## Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by TUfriend » Wed May 09, 2012 5:01 pm

I heard from Ellen that Obama came out and said he supports same sex marriage. 1) Do you think this is good? B. How does this change your opinion about him?
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.
See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.
Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu May 10, 2012 9:09 am

He said this many years before he became president. He just hasn't been active in his support.
It doesn't change my opinion at all because I knew this before he was elected. But again, like in so many other areas, he talks the talk but is slow in walking the walk. He lets others do all the leading when it comes to anything controversial. Perhaps not wanting to stick one's neck out is wise in terms of politics, but it makes for disappointing leadership. If he had even half of Bush's chutzpah he'd make a much better leader.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by drawscore » Thu May 10, 2012 12:02 pm

Two years ago, he said his Christian faith prevented him from supporting gay marriage. It's an issue he has flip-flopped on in the past, and I don't really know if he means it, or if it was a campaign ploy to shore up his "left flank." Time will tell.
Obama has been caught in "flip-flops" before, and that makes it difficult for me to believe him. For instance:
In 2008, candidate Obama said: "Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney's private assassination team."
In 2011, President Obama said: "I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden."
In 2008, candidate Obama said: "Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be captured alive and given a fair trial."
In 2011, President Obama said: "I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden."
In 2008, candidate Obama said: "Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated."
In 2011, President Obama said: "Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin Laden."
Drawscore

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu May 10, 2012 1:17 pm

Yes, OBAMA IS a bit of a flip-flopper... but so is Romney, so it's six of one or a half a dozen of the other as far as that is concerned - nor does Romney support gay marriage but AFAIK opposes it. I have no direct stake in the matter but oppose this stance just on the same general principles I opposed bans on inter-racial or inter-faith marriages in earlier decades.
In any case, OBAMA doesn't take a position and defend it come Hell or high water like Bush did. Bush was decisive; IMO he often decided the wrong GD things, but he was decisive! Obama is anything but decisive, and that's one of my biggest problems with him. Quit talking and DO something, GD it Obama!!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jack Roper » Thu May 10, 2012 2:10 pm

A Romney supporter telling anyone that Obama is a flip-flopper is not recommended. Here's a partial list of Governor Etch-A-Sketch's most glaring flip-flops--so far.
14 Bald-Faced Mitt Romney Flip-Flops That Were Dug Up By John McCain
Michael Brendan Dougherty|Jan. 18, 2012, 11:24 AM|85,921|35
Last night, BuzzFeed got a hold of the 2008 John McCain campaign's research book on Mitt Romney. In over 200 painstakingly researched pages, it notes every slip-up, political fib, and potential liability for Romney going forward.
And of course it picks apart all the times Romney has said one thing, and then when the political winds changed, said something else.
#1 On Immigration - For A Path To Citizenship, Then Against
Flickr user Gage Skidmore, CC.
FLIP: “Gov. Mitt Romney expressed support ... for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship ... Romney said illegal immigrants should have a chance to obtain citizenship.” (Evan Lehmann, “Romney Supports Immigration Program, But Not Granting ‘Amnesty’,” The Lowell Sun, 3/30/06)
FLOP: “[I] think I’m best off to describe my own positions. And my positions, I think I’ve just described for you – secure the border, employment verification and no special pathway to citizenship. I feel that’s the course we ought to take.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 5/22/07)
2) On George W. Bush's Tax-Cuts
AP
FLIP: “[R]omney spoke at the 10th annual legislative conference organized by U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Lowell) and met with the Massachusetts delegation. ... Congressional sources said that a point of contention arose when Romney refused to take a position on Bush’s massive, 10-year tax cut plan.” (Noelle Straub, “Romney Talks Policy With Bush Staffers, Mass. Delegation,” Boston Herald, 4/11/03)
FLOP: "McCain opposed President Bush’s tax cuts, Romney noted. ‘I supported them,’ the former governor said.” (Lee Bandy, “Romney Targeting McCain,” The State [SC], 2/4/07)
3) Anti-Reagan then, now Pro-Reagan.
FLIP: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan- Bush,” Mitt Romney said during a debate with Ted Kennedy
FLOP: "'Ronald Reagan is one of my heroes,' Romney said as he praised Reagan’s strategy for winning the Cold War: ‘We win; they lose.’” (Michael Levenson, “Romney Links Gay Marriage, US Prestige,” The Boston Globe, 2/26/05)
4) On The National Rifle Association And Gun Laws
AP
FLIP: “[Romney] said he will take stands that put him at odds with some traditional ultra- conservative groups, and cited his support for the assault rifle ban and the Brady gun control law. ‘That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,’ he said. ‘I don’t line up with a lot of special interest groups.’” (Andrew Miga, “Mitt Rejects Right-Wing Aid,” Boston Herald, 9/23/94)
FLOP: Romney told a Derry, N.H., audience, ‘I’m after the NRA’s endorsement. I’m not sure they’ll give it to me. I hope they will. I also joined because if I’m going to ask for their endorsement, they’re going to ask for mine.’” (Glen Johnson, “Romney Calls Himself A Longtime Hunter,” The Associated Press, 4/5/07)
5) On Whether He Even Owns A Gun (This story changed within just a few days)
The Iowa Republican
FLIP: "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I’m a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms," Romney said. (Glenn And Helen Show, http://www.glennandhelenshow.com, 1/10/07)
FLOP: "Asked by reporters at the gun show Friday whether he personally owned a gun, Romney said he did not. He said one of his sons, Josh, keeps two guns at the family vacation home in Utah, and he uses them ‘from time to time.’” (Scott Helman, “Romney Retreats On Gun Control,” The Boston Globe, 1/14/07)
6) Is the planet warming? Mitt probably agreed with you at one time or another.
Courtesy of mittromney
FLIP: "I think the global warming debate is now pretty much over and people recognize the need associated with providing sources which do not generate the heat that is currently provided by fossil fuels ...” (Jack Coleman, “Massachusetts Governor Urges Use Of Alternative Energy,” Cape Cod Times, 3/14/03)
“I concur that climate change is beginning to [have an] effect on our natural resources and that now is the time to take action ...” (“Romney OK With Plan On Emissions,” Boston Herald, 7/24/03)
FLOP: “I have to tell you with regards to global warming that that’s something, which, you’re right, the scientists haven’t entirely resolved, but no question about one thing, it’s getting warmer, and a lot of good reasons for us to use less energy, to use it more efficiently and to develop sources here in this country that could allow us to be more independent of foreign sources.” (CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company,” 2/7/07)
“Unfortunately, some in the Republican Party are embracing the radical environmental ideas of the liberal left. As governor, I found that thoughtful environmentalism need not be anti-growth and anti-jobs. But Kyoto-style sweeping mandates, imposed unilaterally in the United States, would kill jobs, depress growth and shift manufacturing to the dirtiest developing nations. Republicans should never abandon pro-growth conservative principles in an effort to embrace the ideas of Al Gore.” (Romney For President, Press Release, 2/23/07)
7) Don't Ask Don't Tell? Don't Ask Mitt Romney
AP
FLIP: In 1994 “[Romney] called President Bill Clinton’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ military policy ‘the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.’” (Dan Balz and Shailagh Murray, “Mass. Governor’s Rightward Shift Raises Questions,” The Washington Post, 12/21/06)
FLOP: “[Romney] defended his policy switch on gays in the military. He said when he first heard the phrase ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ he thought it was ‘kind of a silly phrase that didn’t make a lot of sense.’ But the last 10 years have convinced him that the policy is working and there is no reason to change it, he said.” (Alexa Aguilar, “Romney Campaigns In Chicago,” Chicago Tribune, 4/12/07)
Has your position on same-sex marriage changed? So has Mitt Romney's.
AP
FLIP: When a 2002 Constitutional Amendment was proposed to ban same-sex marriage, Romney opposed it. “Romney’s family members signed the petition to put it on the ballot ‘without reading the fine print,’ [Romney aide Eric] Fehrnstrom said, but he has no reason to believe they do not support it. ‘Mitt did not know they signed it, and Mitt does not support it,’ he said. ‘As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it’s unnecessary.’” (Rick Klein, “Romney Kin Signed Petition To Ban Same-Sex Marriage,” The Boston Globe, 3/22/02)
FLOP: “Just two weeks before lawmakers resume a Constitutional Convention to vote on a proposed ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage, Gov. Mitt Romney will stand with the supporters of the measure to call on the Legislature to back it. Romney will join petition backers in a State House press event today to urge the Legislature to pass the Protection of Marriage Amendment when the Constitutional Convention reconvenes July 12, authorizing a 2008 ballot question asking voters to define marriage as between one man and one woman.” (Kimberly Atkins and Kate Gibson, “Mitt Joining Supporters Of Anti-Gay Wed Initiative,” Boston Herald, 6/28/06)
9) On embryonic stem cell research, Romney's still developing a fully-formed position.
nmfbihop via Flikr
FLIP: “Speaking at a bioethics forum, GOP gubernatorial hopeful Mitt Romney yesterday endorsed embryonic stem cell research ... [Romney] endorsed embryonic stem cell research, saying the controversial science might one day help treat his wife’s multiple sclerosis in addition to numerous other degenerative diseases. ... Romney spoke extensively about his position on stem cell research, which also involves embryo destruction.” (Raja Mishra, “Romney Endorses Stem Cell Research, Is Silent On Cloning,” The Boston Globe, 6/14/02)
FLOP: ...On Feb. 10, 2005 ... Romney came out strongly against the cloning technique ... He vowed to press for legislation to criminalize the work. Romney’s opposition stunned scientists, lawmakers, and observers because of his past statements endorsing, at least in general terms, embryonic stem cell research.” (Scott Helman, “Romney’s Journey To The Right,” The Boston Globe, 12/17/06)
10) Favorite Book? Well, that depends.
YouTube
FLIP: FOX NEWS’ MARTHA MCCALLUM: And an interesting response to his favorite novel. ROMNEY: “Actually the one by L. Ron Hubbard, I hate to think ... I’m not in favor of his religion by any means, but he wrote a book called ‘Battlefield Earth’ that was a very fun science fiction book.” (Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” 4/30/07)
FLOP (Maybe just a hedge): "Asked about his comments during a Fox News interview Monday that L. Ron Hubbard’s 'Battlefield Earth' is his favorite novel, Romney said Huckleberry Finn is his favorite fiction and that the book by Hubbard, who founded Scientology, is his favorite science fiction reading.” (Mary Anne Ostrom, “Education Should Determine Immigrants’ Legal Status, Mitt Romney Says,” The [San Jose, CA] Mercury News, 5/1/07)
11) His Own Health-Care Initiative. He's Not Sure About That Either.
AP
FLIP: "In a Colonial-era hall, with a fife-and-drum corps marching in with him, Gov. Mitt Romney (R) signed a bill Wednesday requiring all Massachusetts residents to purchase health insurance -- portraying the measure as a historic solution to health-care costs, even as questions emerge about whether the state can afford it. The signing [was] staged with a near-presidential attention to theatrics and slogan-bearing banners...” (David A. Fahrenthold, “Mass. Marks Health-Care Milestone,” The Washington Post, 4/13/06)
FLOP: "As governor of Massachusetts he signed a bipartisan law intended to ensure that every resident has coverage. Romney touted it as an innovative free-market solution. Yet these days, Romney ... is much more likely to present his state’s universal coverage law as not a model to copy but an example for other states to learn from. He’s now a critic of his own biggest achievement.” (Sean Higgins, “Ex-Gov. Romney Keeps Distance From His Own Mass. Health Plan,” Investor’s Business Daily, 3/7/07)
12) Tax Pledges are beneath Romney, until the presidency was in front of him.
FLIP: “Four years ago, Mitt Romney broke with GOP tradition and refused to sign the [Americans for Tax Reform] pledge [to ‘oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes’].” (Lisa Wangsness, “Healey Will Sign Antitax Pledge,” The Boston Globe, 9/4/06)
“Romney’s Gubernatorial Campaign Spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, Dismissed Such Pledges At The Time As ‘Government By Gimmickry.’” (Scott Helman, “Romney Finds ‘No New Taxes’ Promise Suits Him After All,” The Boston Globe, 1/5/07)
FLOP: “Almost five years after he refused to sign a ‘no new taxes’ pledge during his campaign for governor, Mitt Romney announced ... that he had done just that, as his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination began in earnest.” (Scott Helman, “Romney Finds ‘No New Taxes’ Promise Suits Him After All,” The Boston Globe, 1/5/07)
13) Money in politics? Sometimes its good, sometimes it is bad.
Time
FLIP: “Romney also said he advocates spending limits on congressional elections, even suggesting that the current race against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy should have a $6 million spending cap.” (Frank Phillips, “Romney, Vowing To Live It, Touts Congress Reform Plan,” The Boston Globe, 7/27/94)
"[Mitt Romney] once touted dramatic restructuring measures such as taxing political contributions and placing spending limits on federal campaigns.” (Alexander Bolton, “Romney’s About-Face On Campaign Funding,” The Hill, 2/8/07)
FLOP: “Romney noted his foe from Arizona wrote the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that restricts certain types of contributions. ‘That’s a terrible piece of legislation,’ Romney said. ‘It hasn’t taken the money out of politics. ... (But) it has hurt my party.’” (Lee Bandy, “Romney Targeting McCain,” The State, 2/4/07)
14) NOW THE BIG ONE: During his 1994 Senate Run, Mitt Romney argued that he was more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy
AP
FLIP: “When Kennedy called him ‘multiple choice,’ Romney demanded an extra rebuttal. He revealed that a close relative died of an illegal abortion years ago and said, ‘Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see me wavering on that.’” (Joan Vennochi, “Romney’s Revolving World,” The Boston Globe, 3/2/06)
“I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.” (Joan Vennochi, “Romney’s Revolving World,” The Boston Globe, 3/2/06) When he went to conservative Utah, that tune changed.
AP
FLOP: “When I am asked if I am pro-choice or pro-life, I say I refuse to accept either label.” (Glen Warchol, “This Is The Place, But Politics May Lead Romneys Elsewhere,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 2/14/99)
But I'm running for office in Massachusetts again, so I'm pro-choice again
FLIP: “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts’ pro-choice laws.” (2002 Romney-O’Brien Gubernatorial Debate, Suffolk University, Boston, MA, 10/29/02)
In 2002, Romney Offered His Completed NARAL Questionnaire, Filled Out With “Mostly Abortion-Rights Positions,” To The Media Even Before Returning It To NARAL. “Yesterday, Romney also aimed to head off confusion about his stance on abortion rights by answering a Mass National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League questionnaire with mostly abortion-rights positions. He offered the questionnaire to the press even before he returned it to MassNARAL...”
FLOP: Then he started thinking of national office as a Republican. ANd he happened to have a revelation
AP
FLOP: "Romney said he had a change of heart on the issue after speaking with a stem-cell researcher, Dr. Douglas Melton. Romney claims Melton said ‘Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days.’
‘It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life,’ Romney says.” (Karen Tumulty, “What Romney Believes,” Time, 5/21/07)

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by drawscore » Thu May 10, 2012 2:39 pm

All you have done, Jack, is try to justify Obama's flip flops, by pointing to flip flops by Romney, and by now, you should know that you can't justify bad behavior by Obama, by pointing at similar behavior by Romney.
Drawscore

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jack Roper » Thu May 10, 2012 4:36 pm

What I have pointed out is that any "flip-flops" on Obama's part pale in comparison to Romney's. Further, the ones you mentioned are not sourced and I feel you are off the mark on any number of them.
Prove it with source documentation, in other words.

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu May 10, 2012 8:34 pm

> drawscore wrote:All you have done, Jack, is try to justify Obama's flip flops, by pointing to flip flops by Romney, and by now, you should know that you can't justify bad behavior by Obama, by pointing at similar behavior by Romney.
> Drawscore

Never mind that this is a blatant double standard and something that will be totally ignored by both political parties as Election Day draws nearer, but is pointing at similar behavior by previous Presidents allowed?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by drawscore » Thu May 10, 2012 11:28 pm

OK, Jack. Try this: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nileg ... lip-flops/
It's from a Washington-based UK reporter/blogger, who has appeared on both American, and UK television news and business channels.
Drawscore

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri May 11, 2012 7:51 am

Amazing how newspaper commentators *I* cite are dissed as leftist, but Drawscore sees no problem citing his own newspaper sources that, in all likelihood (as this one works for Fox News among other right-wing news sources), are notoriously biased to the right. Typical.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by drawscore » Fri May 11, 2012 1:03 pm

Ahh, Jason, how quickly you forget that I have cited "The Huffington Post," and other publications somewhat to the left of center. And is the UK Telegraph really a right wing rag? I hardly think so. And this reporter appears on CNN, too, and CNN is not known for being "conservative friendly."
Drawscore
Last edited by drawscore on Fri May 11, 2012 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jack Roper » Fri May 11, 2012 1:12 pm

Drawscore,
I checked your article and scrolled down to find the attached. This response is probably far better than anything I could provide. However, in looking at this list I don't see all of the points you raised initially. Further, I think you need to look up the word "flip-flop." If someone is thwarted by Congress, as Obama was on Guantanamo, then that's a defeat, not a flip-flop.
Romney, on the other hand is probably listed in any dictionary under the term "flip-flop." Or he will be after this election cycle. Cheers!
Jack
PS: Jason--Bush's decisive leadership led the US into a disasterous war in Iraq. If that's the kind of leader you want Obama to be, God forbid!
Post by Ankit Agarwal on 04/12/2011 06:52 PM
Way to skew all the facts and take a totally one sided view. [Obama] has changed his positions on issues to some extent, but an uninformed reader who came across this would be wildly misinformed by what this article states.
1)Obama has been pretty vigorous in shutting down Gitmo. The problem is Congress who would not allow the transfer of prisoners to the United States for trial. All the inhumane practices that used to occur there have largely come to an end. What do you want him to do? Closing the place would be ideal but do you want him to just let all the prisoners go because Congress won't allow the American legal framework to handle those cases?
2)Really now? While the military tribunals that are being used have a more defined legal framework, which is great, obviously not the ideal. Eric Holder (current AG) publicly condemned congress for not allowing the civilian courts to handle these cases. Again, stop shifting the blame to the Obama administration.
3) Yes, his policies regarding rendition are unfortunate and he is wrong to have flip flopped on this. You nailed this one.
4) No president has gotten congressional approval for military action of this kind since the 1950s. Pretty unrealistic to expect him to do that nor is it necessarily a great idea.
5) You might want to mention the New START treaty and the positive foreign policy ramifications that come from this (supported by the military brass, democrats, sensible republicans, and most people in between) But I guess that would go against your whole narrative and thus is not worth mentioning?
6) Yep. Let's punish everyone. Always the solution. FYI the Sudan situation, although not very stable as of late with all the other revolutions, is MUCH improved over previous years. There were elections and South Sudan will be separated now. But again, mentioning the progress that has been made is against your narrative I suppose, and the President is expected to do the same thing even when circumstances change?
7) lol. Good job taking things out of context and what the hell did the EU ever do to you?
See: Broad international cooperation on Libya and other international issues and international polls on America's standing in the world Compare: Bush Administration record. Result: Your claims make no sense.
9) Yes, he was an ally. But it was time for him to go and the protests in Egypt had sealed the deal. Are you saying we should have stood on the wrong side of history and morality simply out of loyalty to a single person? Seems like a recipe for disaster to me.
Feel free to present your biased views and why you believe in them. But please present all the facts to the reader so the readers can make their own informed decisions as well.

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by drawscore » Fri May 11, 2012 1:27 pm

>>>1)Obama has been pretty vigorous in shutting down Gitmo. The problem is Congress who would not allow the transfer of prisoners to the United States for trial. All the inhumane practices that used to occur there have largely come to an end. What do you want him to do? Closing the place would be ideal but do you want him to just let all the prisoners go because Congress won't allow the American legal framework to handle those cases?
2)Really now? While the military tribunals that are being used have a more defined legal framework, which is great, obviously not the ideal. Eric Holder (current AG) publicly condemned congress for not allowing the civilian courts to handle these cases. Again, stop shifting the blame to the Obama administration.<<<
Ahh, one of the center points of Obama's 2008 campaign. But the Republicans/conservatives in congress were more or less helpless to do anything to prevent Obama and Holder from bringing terrorists to New York, and putting them on trial, considering they were outnumbered in the house by more than 30 votes, and the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for Obama's first year and a half in office. It was the outrage expressed by the American people, plus a large number of Democrats in the house (with an eye on the 2010 elections) joining with Republicans, that sent the Gitmo terrorists back to the military tribunals. But it was still Obama's and Holder's idea, and despite its widespread unpopularity, they tried to implement it.
Drawscore

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jack Roper » Fri May 11, 2012 2:06 pm

Really? If I recall Senator Al Franken's election was still up in the air and Senator Arlen Spector had yet to switch parties in early 2009, when Obama originally proposed this, meaning there was no Democartic majority in the Senate that could pass the 60 vote requirement so stringently adhered to by the Republicans.
It is probably also true that Fox News ginned up outrage and fear of terrorists being tried in a US Court (as had been done successfully for many years before), leading to cowardice on the part of Blue Dog type Democrats, but a look at last weeks military tribunal in Guantanamo for KSM and others would point to just how absurd military tribunals can also be.
I would rather abide by the rule of law under the Constsitution than torture people in the name of freedom any day. I realize your battery is ready to be hooked up to any so-called terrorist who won't snap under 180 waterboardings--sorry, I prefer a government under law--not out-law!
In fact, I feel Cheney and Bush should be tried for war crimes, but that's just me.

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by drawscore » Fri May 11, 2012 2:11 pm

Fox News? Big deal. It's a lone voice against the cacophony of ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, and Headline News.
>>>I realize your battery is ready to be hooked up to any so-called terrorist who won't snap under 180 waterboardings--sorry, I prefer a government under law--not out-law!<<<
And would you feel the same way if the life of a close relative was in peril, and waterboarding, or hooking up a car battery to a terrorist, might glean the information needed to rescue them?
Drawscore
Last edited by drawscore on Fri May 11, 2012 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Kyle » Fri May 11, 2012 2:14 pm

It's certainly just a coincidence he changed his stance in an election year just as it becomes a hot topic again, I'm sure of it.

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jack Roper » Fri May 11, 2012 2:53 pm

To Drawscore,
Here's a great analysis of the use of torture.
(And Kyle, I assume you are referring to the original thread here, which has obviously been sidetracked. I fully expect many isssues to be raised this year, as they should. Let's hope the discussion can remain at the rational level.)
"Why not torture terrorists?
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist Boston Globe| March 20, 2005
THE CONVENTION Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the United States ratified in 1994, prohibits the torture of any person for any reason by any government at any time. It states explicitly that torture is never justified -- ''no exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a justification for torture." Unlike the Geneva Convention, which protects legitimate prisoners of war, the Convention Against Torture applies to everyone -- even terrorists and enemy combatants. And it cannot be evaded by ''outsourcing" a prisoner to a country where he is apt to be tortured during interrogation.
In short, the international ban on torture -- a ban incorporated into US law -- is absolute. And before Sept. 11, 2001, few Americans would have argued that it should be anything else.
But in post-9/11 America, the unthinkable is not only being thought, but openly considered. And not only by hawks on the right, but by even by critics in the center and on the left.
''In this autumn of anger," Jonathan Alter commented in Newsweek not long after the terrorist attacks, ''a liberal can find his thoughts turning to -- torture." Maybe cattle prods and rubber hoses should remain off limits, he wrote, but ''some torture clearly works," and Americans had to ''keep an open mind" about using unconventional measures -- including ''transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies."
In March 2003, a few days after arch-terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Pakistan, Stuart Taylor Jr. acknowledged that he was probably being made to feel some pain. ''And if that's the best chance of making him talk, it's OK by me," he wrote in his National Journal column. In principle, interrogators should not cross the line into outright torture. But, Taylor continued, ''my answer might be different in extreme circumstances."
By ''extreme circumstances" he meant what is often called the ''ticking-bomb" scenario: A deadly terror attack is looming, and you can prevent it only by getting the information your prisoner refuses to divulge. Torture might force him to talk, thereby saving thousands of innocent lives. May he be tortured?
Many Americans would say yes without hesitating. Some would argue that torturing a terrorist is not nearly as wrong as refusing to do so and thereby allowing another 9/11 to occur. Others would insist that monsters of Mohammed's ilk deserve no decency.
As an indignant reader (one of many) wrote to me after last week's column on the cruel abuse of some US detainees, ''The terrorists . . . would cut your heart out and stuff it into the throat they would proudly slash open." So why not torture detainees, if it will produce the information we need?
Here's why:
First, because torture, as noted, is unambiguously illegal -- illegal under a covenant the United States ratified, illegal under federal law, and illegal under protocols of civilization dating back to the Magna Carta.
Second, because torture is notoriously unreliable. Many people will say anything to make the pain stop, while some will refuse to yield no matter what is done to them. Yes, sometimes torture produces vital information. But it can also produce false leads and desperate fictions. In the ticking-bomb case, bad information is every bit as deadly as no information.
Third, because torture is never limited to just the guilty. The case for razors and electric shock rests on the premise that the prisoner is a knowledgeable terrorist like Mohammed or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. But most of the inmates in military prisons are nothing of the kind. Commanders in Guantanamo acknowledge that hundreds of their prisoners pose no danger and have no useful information. How much of the hideous abuse reported to date involved men who were guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
And fourth, because torture is a dangerously slippery slope. Electric shocks and beatings are justified if they can prevent another 9/11? But what if the shocks and beating don't produce the needed information? Is it OK to break a finger? To cut off a hand? To save 3,000 lives, can a terrorist's eyes be gouged out? How about gouging out his son's eyes? Or raping his daughter in his presence? If that's what it will take to make him talk, to defuse the ticking bomb, isn't it worth it?
No. Torture is never worth it. Some things we don't do, not because they never work, not because they aren't ''deserved," but because our very right to call ourselves decent human beings depends in part on our not doing them. Torture is in that category. We can win our war against the barbarians without becoming barbaric in the process."

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by drawscore » Fri May 11, 2012 8:14 pm

There is the theory that torture is largely unreliable as a source of intelligence, as the person being tortured will tell you that the moon is made of green cheese, if he thinks that's what the "torturer" wants to hear, and, if by saying so, it will make the torture stop.
There are also different schools of thought on waterboarding. Some equate it with torture; others say it does not rise to that level. But the fact remains, that intelligence obtained through waterboarding led to the raid on bin Laden's compound by the SEAL's, and the subsequent death of the world's most wanted terrorist.
And while I have joked about "hooking the testicles of a confirmed terrorist to a car battery," I don't think you can find a single instance of that actually being done by American intelligence agencies. That's not saying it hasn't been done by both our friends and foes, but clear and convincing proof that it was done by Americans, or under American supervision, just isn't there. (And please don't trot out some article from some far left, America-hating fish wrap, with all the credibility of Pravda, or The Daily Worker.)
BTW, Jeff Jacoby, of the Boston Globe, is a credible source.
Drawscore

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri May 11, 2012 9:44 pm

> Jack Roper wrote: PS: Jason--Bush's decisive leadership led the US into a disasterous war in Iraq. If that's the kind of leader you want Obama to be, God forbid!

As I said before, I never said Bush was a wise leader; just a strong one. He led strongly, all right - led us right into disaster. But he got away with it. If Obama ever made such a mistake, he'd have been crucified by now!
If Bush had had Obama's sense, or if Obama had Bush's leadership qualities, both would have been much better Presidents.

> drawscore wrote:Ahh, Jason, how quickly you forget that I have cited "The Huffington Post," and other publications somewhat to the left of center. And is the UK Telegraph really a right wing rag? I hardly think so. And this reporter appears on CNN, too, and CNN is not known for being "conservative friendly."
> Drawscore

My original reply to your post here seems to have gone astray. Pardon me if I seem to be repeating myself.
Anyway, why would your citing the Huffleton Post (whatever the hell that is) or other publications make *any* impression on me? Is that supposed to be something significant? I don't keep track of what POV any newspaper outside of my own city has; I have more constructive things to do and I'd never even heard of this rag. I don't read anything of a political nature specifically because it's left, right, or center, but just to see what it says if it catches my attention at all. I spend my time reading constructive publications, like the journal Science; not news-rags from other cities.
As for the UK Telegraph, i don't know nor care if it's left wing, right wing, two wing or no wing. I never heard of IT either. Do you really spend all your time researching what each newspaper in the whole wide world says and what political side it favors? If so, you must have a really DULL life!!!
And I only said the newsman is probably a right winger; simply because you provided the link to him, and with your conservative bias it seems quite unlikely you'd do so for anyone who isn't also a conservative. In any case I'd never heard of HIM before either nor do I really give a sweet damn what his views are. I leave such boring crap like that to others who actually think such things matter.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by drawscore » Sat May 12, 2012 3:13 am

>>>If Bush had had Obama's sense, or if Obama had Bush's leadership qualities, both would have been much better Presidents<<<
And if bullfrogs had wings, they would fly, and not bump their butts on the ground.
Drawscore

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat May 12, 2012 7:33 am

And if conservatives had more sense, they would have picked a candidate who would be more universally appealing than Mitt Romney and who had a better chance of defeating Obama on Election Day.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by drawscore » Sat May 12, 2012 5:09 pm

Have you looked at the polls lately? Rasmussen has Romney up by seven points. Of course, the only poll that matters, is the one on November 6th. Still polls are a window on society, but the electorate is mercurial, and can change their minds over little things or major things, and do it in an instant, making yesterday's results skewed, and tomorrow's results unpredictable.
Actually, there are 35% who will vote for Obama no matter what. Another 35% will vote for Romney no matter what. It's that 30% in the middle you have to convince, and then, all you need to do, is convince one more than half of them, or 50.01% of 30% (15.003%)
Romney wasn't my first choice, but a dancing bear in pink tights could do a better job than Obama.
Drawscore

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat May 12, 2012 6:43 pm

As you pointed out, polls are meaningless. And no I don't bother with them until maybe just before Election Day.
If we had a decent candidate running against Obama, I 'd be in the middle 30% you cite myself.
As is, because the Republicans insist on nominating extreme conservatives, I have no choice but to prefer Obama, who isn't as far to the left as most conservatives seem to think. Certainly not as far to the left as Romney (and Bush before him) are to the right.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by drawscore » Sat May 12, 2012 10:41 pm

Your idea of an "extreme conservative" is somewhat off. Romney has been decried as a "moderate" by more conservative elements. And if the Republicans wanted an "extreme conservative," they would have nominated Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, or Michelle Bachman.
Drawscore

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun May 13, 2012 7:55 am

> drawscore wrote:Your idea of an "extreme conservative" is somewhat off. Romney has been decried as a "moderate" by more conservative elements. And if the Republicans wanted an "extreme conservative," they would have nominated Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, or Michelle Bachman.
> Drawscore

And been even more certain to lose than they are with Romney.
Btw since you brought the subject up I did happen to see one interesting poll lately...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154547/obama ... omney.aspx
and
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... idate.html
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by drawscore » Sun May 13, 2012 8:27 am

One of the keys is the last category: Able to run the government effectively. In the poll you cited, Obama lost in that category, both overall, and with the all important independents. Admittedly by slim margins, but he still lost. And, when it comes down to it, do you want someone likeable, or someone effective, running the country? Hell, I'm likeable, but that doesn't mean I'd be good at running the country. I want someone in the White House with experience, who won't take any crap from people like Chavez and Putin, and who is dedicated to eliminating, or at least, putting a big dent in terrorism. That ain't Obama. He's an armchair SEAL and a candy ass. He sits on his ass, delegates authority for the bin Laden raid to SecDef Panetta and a three star admiral, so if the plan gets screwed up, he has "plausible deniability," but is well positioned to grab the credit if it's successful. That definitely is not the kind of person I want in charge.
It would be helpful, and the poll could be better assessed, if the actual number of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans polled was known. Too large or too small a sampling, in comparison with the others, could skew the results. There have been instances of polls being deliberately skewed, as in "We interviewed 1067 registered voters for this poll, and the margin of error is 3.3%." What they conveniently leave out, is that 724 of those registered voters were Democrats, and another 138 were independents, leaving 205 Republicans. Ya think the independents and Republicans might have been a tad under-represented in that poll?
But the same stunt has been pulled by Republican pollsters, too. And, as with any poll, it's not the question, but rather, how the question is asked. Ask a question in the right way, and the respondent could end up favoring kicking California out of the US, or any number of other outrageous and ridiculous positions.
Drawscore
Drawscore
Last edited by drawscore on Sun May 13, 2012 8:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun May 13, 2012 8:38 am

> drawscore wrote: One of the keys is the last category: Able to run the government effectively. In the poll you cited, Obama lost in that category, both overall, and with the all important independents. Admittedly by slim margins, but he still lost. And, when it comes down to it, do you want someone likeable, or someone effective, running the country?

The point isn't who *I* prefer or even who *you* prefer. The point is that, like it or not, people vote for who they like more rather than who they think is more effective. I don'tlike it myself, but that's just the way life is.

> drawscore wrote:It would be helpful, and the poll could be better assessed, if the actual number of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans polled was known. Too large or too small a sampling, in comparison with the others, could skew the results.
> Drawscore

That's true of ANY poll, not just this one; but how many polls are actually run that way? Probably not the ones YOU would consider most credible. What a person believes is based more on their own personal biases than any kind of real rationality or logic; otherwise all intelligent people would believe the same times (and obviously they do not). Some peoples' biases are stronger than others, but I doubt there's anyone alive who doesn't have at least some. I think I don't have any... but then I'm almost certainly biased when it comes to my own objectivity and at least I can admit that.

> drawscore wrote: Hell, I'm likeable

Based on what you say sometimes, I think that this is itself a highly debatable issue... particularly if one is not a white, conservative, wealthy, native-born citizen of the United States. Hell, except for the conservative part I'm all these things and *I* don't like you all that much!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by drawscore » Sun May 13, 2012 8:51 am

>>>Hell, except for the conservative part I'm all these things and *I* don't like you all that much! <<<
To be bluntly honest, I don't much give a damn if people like or dislike me. But to borrow a page from the liberal mantra, "All I want, is for you to accept me." There are people in this world that are total horse's asses, but I accept them, and, in some cases, even respect them.
Drawscore

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun May 13, 2012 12:30 pm

> drawscore wrote:
> To be bluntly honest, I don't much give a damn if people like or dislike me.
> Drawscore

Yeah... it shows; and this is precisely why I think your likeability is highly questionable in the first place.
You imply that you want acceptance and respect for yourself; well, you might want to try showing acceptance and respect for others. Otherwise, why should anyone accept or respect you? It's a two-way street.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Post by drawscore » Sun May 13, 2012 9:24 pm

I have always accepted everyone. But your chain is so much fun to yank.
Drawscore