Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   From the desk of Captain Obvious: The media has a different standard when it comes to unconfirmed negative rumors about Bush in 2000 and negative facts about Obama in 2012   (campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Captain Obvious, George H. W. Bush, obama, Byron York, Jeremiah Wright, media types  
•       •       •

3038 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 May 2012 at 12:14 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



276 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-29 01:01:40 PM  

coeyagi: It says you are a moron.

Media 101: Stories That Sell

Bad shiat happens to poor people, poor / down-on-luck people accomplish great things despite the odds, corporations do bad things to the little people, corporations (rarely) do good things for the little people, government farks up.

Most of the above are populist things, and populism in the absense of morality bullshiat will tend to go liberal. Seriously, you take that bullshiat away, and most of the dumbass hicks (except the flagrant bigots) will lean liberal. Sorry if overcoming human tragedy or tragedy induced by greed SEEMS liberal - it's actually just reporting reality that sells, you dildo.


Interesting that you failed to refute the main point and instead you resorted to ad hominem.

TFA was pointing out that the media leans left and holds Obama to a different standard that Bush. I agreed from the perspective that the media is not holding Obama accountable. So you disagree with that point and essentially say that the media fails to criticize Obama because it doesn't sell while throwing in ad hominem attacks. Again, more excuses as to WHY the media isn't holding Obama to the same standard. I'm NOT saying Romney or any Republican politician is better. I'm saying that Obama is getting a pass.

Your defensive response says more about your political leanings than it says about the media as it seems you're willing to make excuses as well.
 
2012-05-29 01:01:41 PM  
With regard to the Wright imbroglio--I doubt there isn't a black church in the entire country in which the pastor doesn't inveigh against systemic racism in the United States at least once a month. Can you blame them? Look hard enough at anyone's background and you will find multiple examples of guilt by association, if that's what you want to find. The simple fact of the matter is, whatever black church Obama chose to attend during his Chicago days, chances are excellent it had a Rev. Wright somewhere in the vicinity. The game of "heads I win, tails you lose" may be fun to play but it doesn't serve to prove anything except for the fact that the person indulging in it is a douche.
 
2012-05-29 01:01:51 PM  
That twit used a lot of words to essentially say "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!! The media won't endlessly repeat our anti-Obama talking points!"
 
2012-05-29 01:04:20 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: How does a troll like tenpoundsofcheese have 14 greens?


Hey, I'd like to think that the modmins generally judge a headline on its merits, rather than by the submitter.
 
2012-05-29 01:04:40 PM  

ox45tallboy: Mike Chewbacca: For the record, I'm somewhere around (-4.5, -5). You can understand why I consider myself to be unrepresented in our government.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Strict libertarianism does NOT advance a society; it discourages people from working together for a common goal.


Who said anything about strict libertarianism? Of course, I'd be happy if everyone in our government dropped down to around 1 or 2 rather than the 6 or 7 they are now.
 
2012-05-29 01:05:29 PM  

ox45tallboy: Mike Chewbacca: How does a troll like tenpoundsofcheese have 14 greens?

Hey, I'd like to think that the modmins generally judge a headline on its merits, rather than by the submitter.


Hahahahaha!
 
2012-05-29 01:07:22 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: How does a troll like tenpoundsofcheese have 14 greens?


Snooki threads on the entertainment tab.
 
2012-05-29 01:09:40 PM  
Oh, the victimhood!
 
2012-05-29 01:11:26 PM  
i like to pretend like I've never heard of any of the nontroversies, it infuriates tards.

me: Rev. Wright, who's that?
them: blah,blah,blah, on Fox news...
me: What channel is this Fox news on... i never heard of them...
them: OMG! blah,blah,BLAH!...
me: i think you're just making it all up
them: head assplodin'
 
2012-05-29 01:11:36 PM  
The Washington Examiner cured my flatulence, or so they claim. Hand me another Dependz.
 
2012-05-29 01:11:48 PM  

slayer199: Obama gets a pass on things like medical marijuana ("What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue,"), closing Gitmo, creation of the Foreclosure Prevention Fund, etc. What continually amazes me is that liberals who were so passionate on these issues give him a pass on his broken promises which makes them as bad as conservatives giving Bush a pass for his misdeeds. Additionally, you seldom see anyone in the media criticize Obama on these issues.


Allow me to float an idea. I think this may actually not be because the media gives him a pass, but rather because the opposition party gives him a pass on these issues. The mainstream media are biased toward ratings, and unless you can get someone from the other side up there yelling about the issue, then you're not going to get the same ratings. When Bush was running Guantanamo, there were democrats willing to stand up and say "this is wrong!". Obama has done at least enough to keep most of his base from standing up and opposing him (sure they grumble, but that doesn't make for good TV - you'd need a real rift in the party before that became profitable), and you aren't going to find the Republican party yelling about how he didn't close Guantanamo, or is killing too many terrorists. The fact that the media isn't reporting on them makes me think that the Republicans haven't opposed these issues effectively, either because they agree with Obama or because they've decided these aren't important issues at the moment.

If the opposition party is making it's loudest and most dramatic stand on health care reform, the birth certificate issue, and the economy, then that's what the media will focus on. There's no one currently making it profitable for the media to report on other things the president is doing, which means that the media won't report on them, and the president gets to go along without the same level of scrutiny.
 
2012-05-29 01:13:09 PM  
You just never hear anything negative about Obama. Other than all the negative things.

I'm consistently amazed at how people cry about not knowing anything about the man when they can recite his family tree going back three generations, where he went to school since the age of 2, every friend he has had for the past 30 years, details about his birth certificate, and every single page from two different books he has written.

The man is a mystery wrapped in an enigma that was jizzed on by Winston Churchill.
 
2012-05-29 01:13:51 PM  

slayer199: coeyagi: It says you are a moron.

Media 101: Stories That Sell

Bad shiat happens to poor people, poor / down-on-luck people accomplish great things despite the odds, corporations do bad things to the little people, corporations (rarely) do good things for the little people, government farks up.

Most of the above are populist things, and populism in the absense of morality bullshiat will tend to go liberal. Seriously, you take that bullshiat away, and most of the dumbass hicks (except the flagrant bigots) will lean liberal. Sorry if overcoming human tragedy or tragedy induced by greed SEEMS liberal - it's actually just reporting reality that sells, you dildo.

Interesting that you failed to refute the main point and instead you resorted to ad hominem.

TFA was pointing out that the media leans left and holds Obama to a different standard that Bush. I agreed from the perspective that the media is not holding Obama accountable. So you disagree with that point and essentially say that the media fails to criticize Obama because it doesn't sell while throwing in ad hominem attacks. Again, more excuses as to WHY the media isn't holding Obama to the same standard. I'm NOT saying Romney or any Republican politician is better. I'm saying that Obama is getting a pass.

Your defensive response says more about your political leanings than it says about the media as it seems you're willing to make excuses as well.


You can't really read, can you? I WASN'T ADDRESSING your one point about whether or not the media holds Obama accountable. Would you like me to? I could, but I don't have all the time in the world to list the examples of MSM calling Obama out. At any rate, I WAS ADDRESSING how simpletons, such as yourself (it's not really ad hominem if it's really a reflection of who you are and speaks to the argument itself) confuse reality with liberal bias.

So, you call it deflection, I call it root cause analysis. Of course you THINK they aren't calling him out because they're liberal when you can't even address the simple truth that what you think is liberal is actually just addressing the masses who feel they're oppressed by [insert villain here] and in the absense of morality arguments, that boogeyman is usally some corporate thug.

To go back to addressing your concern about the media holding Obama accountable, sure, if he is the head guy (which he is), and the economy isn't great (even if getting better), you don't think the media (and not just Fox News) is constantly asking about jobs, growth, gas prices, etc, etc? Sure they are, you just don't want the liberally-biased media stereotype to be debunked so you can take your fears to your grave, like a good conservative drone.
 
2012-05-29 01:14:22 PM  

slayer199: you seldom see anyone in the media criticize Obama on these issues


HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Man that's good. I was half an inch from a sip of tea when I read it, too... you almost had me.
 
2012-05-29 01:17:24 PM  
*hovers over link*

Washington Examiner, huh?

Well, OK then.
 
2012-05-29 01:17:27 PM  

thurstonxhowell: slayer199: only HuffPo has been consistently critical of Obama on medical marijuana.

I've seen plenty of criticism from people who support medical marijuana (HuffPo included). If you're expecting to see criticism from people who agree with Obama on the issue, I suggest holding your breath. That usually works.

slayer199: his own party (Pelosi and Frank) have been more critical of Obama on the issue than the media

Who reported on that criticism? If your answer is "the media", that kind of blows your point out of the water.


Not really. The only liberal publication that has been consistently critical of Obama on medical marijuana has been HuffPo. The media may have reported on Frank and Pelosi, but that's not the same as liberal columnists being critical of Obama on the issue.

I'm NOT saying Romney or any other Republican would be better. They likely would not be. When you now have a majority of the population supporting not just medical marijuana but legalization...and 16 states approving medical marijuana (and another 12 in the works) while the same time the government is cracking down and closing down dispensaries...it's a big deal.

When you throw in Obama's gay marriage state's rights stance...the hypocrisy is more than apparent. So it's only a state's rights issue when it's gay marriage (despite the fact that a majority of the population does not support gay marriage and a number of states have passed laws banning it) and not medical marijuana (where a majority of the population does support medical marijuana and states have passed laws allowing it). For the record, I support both.
 
2012-05-29 01:19:16 PM  

Poopspasm: The old republican party is just the new democratic party. The only way you're hosed is if you have truly liberal ideas. For example, I believe that victimless crimes should all be struck off, that the wealthy should be taxed at a higher rate, that the military budget should be cut by about 25% and the resultant savings invested in education and energy infrastructure, that elections should be publicly funded (and "donating" to political campaigns should be punishable by life in prison), and that medical care should be a right. Show me who's fighting for my ideas.


With the exception of throwing people in jail for donating to elections, I'm right there with you. I'm just talking about the very specific case of people who want to classify themselves AS Republican, but don't support batsh*t insanity. It's really more of a semantic argument that I'm making.

As for somebody to fight for liberal ideals, you're right. There's nobody. And this is also a damn shame.
 
2012-05-29 01:19:28 PM  

clambam: With regard to the Wright imbroglio--I doubt there isn't a black church in the entire country in which the pastor doesn't inveigh against systemic racism in the United States at least once a month. Can you blame them? Look hard enough at anyone's background and you will find multiple examples of guilt by association, if that's what you want to find. The simple fact of the matter is, whatever black church Obama chose to attend during his Chicago days, chances are excellent it had a Rev. Wright somewhere in the vicinity. The game of "heads I win, tails you lose" may be fun to play but it doesn't serve to prove anything except for the fact that the person indulging in it is a douche.


That, and I challenge ANYONE to objectively look at the "9/11 was America's chickens comin' home to roost" sermon, and tell me it's not the farking FSM-be-damned TRUTH. Wright said something that was absolutely true, just not popular, and the media crucified him for saying it.

Kind of like this guy:

static01.mediaite.com
 
2012-05-29 01:19:33 PM  

slayer199: I'm NOT saying Romney or any other Republican would be better.


That's kinda the point then.

Liberals aren't going to vote for Romney and they can assume that he would be worse on marijuana and gay rights issues. So, people are left with accepting someone that is remotely close to what they believe, even if there are major differences.
 
2012-05-29 01:19:37 PM  
It's an easy script for Democrats to follow.

If a story that makes a Dem look bad comes out... say it's a lie.

When it's proven true... say it doesn't matter.

When it's proven it does matter... deflect it to Bush or some other Republican.

During this entire process it's okay to insult the accusers motivations, looks, sexuality, intelligence, past, etc... etc. Anything that is fallacious is okay because it's in pursuit of a "righteous" goal.

There is simply no level of proof for most people on the left to admit their guy is dishonest or a crook. This article just highlights the general trend. Especially when during the Bush campaign there was the constant claims that he went AWOL. There was no evidence for it. Yet it kept getting repeated and when they fabricated evidence to support their assertion they denied it up till it became laughable. Then they switched and said that Republicans were behind the fake evidence to discredit their crazy claims. They just couldn't accept that Bush served his required tour and left with an honorable discharge. No, Bush HAD to have done something underhanded and illegal because Bush WAS a bad guy. The facts HAD to fit their preconceived notions.

With regards to Obama you see the other side of the coin. Obama can't be dishonest or have participated in anything unsavory because Obama CAN'T be a bad guy. He couldn't have had a hand in paying Wright off to be quiet because... it's Obama.
 
2012-05-29 01:20:24 PM  
Oh good, it's this thread again. I am going just going to pony bomb these from now on.

www.fairfaxunderground.com
 
2012-05-29 01:20:41 PM  
Why doesn't the media cover the false equivalencies that right-wing hacks want them to cover?!?!?!?
 
2012-05-29 01:21:55 PM  
Yay! It's our old friend Cherry Picker!

Democratic journalists treat bad mouthing of Democratic Presidents with greater skepticism than they treat badmouthing of Republican Presidents.

Of course, the vice is versa with Republican journalists, which is to say, confirmation bias and cherry-picked, anecdotal evidence.

It's not news, it's Fark.

I'd say that all in all, the Bush Derangement Syndrome crowd had greater cause, better evidence, and a higher class of satire, but then the center-left includes most of the fact-based community.

Portraying a black President as a monkey is feeble and just looks politically incorrect and stinks of old timey cracker racist shiat. At best it would be very derivative after all the portrayals of Chimp Boy and VEEP Gorilla. Bush really had a physionomy that lent itself to caracature as a simian.

It's a pity that conservatives can not think of new ideas pretty much by definition. Not that there aren't great conservative satirists--there's lots of great conservative satirists. They just have to be dead for fifty years or so.
 
2012-05-29 01:21:59 PM  
Just think, conservatives, if the media stopped covering fake death panels, Obama's birth certificate, and Reverend Wright...they might actually cover the stuff that Liberals hate Obama for
 
2012-05-29 01:23:01 PM  

bulldg4life: slayer199: I'm NOT saying Romney or any other Republican would be better.

That's kinda the point then.

Liberals aren't going to vote for Romney and they can assume that he would be worse on marijuana and gay rights issues. So, people are left with accepting someone that is remotely close to what they believe, even if there are major differences.


Exactly.
 
2012-05-29 01:23:09 PM  
Jeremiah Wright? That is what this is all about? Maybe the reason is because nobody really cares about Jeremiah Wright. Nobody is scared of him or feel he has programmed President to "hate America" and enslave the Caucasian race. I think I an starting to understand this Jeremiah Wright derangement syndrome.

It is kind of like the "Half Hour News Hour" and why it never caught on with anyone other than the hardcore FOX News viewership unlike The Daily Show. Their jokes were based on stereotypes and opinions that only a hardcore conservative FOX News viewer would understand and actually "get" the joke. Since they find it so funny they can't concieve anyone else not finding it funny, they blame the "liberal media" for not covering it like the Daily Show and that is why it failed.

Well to them Jeremiah Wright is the personification of evil and they fel President Obama is his puppet. They are "outraged" and frustrated why most people do not share their outrage. Since they can't comprehend most people don't care they blame the "liberal media" for "burying" the story. They just feel if they raise enough noise the "liberal media" and all the "sheeple" who will not "group think" like them will finally see the "light" and no longer support President Obama. Because in reality most normal people just done't care about Jeremiah Wright, the people suffering from Jeremiah Wright derangement syndrome get all frustrated like the author of the article referenced in this thread.
 
2012-05-29 01:23:14 PM  
Yeah, like how that whole "Birther" thing completely went away the moment President Obama showed his birth certificate. Or how President Bush's record of going AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard was spotlighted in the 2004 election!
 
2012-05-29 01:25:01 PM  

PanicMan: Not all campaign books are treated equally. Just look at Edward Klein and J.H. Hatfield.

Klein, of course, is the author of the new book "The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House." Hatfield, now dead and forgotten, wrote a book about George W. Bush, "Fortunate Son," during the 2000 presidential contest.

Oh, of course. Anybody who's anybody is intimately familiar with the writings of Edward Klein.
/SARCASM


Hatfield wrote an anti-Bush book, then killed himself.

I'm sure the right-wing wouldn't freak the fark out if Klein was to commit suicide. If they did, that would look like a double-standard.
 
2012-05-29 01:25:03 PM  

slayer199: So it's only a state's rights issue when it's gay marriage (despite the fact that a majority of the population does not support gay marriage and a number of states have passed laws banning it)


scifun.files.wordpress.com


Link
 
2012-05-29 01:25:53 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-05-29 01:27:14 PM  

PanicMan: From the comments. For your consideration, I think it speaks for its self:

Pompus

The fact that Precious Token is going to lose in a landslide, despite having the media as an arm of his campaign and despite a massive well-organized effort to promote vote fraud, underscores just how truly worthless and despicable Precious Token truly is. No candidate in American history has ever had the media so 100% in his back pocket--effectively embargoing any news that might negatively reflect on their Precious Token--yet he is going down and going down hard. Lesson=the presidency is not the kind of position to be filled with reference to affirmative action quotas. America has finally awakened and smelled the coffee. Oh, and good luck getting another black person elected president any time in the next 100 years. It has now been demonstrated that election of a black man comes complete with the implicit threat of race riots and mass beatings and murders of whites who resist a redistributionist agenda. Never again.


Holy shiat, that actually made me dumber by reading that. Whoever wrote that is a bad person, and should feel bad for writing that.
 
2012-05-29 01:27:15 PM  

coeyagi: You can't really read, can you? I WASN'T ADDRESSING your one point about whether or not the media holds Obama accountable. Would you like me to? I could, but I don't have all the time in the world to list the examples of MSM calling Obama out. At any rate, I WAS ADDRESSING how simpletons, such as yourself (it's not really ad hominem if it's really a reflection of who you are and speaks to the argument itself) confuse reality with liberal bias.


I can read, you can't argue a point. Your response is to attack me for saying that the media does not hold him accountable. Need I point out again how the media fawned Obama for taking on the issue of gay marriage (state's rights) while NOT attacking him on medical marijuana (state's rights). The hypocrisy is apparent.

So, you call it deflection, I call it root cause analysis. Of course you THINK they aren't calling him out because they're liberal when you can't even address the simple truth that what you think is liberal is actually just addressing the masses who feel they're oppressed by [insert villain here] and in the absense of morality arguments, that boogeyman is usally some corporate thug.

To go back to addressing your concern about the media holding Obama accountable, sure, if he is the head guy (which he is), and the economy isn't great (even if getting better), you don't think the media (and not just Fox News) is constantly asking about jobs, growth, gas prices, etc, etc? Sure they are, you just don't want the liberally-biased media stereotype to be debunked so you can take your fears to your grave, like a good conservative drone.


If your idea of "root cause analysis" is using ad hominem and red herrings to make your case....I'm afraid you're really so lost in your own bias as to be unable to criticize "your' guy.

Note: I never said a thing about being conservative or liberal. I love how you make the assumption that I'm a conservative drone because I had the audacity to criticize your dear leader.
 
2012-05-29 01:28:28 PM  

slayer199: thurstonxhowell: slayer199: only HuffPo has been consistently critical of Obama on medical marijuana.

I've seen plenty of criticism from people who support medical marijuana (HuffPo included). If you're expecting to see criticism from people who agree with Obama on the issue, I suggest holding your breath. That usually works.

slayer199: his own party (Pelosi and Frank) have been more critical of Obama on the issue than the media

Who reported on that criticism? If your answer is "the media", that kind of blows your point out of the water.

Not really. The only liberal publication that has been consistently critical of Obama on medical marijuana has been HuffPo. The media may have reported on Frank and Pelosi, but that's not the same as liberal columnists being critical of Obama on the issue.

I'm NOT saying Romney or any other Republican would be better. They likely would not be. When you now have a majority of the population supporting not just medical marijuana but legalization...and 16 states approving medical marijuana (and another 12 in the works) while the same time the government is cracking down and closing down dispensaries...it's a big deal.

When you throw in Obama's gay marriage state's rights stance...the hypocrisy is more than apparent. So it's only a state's rights issue when it's gay marriage (despite the fact that a majority of the population does not support gay marriage and a number of states have passed laws banning it) and not medical marijuana (where a majority of the population does support medical marijuana and states have passed laws allowing it). For the record, I support both.


I'd like to say you had me before that blatant lie, but no, not even close.

disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-05-29 01:29:25 PM  

slayer199: Note: I never said a thing about being conservative or liberal. I love how you make the assumption that I'm a conservative drone because I had the audacity to criticize your dear leader.


When you say stupid crap like that, you pretty much make it obvious that you are a retard.
 
2012-05-29 01:29:33 PM  

aug3: i like to pretend like I've never heard of any of the nontroversies, it infuriates tards.


I make them break it down and see where the talking point runs out of fuel.

Who is he? And what did he do? What is a czar? When was this? How is that socialism? Why is that bad? How much would that cost? How did this happen with no one knowing about it?
 
2012-05-29 01:29:56 PM  
"How can you guys be so unhappy with Obama when I'm so unhappy with Obama? You think you got coal in your stocking? I wanted single-payer health care, a carbon emissions bill, gun control, and legalized pot. If you get to carry around all this outrage over me getting that shiat, shouldn't I have gotten it?"

--Some guy in the media who never criticizes Obama

Link

What actual bias looks like:

Dennis Miller has usually been happy to spray his acerbic wit across the political spectrum, but things will be different on his new CNBC talk program. President Bush is in a mock-free zone.

"I like him," Miller explained. "I'm going to give him a pass. I take care of my friends."

Link
 
2012-05-29 01:31:43 PM  

slayer199: coeyagi: You can't really read, can you? I WASN'T ADDRESSING your one point about whether or not the media holds Obama accountable. Would you like me to? I could, but I don't have all the time in the world to list the examples of MSM calling Obama out. At any rate, I WAS ADDRESSING how simpletons, such as yourself (it's not really ad hominem if it's really a reflection of who you are and speaks to the argument itself) confuse reality with liberal bias.

I can read, you can't argue a point. Your response is to attack me for saying that the media does not hold him accountable. Need I point out again how the media fawned Obama for taking on the issue of gay marriage (state's rights) while NOT attacking him on medical marijuana (state's rights). The hypocrisy is apparent.

So, you call it deflection, I call it root cause analysis. Of course you THINK they aren't calling him out because they're liberal when you can't even address the simple truth that what you think is liberal is actually just addressing the masses who feel they're oppressed by [insert villain here] and in the absense of morality arguments, that boogeyman is usally some corporate thug.

To go back to addressing your concern about the media holding Obama accountable, sure, if he is the head guy (which he is), and the economy isn't great (even if getting better), you don't think the media (and not just Fox News) is constantly asking about jobs, growth, gas prices, etc, etc? Sure they are, you just don't want the liberally-biased media stereotype to be debunked so you can take your fears to your grave, like a good conservative drone.

If your idea of "root cause analysis" is using ad hominem and red herrings to make your case....I'm afraid you're really so lost in your own bias as to be unable to criticize "your' guy.

Note: I never said a thing about being conservative or liberal. I love how you make the assumption that I'm a conservative drone because I had the audacity to criticize your dear leader.


You criticize the media for being liberal which is a typical conservative thing to do. It wasn't your critique of Obama that gave you away, bro. There are plenty of us who criticize Obama.

And again, you are losing credibility because you are using arguments like "most don't support gay marriage" which is an utter lie.
 
2012-05-29 01:32:16 PM  
making up lies and then crying about then is what keeps the media in false balance mode. It's a working strategy for the "conservative" agenda.
 
2012-05-29 01:34:32 PM  

ox45tallboy: slayer199: So it's only a state's rights issue when it's gay marriage (despite the fact that a majority of the population does not support gay marriage and a number of states have passed laws banning it)

[scifun.files.wordpress.com image 400x300]


Link


That's good news...but there was a thread a week or two ago about a poll where it wasn't a majority. Still not to the point of being a clear majority. It really depends on how the question is phrased. In the polls I've read, If the question is legalized civil unions it's a majority...if it's marriage it isn't. Either way it's nobody else's damn business who wants to be married so long as they're adults. Considering that 32 states have voted NOT to legalize it, support is not there.
 
2012-05-29 01:36:20 PM  

slayer199: Either way it's nobody else's damn business who wants to be married so long as they're adults.


Does that mean you're happy with Obama's approach to DOMA?
 
2012-05-29 01:36:49 PM  

slayer199: ox45tallboy: slayer199: So it's only a state's rights issue when it's gay marriage (despite the fact that a majority of the population does not support gay marriage and a number of states have passed laws banning it)

[scifun.files.wordpress.com image 400x300]


Link

That's good news...but there was a thread a week or two ago about a poll where it wasn't a majority. Still not to the point of being a clear majority. It really depends on how the question is phrased. In the polls I've read, If the question is legalized civil unions it's a majority...if it's marriage it isn't. Either way it's nobody else's damn business who wants to be married so long as they're adults. Considering that 32 states have voted NOT to legalize it, support is not there.


Based on this logic, you don't understand how the electoral college works I'm guessing.

Whoa! 32 states, many with small populations have voted not to legalize it! 32 > 25, that means support is not there!

//facepalm
 
2012-05-29 01:38:01 PM  

slayer199: ox45tallboy: slayer199: So it's only a state's rights issue when it's gay marriage (despite the fact that a majority of the population does not support gay marriage and a number of states have passed laws banning it)

[scifun.files.wordpress.com image 400x300]


Link

That's good news...but there was a thread a week or two ago about a poll where it wasn't a majority. Still not to the point of being a clear majority. It really depends on how the question is phrased. In the polls I've read, If the question is legalized civil unions it's a majority...if it's marriage it isn't. Either way it's nobody else's damn business who wants to be married so long as they're adults. Considering that 32 states have voted NOT to legalize it, support is not there.


That's because old people are dicks.

www.pewforum.org

/my Silent Generation parents both support(ed) gay marriage.
 
2012-05-29 01:39:02 PM  
There are a lot of legitemate criticisms which can be levied against President Obama by conservatives inthsi upcomming Presidential election. When on topic the conservatives do gain political points with the public. Yet for some reason they can't stay on topic. They have to go "derp" and bring up stuff like LGBT bigotry, anti-birth control, questioning President Obama's citizenship, and Jeremiah Wright. Stuff nobody cares about and turns independent voters off. It is like they have "derped" so much they cannot control it. It seems like "derp" and the GOP " seems to have a relationship like the scorpion and the frog.
 
2012-05-29 01:46:38 PM  

coeyagi: Based on this logic, you don't understand how the electoral college works I'm guessing.

Whoa! 32 states, many with small populations have voted not to legalize it! 32 > 25, that means support is not there!

//facepalm



And anyone that thinks California's vote, with all of the money poured in from out of state, really reflected the opinion of the people on the subject, well, I've got a recall election in Wisconsin to sell you...
 
2012-05-29 01:47:18 PM  

coeyagi: You criticize the media for being liberal which is a typical conservative thing to do. It wasn't your critique of Obama that gave you away, bro. There are plenty of us who criticize Obama.

And again, you are losing credibility because you are using arguments like "most don't support gay marriage" which is an utter lie.


Because I make a statement that the media leans liberal and is NOT holding Obama to the same standard of accountability, that makes me a conservative? Interesting thought process you have...which is entirely incorrect and poor logic to boot.

Did I say I personally didn't support gay marriage? No, I specifically stated I DO support gay marriage AND medical marijuana. What I did say is that a majority do not support gay marriage (which I'll admit is iffy depending on the recent poll...some show a majority and others do not, but NOT iffy based on the fact that it's come up for votes in 32 states and NOT been passed...while 28 states ban gay marriage). That doesn't make it a lie. This is the truth -- fewer states allow gay marriage than legalized medical marijuana.

Again, I'll circle back to the point because you still fail to address it. How is it ok for Obama to call gay marriage a state's rights issue while NOT respecting state's rights for medical marijuana? As I stated before, the media has been praising Obama for his courage on taking on the issue (one I agree with), while any other publication outside HuffPo gives him a pass on the government's attacks on medical marijuana. Why the hypocrisy from the Obama administration? If anything the Obama administration has been harder on medical marijuana than the Bush administration.
 
2012-05-29 01:48:27 PM  

Jackson Herring: Zero Bama Zero


Francisco Francobamao.
 
2012-05-29 01:49:43 PM  

slayer199: Need I point out again how the media fawned Obama for taking on the issue of gay marriage (state's rights) while NOT attacking him on medical marijuana (state's rights).


I may have missed it, but when did Obama discuss gay marriage in the context of state's rights? I thought he wants it to be legal everywhere and not have it be a state-to-state issue. You seem to be placing your own personal viewpoint filter on this.
 
2012-05-29 01:52:11 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: Zero Bama Zero

Francisco Francobamao.


I mean Fartcisco Fartcobamao. How did I miss that opportunity, the name is so easily befartable.
 
2012-05-29 01:53:46 PM  

HighOnCraic: Does that mean you're happy with Obama's approach to DOMA?


Yes. Very disappointed with him on the medical MJ issue (and I don't even smoke pot). I know his stance on DOMA really rankled the GOP which I find rather amusing.

I believe as a matter of individual liberty...it's none of the government's damn business who can and can't be married so long as they're adults.
 
2012-05-29 01:54:52 PM  

WTF Indeed: tenpoundsofcheese: How much did the media focus on 0bama's admission of cocaine usage and his days as a pot head?

As much as it did Laura Bush's vehicular homicide.


Or Neilia Biden's vehicular homicide.
 
Displayed 50 of 276 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report