On 2012-03-10 01:38, ed rhodes wrote:


Were there people demanding his sponsors quit the show? Were there petitions being circulated as are being done now. Incidently, Imus found another job.

On 2012-03-10 13:18, landmark wrote:
Isn't Sharpton just an entertainer?

No, seriously, Sharpton is for the most part (he has had a few morally sound moments) a corrupt buffoon, convenient to have around to "represent" Black Leadership.

But really, is it any more laughable than Imus calling Rush on his sexism?!

On 2012-03-10 13:18, landmark wrote:
Isn't Sharpton just an entertainer?

No, seriously, Sharpton is for the most part (he has had a few morally sound moments) a corrupt buffoon, convenient to have around to "represent" Black Leadership.

But really, is it any more laughable than Imus calling Rush on his sexism?!

On 2012-03-06 20:32, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Never mind that Obama/Biden had the exact same position on gay marriage as McCain/Palin.

On 2012-05-09 16:26, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Did they do that just to make my old posts stale!?

On 2012-05-09 16:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Props to Obama/Biden for finally getting on the right side of the issue. Better late than never!

For the cynical...

"Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" (Gallup)

May 2008: 40% Should, 56% Should not, 4% Unsure

May 2012: 50% Should, 48% Should not, 2% Unsure

Those concerned about all of the feared consequences of gay marriage can take comfort in that the fact that thus far, no polls have been released showing that most Americans favor the rights of ducks to marry lawn furniture, so we're probably pretty safe there.

On 2012-05-09 18:55, rockwall wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/against-obama-even-prisoner-gets-votes-123959738.html

Wow. Who knew the Democrat Party had so many bigots?

(OK, yes, that was a rhetorical question.)

On 2012-05-09 18:27, Woland wrote:
Interesting that despite the polling data, Lobo, it appears that every State referendum on the issue has defined marriage as meaning one man and one woman. As in North Carolina yesterday, with a 61% to 39% vote.

On 2012-05-09 19:36, mastermindreader wrote:

... about our democracy ...

On 2012-05-09 19:36, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-09 18:27, Woland wrote: Interesting that despite the polling data, Lobo, it appears that every State referendum on the issue has defined marriage as meaning one man and one woman. As in North Carolina yesterday, with a 61% to 39% vote.

One of the great things about our democracy is that we understand that civil rights aren't determined by a majority vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed if it had been put up to a popular vote. There will never be a shortage of bigots.

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.

On 2012-05-09 19:36, mastermindreader wrote:
=we understand that civil rights aren't determined by a majority vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed if it had been put up to a popular vote. There will never be a shortage of bigots.

On 2012-05-09 19:56, landmark wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-09 19:36, mastermindreader wrote: Quote: On 2012-05-09 18:27, Woland wrote: Interesting that despite the polling data, Lobo, it appears that every State referendum on the issue has defined marriage as meaning one man and one woman. As in North Carolina yesterday, with a 61% to 39% vote. One of the great things about our democracy is that we understand that civil rights aren't determined by a majority vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed if it had been put up to a popular vote. There will never be a shortage of bigots.

Bob, that's why Obama's position on gay rights is so disappointing:

Quote:

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.

More here.

On 2012-05-09 20:13, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-09 19:36, mastermindreader wrote: =we understand that civil rights aren't determined by a majority vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed if it had been put up to a popular vote. There will never be a shortage of bigots.

Which is why it's REALLY funny that a biracial constitutional scholar took a "separate but equal" position on this issue for so long.

Having said that, I'm glad that we have the first president in office to take this position.

On 2012-05-10 02:12, critter wrote:
Krem 2 news just reported the story and said Obama will be doing a fund raiser in Hollywood "where many of those in attendance will be from the gay and lesbian community." Sometimes stereotypes are true, but it was still funny to hear it from the news anchor all serious like.