly. He had more of that mole removed yesterday and biopsied, then stood in the sun to talk about it. What was he thinking there?
He's reacting to obama's moves with identical, smaller moves. He's imitating him.
He can't stop contradicting himself in interviews... he oddly keeps denying he said things that video proves he did say.
Obama is a weak candidate, and he's looking like JFK next to mcccain.
every time I see McCain on TV all I can think about is how old, tired and uninspired he appears to be.
The next president is going to have the most grueling and demanding job on the planet.
Even if I thought McCain had any viable solutions I just don't see him as physically/mentally capable for the job
-
Obama is centrist.
??? He is about as far to the left as a presidential candidate can get.
-
??? He is about as far to the left as a presidential candidate can get.
Partially true, but he and mccain have both come full center on many positions.
He wishes to invade pakistan.
He just told germany that they need to send men to fight in afghanistan.
There are senators with FAR more left leaning. Of course he is on the left. But not the furthest, unless you're following that list of 77 bills hand-picked by a right-wing think tank.
-
??? He is about as far to the left as a presidential candidate can get.
How so?
He's into gov. tax payouts like Bush. He's going to work with private insurers on healthcare.
He's no Paul Wellstone.
-
How so?
He's into gov. tax payouts like Bush. He's going to work with private insurers on healthcare.
He's no Paul Wellstone.
He already admitted he really offers nothing new. What he offers is the traditional big government, tax and spend liberal policies that have been embraced by Democrats for decades.
He's far left of center on economic issues. He wants to raise taxes on millions of Americans.
He has a firm redistribution of wealth mindset.
He's left of center on abortion.
He's all over the place on the Second Amendment and the death penalty.
He's far left of center on homosexual marriage, even attempting to argue that the Bible supports homosexual marriage.
I could probably list other issues, but it's pretty clear the guy is a leftwing liberal, and I don't have the time right now. His attempt to run to the center doesn't change the fact he is a new and improved version of Jimmy Carter.
-
He already admitted he really offers nothing new. What he offers is the traditional big government, tax and spend liberal policies that have been embraced by Democrats for decades.
He's far left of center on economic issues. He wants to raise taxes on millions of Americans.
He has a firm redistribution of wealth mindset.
He's left of center on abortion.
He's all over the place on the Second Amendment and the death penalty.
He's far left of center on homosexual marriage, even attempting to argue that the Bible supports homosexual marriage.
I could probably list other issues, but it's pretty clear the guy is a leftwing liberal, and I don't have the time right now. His attempt to run to the center doesn't change the fact he is a new and improved version of Jimmy Carter.
Clinton had the same economic approach and we all remember how that turned out for our country's bottom line.
If McCain is only half as bad as Bush with his spending, he'll increase the debt to only about 12 trillion dollars...while maintaining a hefty deficit.
-
He already admitted he really offers nothing new. What he offers is the traditional big government, tax and spend liberal policies that have been embraced by Democrats for decades.
He's far left of center on economic issues. He wants to raise taxes on millions of Americans.
He has a firm redistribution of wealth mindset.
He's left of center on abortion.
He's all over the place on the Second Amendment and the death penalty.
He's far left of center on homosexual marriage, even attempting to argue that the Bible supports homosexual marriage.
I could probably list other issues, but it's pretty clear the guy is a leftwing liberal, and I don't have the time right now. His attempt to run to the center doesn't change the fact he is a new and improved version of Jimmy Carter.
I'll take Tax and Spend over Borrow and Spend which is all the Repugs have ever done.
Obama will probably have to do what every other modern Democratic President has done which is clean up the fiscal disaster from the previous Republican Administration
BTW Bum - Don't kid yourself. The Neo-Con's are all about re-distribution of wealth. They've taken the wealth of our nation and redistribute it to their friends via "no-bid" contracts, tax credits, and graft.
-
I'll take Tax and Spend over Borrow and Spend which is all the Repugs have ever done.
Obama will probably have to do what every other modern Democratic President has done which is clean up the fiscal disaster from the previous Republican Administration
BTW Bum - Don't kid yourself. The Neo-Con's are all about re-distribution of wealth. They've taken the wealth of our nation and redistribute it to their friends via "no-bid" contracts, tax credits, and graft.
History has shown this to be accurate.
Obama will tax big in order to reduce the deficit.
If you care about the deficit (everyone's overall situation), Obama is your guy.
If you care more about your own tax bracket, McCain is your guy.
It's that simple.
-
Ha,ha...I love this thread! ;D
He's far left of center on homosexual marriage, even attempting to argue that the Bible supports homosexual marriage.
This is simply incorrect. Obama is against gay marriage, so you can certainly be left of him on this issue.
Mccain looks more like Dole every day.
You mean an old war hero who ran a lackluster campaign and lost a lopsided election? Hmmm...
-
I actually read that oped the day it came out about two weeks ago and didn't really give it a second thought. It's funny that you came across the article.
I dont know much about the guy who wrote it, and it suffices to say that I'm sure he believes what he wrote. But when I see lines like this:
Plus, when it comes to domestic issues, I don't take Obama at his word. That may sound cynical. But the fact that he says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn't bother me as much as it once would have. After all, the Republicans said all the right things - fiscal responsibility, spending restraint - and it didn't mean a thing. It is a sad commentary on American politics today, but it's taken as a given that politicians, all of them, must pander, obfuscate and prevaricate.
[ So by this guys logic, having the wrong position on domestic policies is really just a covert strategy for Obama to get elected and then what happens? Nothing? Everything changes? Things change a little?]
Besides, I suspect Obama is more free-market friendly than he lets on. He taught at the University of Chicago, a hotbed of right-of-center thought. His economic advisers, notably Austan Goolsbee, recognize that ordinary citizens stand to gain more from open markets than from government meddling. That's got to rub off.
[ Once again, I fail to see the logic in this guys argument. Because he has publicly presented himself as a redistibute the wealth, enemy of the free market, he now really isn't an enemy of the free market? Another ploy to get elected I suppose? Is his economic advisor the same guy who helped create Obama's absurdly impossible social security and taxation plan? AND BY THE WAY--> UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO A HOTEBED OF RIGHT OF CENTER THOUGHT? Unless there is another University of Chicago in another country somewhere, that is an out and out falsehood. ]
When it comes to health care, I am hoping Obama quietly recognizes that a crusade against pharmaceutical companies would result in the opposite of any intended effect. And in any event, McCain's plans in this area are deeply problematic, too. Take drug reimportation. McCain (like Obama) says he's perfectly comfortable with this ill-conceived scheme, which would drive research and development dollars away from the next generation of miracle cures.
[ Ok, so on this issue, he disagrees with Obama's position and likes McCains a little bit better, but not much.]
When I read this article 2 weeks ago I remembered thinking that the article should have been called something else entirely. The problem with the article is that the author SAYS explicitly that even if Obama is a disaster he's still voting for him because he hates the Bush administration. The article goes through most of Obama's positions and either makes excuses for them or denounces them, then proceeds by saying the self proclaimed life long Republican will vote Democrat. I fail to see how this is a revelation or something deserving much thought or merit. Labeling yourself as a lifelong "conservative activist", then denouncing your political party to vote for someone who is on the opposite end of everything your party stands for, leads me to believe the guy who wrote this either has an axe to grind, is looking to get appointed to Obama's cabinet, or is a total fraud. Either way this article is a joke.
Bush isn't running for a third term & both houses are majority democrat. The only people that will bare the grunt of this kind of backward thinking is the American public with Obama as president. GW will be in Crawford Texas shooting deer or doing whatever the fuck he does.
-
I actually read that oped the day it came out about two weeks ago and didn't really give it a second thought. It's funny that you came across the article.
I dont know much about the guy who wrote it, and it suffices to say that I'm sure he believes what he wrote. But when I see lines like this:
Plus, when it comes to domestic issues, I don't take Obama at his word. That may sound cynical. But the fact that he says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn't bother me as much as it once would have. After all, the Republicans said all the right things - fiscal responsibility, spending restraint - and it didn't mean a thing. It is a sad commentary on American politics today, but it's taken as a given that politicians, all of them, must pander, obfuscate and prevaricate.
[ So by this guys logic, having the wrong position on domestic policies is really just a covert strategy for Obama to get elected and then what happens? Nothing? Everything changes? Things change a little?]
Besides, I suspect Obama is more free-market friendly than he lets on. He taught at the University of Chicago, a hotbed of right-of-center thought. His economic advisers, notably Austan Goolsbee, recognize that ordinary citizens stand to gain more from open markets than from government meddling. That's got to rub off.
[ Once again, I fail to see the logic in this guys argument. Because he has publicly presented himself as a redistibute the wealth, enemy of the free market, he now really isn't an enemy of the free market? Another ploy to get elected I suppose? Is his economic advisor the same guy who helped create Obama's absurdly impossible social security and taxation plan? AND BY THE WAY--> UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO A HOTEBED OF RIGHT OF CENTER THOUGHT? Unless there is another University of Chicago in another country somewhere, that is an out and out falsehood. ]
When it comes to health care, I am hoping Obama quietly recognizes that a crusade against pharmaceutical companies would result in the opposite of any intended effect. And in any event, McCain's plans in this area are deeply problematic, too. Take drug reimportation. McCain (like Obama) says he's perfectly comfortable with this ill-conceived scheme, which would drive research and development dollars away from the next generation of miracle cures.
[ Ok, so on this issue, he disagrees with Obama's position and likes McCains a little bit better, but not much.]
When I read this article 2 weeks ago I remembered thinking that the article should have been called something else entirely. The problem with the article is that the author SAYS explicitly that even if Obama is a disaster he's still voting for him because he hates the Bush administration. The article goes through most of Obama's positions and either makes excuses for them or denounces them, then proceeds by saying the self proclaimed life long Republican will vote Democrat. I fail to see how this is a revelation or something deserving much thought or merit. Labeling yourself as a lifelong "conservative activist", then denouncing your political party to vote for someone who is on the opposite end of everything your party stands for, leads me to believe the guy who wrote this either has an axe to grind, is looking to get appointed to Obama's cabinet, or is a total fraud. Either way this article is a joke.
Bush isn't running for a third term & both houses are majority democrat. The only people that will bare the grunt of this kind of backward thinking is the American public with Obama as president. GW will be in Crawford Texas shooting deer or doing whatever the fuck he does.
All decent points but it seems to me that this last statement from the author suggests that he believes that Bush is running for a 3rd term via proxy by McCain
"If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It's not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years."
It seems that Hunter is following the old adage that most people will be more motivated to avoid pain than to gain pleasure and he (in my opinion) perceives Obama as the choice to avoid pain.
I also don't get your statement regarding the University of Chicago. Isn't that the place were Leo Strauss (aka father of neoconservatism) and Milton Friedman taught?
IMO - the charge of "redistribution of wealth" is a catch phrase that the right uses to scare people. The last 7 years have seen a vast redistribution of the wealth of the national treasury into the hands of a small group of friends of the administration. The massive debt that they've racked up is nothing if not a redistribution of wealth.
Also, the Dems would need 60 seats to have a viable majority in the Senate
-
Obama hasn't run a donut shop or any business successfully. He has no credibility/history on finance, politics or leadership.
He has mouthed his way this far with ZERO substance or experience.
-
Obama hasn't run a donut shop or any business successfully.
And what business has McCain run sucessfully? Cindy McCain's inherited beer distributorship does not count.
He has no credibility/history on finance, politics or leadership.
He has mouthed his way this far with ZERO substance or experience.
Gee, I wonder who you are going to vote for? ::)
-
And what business has McCain run sucessfully? Cindy McCain's inherited beer distributorship does not count.
Gee, I wonder who you are going to vote for? ::)
McCain is far more experienced and runs a much longer track record to review than that of Barack "The Mouth" Obama.
I am voting for McCain but he wasn't even my 3rd choice...democracy doesn't always go the way we want, but I am glad we have it.
-
It is interesting how many former conservatives back Obama over McCain.
I can't even think of one former "lib" who backs McCain (though I'm sure there are some - not counting his buddy Lieberman)
-
It is interesting how many former conservatives back Obama over McCain.
I can't even think of one former "lib" who backs McCain (though I'm sure there are some - not counting his buddy Lieberman)
You live in a very small circle of friends.
-
You live in a very small circle of friends.
wtf - you don't even know me.
my statement was based on what I see in the media, like the guy who wrote the story in the first post of this thread, and I qualified it by saying "I'm sure there are some"
-
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
:)
-
:)
I don't disagree but just as a matter of clarification that's a quote from Larry Hunter
-
McCain is far more experienced and runs a much longer track record to review than that of Barack "The Mouth" Obama.
Well, we can agree to disagree, as I prefer "good judgment" over "experience" and longevity in Washington. ;)
As for "The Mouth"...you don't like eloquence or leaders that can deliver an inspiring speech?
-
Republicans are not Conservatives.
The same can be said when analyzing Democrats and Liberals.
With the backing of Obama, Mr. Hunter immediately stops being a conservative activist. There is nothing conservative about Obama at all. The man is a globalist and a self-proclaimed "Citizen of the World." No thanks.
I wish folks wouldn't vote on the basis of the "lesser of the two evils" but rather vote for the candidate who has their interests in mind. Both McCain's and Obama's policies will only weaken the middle class and devalue the US as a whole.
But the US voters get what they deserve.
-
The US voters deserve better choices
I'm pretty sure most will vote on a single issue or just because they either like one guy or don't like the other guy based on nothing much more than who they want to have a beer with or maybe in Obama's case, play a game of basketball with.
Practically speaking, there's probably no point in listening to or believing what the candidate says anyway.
I seem to recall our current president saying some of the following:
I'm a uniter not a divider
I'm a compassionate conservate
I'll be president for all people, not just the ones who voted for me
No nation building
and my personal favorite: " I will restore honor and integrity to the White House" ::)
-
The US voters deserve better choices
I'm pretty sure most will vote on a single issue or just because they either like one guy or don't like the other guy based on nothing much more than who they want to have a beer with or maybe in Obama's case, play a game of basketball with.
idiot ::)
-
wtf - you don't even know me.
my statement was based on what I see in the media, like the guy who wrote the story in the first post of this thread, and I qualified it by saying "I'm sure there are some"
True I don't know you.
I based my opinion on the part where you said "I can't even think of one former "lib" who backs McCain (though I'm sure there are some - not counting his buddy Lieberman)"
I often come across the board sounding like an azzhole, if that was one of those times let me know...my regrets.
-
Well, we can agree to disagree, as I prefer "good judgment" over "experience" and longevity in Washington. ;)
As for "The Mouth"...you don't like eloquence or leaders that can deliver an inspiring speech?
I prefer substance over eloquence.
I don't think Obama has made many wise choices based off what I know and who his friends/business partners are/were.
Longevity in Washington usually works against most politicians I would agree with that except that McCain has proven he can work with both sides of the aisle and often was at odds with Republicans.
-
I prefer substance over eloquence.
Great, because Obama provides both. ;)
I don't think Obama has made many wise choices based off what I know and who his friends/business partners are/were.
He's a United States senator. I think he's mad a few "wise choices". ::) You think a couple of casual friendships are more important than the decision to send American troops into a war that has cost 4,000+ lives and 20,000+ injured? If so, you are not very bright.
Longevity in Washington usually works against most politicians I would agree with that except that McCain has proven he can work with both sides of the aisle and often was at odds with Republicans.
"Was" is the operative word in this statement. The John McCain of 2000 would not vote for the John McCain of 2008. The man has flipped on every major issue. In addition, he has lost his maverick status by pandering to the far right of the republican party and kissing the butt cheeks of Dubya for the last six years. :-*
-
True I don't know you.
I based my opinion on the part where you said "I can't even think of one former "lib" who backs McCain (though I'm sure there are some - not counting his buddy Lieberman)"
I often come across the board sounding like an azzhole, if that was one of those times let me know...my regrets.
no worries
btw - I still can't think of one former high profile lib (much less many) who support McCain
this strange phenomena seems to be isolated amoung high profile (or formerly high profile) repubs
-
Ha,ha...I love this thread! ;D
This is simply incorrect. Obama is against gay marriage, so you can certainly be left of him on this issue.
You mean an old war hero who ran a lackluster campaign and lost a lopsided election? Hmmm...
Incorrect? Obama believes the Bible endorses homosexual marriage. This is nothing more than an attempt to pander.
Obama: Sermon on Mount OKs Same-Sex Unions
Monday, March 3, 2008 8:04 AM
By: Terence P. Jeffrey
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him "less Christian."
"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." (See video here) St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.
Obama's mention of the Sermon on the Mount in justifying legal recognition of same-sex unions may have been a reference to the Golden Rule: "Do to others what you would have them do to you." Or it may have been a reference to another famous line: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."
The Sermon, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, includes the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, an endorsement of scriptural moral commandments ("anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"), and condemnations of murder, divorce and adultery. It also includes a warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."
The passage from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which Obama dismissed as "obscure," discusses people who knew God but turned against him.
"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised," wrote St. Paul. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith.
"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."
Obama opened his town-hall-type meeting at the college with a short speech and then provided lengthy answers to a handful of questions. One questioner, Leon Forte, a Protestant clergyman, asked Obama about evangelical Christians who were concerned about his position on issues that conservatives consider "litmus tests."
"Your campaign sets a quandary for most evangelical Christians because I believe that they believe in the social agenda that you have, but they have a problem in what the conservatives have laid out as the moral litmus tests as to who is worthy and who is not," said Forte. "So, I will ask you to speak to those two questions."(See transcript)
Obama volunteered that he believed Forte was talking about abortion and homosexual marriage, and then he gave answers on both issues that were not as explicit as positions he has staked out on these issues in other venues. Last Thursday, for example, as reported by Cybercast News Service, Obama published on his Web site an "open letter concerning LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) equality in America."
In that letter, Obama said he favored same-sex unions that were equal to marriage--including adoption rights--and that he was open to states codifying same-sex marriages.
"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws," Obama said in the letter. "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples--whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."
In Ohio on Sunday, before mentioning the Sermon on the Mount, Obama insisted he was against "gay marriage" and did not mention his support for allowing same-sex couples to adopt children and have the same "family" status as heterosexual couples.
"I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them," said Obama on Sunday. "So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view."
Obama also has been more aggressive in framing his pro-abortion position previously than he was on Sunday. When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a "person" a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.
In a 2001 Illinois Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who survived an abortion a "person" would give it equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument that the same child inside its mother's womb was also a "person" and thus could not be aborted.
When the Illinois Senate bill was amended to make it identical to a federal law that included language to protect Roe v. Wade--and that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to pass--Obama still opposed the bill, voting it down in the Illinois Senate committee he chaired.
Yet, in Ohio on Sunday, Obama depicted abortion as a tragedy to be avoided, while being kept legal.
"On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue," he said. "I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible .... But I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view. Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."
Before discussing his views on same-sex unions and abortion, Obama told the crowd he was a "devout Christian."
"In terms of my faith, there has been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through emails and so forth, so here are the simple facts," he said. "I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years, pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me. Used to go quite often.
"These days, we haven't been at the home church--I haven't been home on Sunday--for several months now. So, my faith is important to me. It is not something that I try to push on other people. But it is something that helps to guide my life and my values."
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Obama_same_sex/2008/03/03/77289.html
-
Incorrect? Obama believes the Bible endorses homosexual marriage. This is nothing more than an attempt to pander.
ALL politicians "pander". That's the nature of the job.
This is all that matters to me from what you posted, and the point I was making. I know where Obama stands on this issue.
I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage...
;)
-
ALL politicians "pander". That's the nature of the job.
This is all that matters to me from what you posted, and the point I was making. I know where Obama stands on this issue. ;)
Politicians lie too, but that doesn't make it right.
I know where Obama stands on homosexual marriage: on both sides of the issue.
"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws," Obama said in the letter. "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples--whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."
::)
-
Politicians lie too, but that doesn't make it right.
Lying and appealing to an interest group are two different things.
I know where Obama stands on homosexual marriage: on both sides of the issue.
Wrong. There's only one side, and it is this:
I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage...
;)
-
Lying and appealing to an interest group are two different things.
Wrong. There's only one side, and it is this: ;)
Semantics. A lie is a lie.
Yes, Obama opposes homosexual marriage, unless the states want to legislate homosexual marriage (which hasn't happened), in which case he supports homosexual marriage. Pure doublespeak.
-
Semantics. A lie is a lie.
"To appeal" and "to lie" are a question of semantics? I suggest you purchase a dictionary and enroll in a remedial english course quickly. I wonder how you made it to adulthood without accidentally killing yourself. :-\
Yes, Obama opposes homosexual marriage, unless the states want to legislate homosexual marriage (which hasn't happened), in which case he supports homosexual marriage. Pure doublespeak.
You're reaching. There is a little thing called states rights that you repubes usually believe in. In any event, I leave you with this:
I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage...
;)
-
I for one think Obama is a total disaster as both a human being and presidential candidate. However, I agree with Benny on this one. He said what McCain will most likely say, and what any center left, central right or far left candidate would say. Hes for civil unions, but wouldn't stand in the way of states adopting legislation for gay marriage... and regardless, he will fight to make sure gay couples recieve the same kinds of rights as straight ones do. Thats called covering all your bases AKA pandering.
However, I will say this. If Obama was truly against gay marriage he would support the federal governments right to suspend the full faith and credit clause of the constitution to restrict the recognition of gay marriages to the state that granted them, OR encourage states to jump on the DOMA bandwaggon and effectively only permit in state residents to be able to have gay marriages.
-
Hes for civil unions, but wouldn't stand in the way of states adopting legislation for gay marriage... and regardless, he will fight to make sure gay couples recieve the same kinds of rights as straight ones do. Thats called covering all your bases AKA pandering.
You mean like what McCain did when he said he was all for gay marriage,
...then immediately turned around and said he was against it? then denied that too?
He frequently speaks out of both sides of his mouth, ...but this time he did on the same show in a span of 11 mins.
I guess the old guy forgot where he was and what he had just said barely 11 minutes previously.
-
Hey douchebag, I agreed with you. Re-read my last post.