Hillary wins OH, TX, RIFollow

Well, he does look Angelic on the cover of RS this month.



Can I get an amen, brother?

Um... Sure. But is Obama running on the "my health care plan is less universal then Clintons" platform?

Cause what you're talking about can just as easily describe a desire to "outdo" each other in terms of who's health care is "more universal". Neither one of them is particularly running *away* from nationalized health care Joph. Quite the opposite.

If Obama were not in the race, do you think Clinton would be touting her health care plan? I don't think so, especially after how well "hillarycare" went over the last time...





Ah. Getting caught up on semantics. here's a page with a bunch of Q&A style quotes from Obama on this (and other issues).

Read it. It's pretty illuminating. Basically, it's a semantic issue. Same for me actually, except he's working on a different level. I separate the idea of "civil union/marriage" as a contract between two people, and "marriage" as a set of criteria set by the state to qualify for a set of tax funded benefits. He bundles those two together, but then states that "marriage" as it's recognized by a church should not be affected.

Um... That's meaningless. If you look at his actual stance, he supports "civil unions" that gain all the rights and benefits from the federal government that marriage now grants. At the risk of being obvious that's "full gay marriage". He's just playing word games here.



Ah. Here's another quote:





I'll also point out that oddly, he states on his own website that "as a Christian" he's opposed to gay marriage, and states repeatedly on the page I linked above that he's clearly talking about "marriage in a church" and not "two people of the same sex receiving benefits from the state", yet he *also* states that his own church recognizes gay marriage.

So he disagrees with his church on this? Or he's just tap dancing around the question of gay marriage in order to appeal to the widest audience possible?...



He's like a contestant on a that game show, and at the end we ask: "Will the real Barack Obama please stand up!".

Edited, Mar 10th 2008 7:09pm by gbaji

You said he appeals to those who most want universal health care. It's up to you to prove. Common sense says that those who MOST want it would want it mandated.No, to people who want FULL gay marriage, the word marriage is critically important. They don't want "separate but equal" status, they want the exact same thing heterosexual couples get.

Apparently you just don't understand your own arguments. Not that I'm surprised

Smash is in the category of "people who most want universal health care", right?

He supports Obama in preference to all other likely candidates for this presidential election.

Case closed.

We can speculate as to others in the group, but from what I've seen, people like Smash fall into the "liberal wingnut" crowd. And they're overwhelmingly in favor of Obama right now.

The people in that group think that Obama just might actually do what they want. They know that Clinton wont. She'll just use it as an issue and hand them another variant of the prescription drug bill. It's not exactly rocket science to figure this out Joph.


Why do you spend so much time insisting that the candidate you support doesn't hold positions he holds, and doesn't appeal to the people he appeals to? I guess I don't get this. You argue day after day for positions that I'd consider pretty darn liberal, yet fall over yourself about how great Obama is, but then insist that he apparently doesn't hold a single viewpoint that's as liberal as your's...


Why are you afraid to acknowledge that Obama is a pretty far left liberal? If you believe in those positions, why deny them? Why dither over the label?




Which is exactly what he said he's support. Read his actual position on this Joph. He wants to give them "the exact same thing". He just wants churches to have the right to acknowledge or not acknowledge them as "marriages" if they want. I didn't even see anything about him being opposed to the name being "marriage".


But don't take my word on it, take Obamas:




He's clearly stating that the state should have the power to decide if a civil union is a "marriage" or not, and that an individual church can choose to recognize marriage within their church if they want (or not).


Did you really think this constituted opposition to state and/or federally granted gay marriage?

He's just saying "But a church can't be forced to marry someone if it doesn't want to". Seriously Joph.



Apparently, I understand your candidate's positions better then you do.

Funny that...

Edit: Gonna find a more recent poll

Edit II: Or not since CNN's exit poll data seems to be down. In any event, there's a clear break for Clinton among those who view health care as their primary election concern.

Edited, Mar 10th 2008 10:20pm by Jophiel

Funny. You do realize that this quote represents a significant change in language on this issue?



Gee! I wonder if he's just telling the religious crowd what he wants to hear? Could it be? Why yes. I think it is!


What he calls it is irrelevant Joph. You're trying to make a huge distinction here. When he talks about "not calling it marriage", or "not recognizing gay marriage", he seems to always be talking in the context of a church or denomination's "choice" to recognize it or call it that. Sometimes, he presents it as his own preference (ie: whether he'd call it a marriage).

But it doesn't matter. My statement about what he called it wasn't part of my proof Joph. It was an idle comment. Obama's own comments on the issue are pretty darn clear. He'd be clearly on the "pro gay marriage" side of this issue. And not just a little bit. He seems to completely be ok with whatever state definitions and rules are derived for this, caring only that churches not be forced to adopt gay marriage.


Good for him supporting separation of church and state. Bad for him completely missing the key issues of gay marriage, which is exactly about state and federal benefits being granted to couples for whom they were never intended.

Edited, Mar 10th 2008 8:56pm by gbaji

What he calls it is irrelevant Joph.

It's exceptionally relevant. You don't get to decide what's relevant to the gay community.

Unless you're an idiot who doesn't pay his hookers in cash.

I can't make it any clearer.WTF? Holy fucking logical fallacies, man. If you had any shame at all, you'd edit that now.

Edited, Mar 10th 2008 11:34pm by Jophiel

That distinction is usually coupled with a "one wont get the same rights/benefits as the other" argument Joph.

Almost never.

You've clearly never talked to a gay activist. I'd ask Nexa, who is quite literally an expert on gay issues, to post about it, but she refuses to respond to you. Let's pretend it's because she's intimidated for your sake.

But since you're not agitating for "full gay marriage", you don't really get to define what it is. The people striving for it do.

Edited, Mar 10th 2008 11:41pm by Jophiel

I don't happen to have a large number of gay rights folks handy to have come here and tell us whether they support Obama or Clinton, so I'll have to stick with the people who are on this forum.

They're largely ambivalent. Lesbians are more likely to support Clinton, just like other women, and gay men are more likely to support Obamma just like other men.

I lost what your imaginary unprovable point was ages ago. Was it that Obama is a socialist revolutionary who's going to kick all the white kids out of Yale or something? That about accurate?