What are your political deal breakers?

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Obama's stance is not that it is a states thing. He thinks gays should be allowed to marry.
Why would you remove Obama's own words from my quote and then pretend that's not what he said? Seems like a Bucktard move. You are half right, Obama says gays should be allowed to marry, but it's a state's rights thing. His words, not mine.
 

MidwesternGro

Well-Known Member
Why would you remove Obama's own words from my quote and then pretend that's not what he said? Seems like a Bucktard move. You are half right, Obama says gays should be allowed to marry, but it's a state's rights thing. His words, not mine.
Nope, you are a liar.

"He was asked whether marriage should be a right for people in all states, not just California. Obama said he personally favored such rights, but the Justice Department had to take a narrower view."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/obama-same-sex-couples_n_2790434.html
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I thought Rand Paul's position was that although he's morally against gay marriage, it's a state issue and should be decided on that level.
no, you are quite predictably misinformed once again.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/41665/rand-paul-2016-paul-throws-libertarians-under-the-bus-in-outreach-to-evangelicals

"If we're to say each state can decide, I think a good 25 or 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people," he said.

rend pawl's position is that he is hoping certain states will hold out and we can hold onto marriage inequality, if not reverse it completely by "winning back the hearts and minds of people".

obama's position is that he is hoping more and more states keep deciding in favor of marriage equality, and that eventually every state endorses equality.

see the difference? one person is against equality, the other is for it.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Nope, you are a liar.

"He was asked whether marriage should be a right for people in all states, not just California. Obama said he personally favored such rights, but the Justice Department had to take a narrower view."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/obama-same-sex-couples_n_2790434.html
Wait, I posted his exact words, that he said it was a state thing, then you post his words saying it's a justice department thing regarding states rights, and you called ME the liar? Interesting.

Do you believe his hands are tied, that's why he hasn't done anything? do you believe it's the republican's fault for blocking his efforts? I mean, where are you getting that he's not punting this to the states?

"So I think it is time for the justices to examine this issue," he continued. "And I certainly believe that those states that have made a decision to recognize these couples as being married, that the federal government has to respect that decision by the states. That's traditionally been how it works."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-same-sex-marriage-constitutional-but-an-issue-for-the-states/
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Why would you remove Obama's own words from my quote and then pretend that's not what he said? Seems like a Bucktard move.
why would you mischaracterize rend pawl's position and then pretend that it was his actual stated policy position on the issue?

seems like the typical dishonesty we have come to expect from retarded pawlbot fanbois.
 

MidwesternGro

Well-Known Member
Wait, I posted his exact words, that he said it was a state thing, then you post his words saying it's a justice department thing regarding states rights, and you called ME the liar? Interesting.

Do you believe his hands are tied, that's why he hasn't done anything? do you believe it's the republican's fault for blocking his efforts? I mean, where are you getting that he's not punting this to the states?
Rethugs are blocking any gay rights legislation. If all the rethugs dropped dead today gay marriage would be the law of the land. Obama is not a dictator, he cannot wiggle his ass and make gay marriage legal. He would like to, but he can't because of rethug obstruction.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rethugs are blocking any gay rights legislation. If all the rethugs dropped dead today gay marriage would be the law of the land. Obama is not a dictator, he cannot wiggle his ass and make gay marriage legal. He would like to, but he can't because of rethug obstruction.
and if he did try, bigots like ginwilly would be up in arms talking about his dictatorial fiat and tyrannical nature and his "phone and his pen".

we've seen it all before.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
why would you mischaracterize rend pawl's position and then pretend that it was his actual stated policy position on the issue?

seems like the typical dishonesty we have come to expect from retarded pawlbot fanbois.
Paul says it's a state issue, Obama says it's a state issue. I don't know how you can say otherwise.

Personally, they both believe differently, professionally, they would both govern the same. One says he supports gay marriage but punts to the state out of cowardice, one believes in state's rights to allow gay marriage even though it goes against his own personal philosophy. I know which one you praise and which one you mock, I'm just wondering if you know how it looks stomping your feet and saying Obama doesn't think it's a state thing.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
He was asked whether marriage should be a right for people in all states, not just California. Obama said he personally favored such rights.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/obama-same-sex-couples_n_2790434.html

fail some more, limpdick.
PERSONALLY favored...... but punts to states. Sorry man, he could push to make gay marriage legal across the board if he wanted, that's what a central planner does. Can you name any other major issues that he feels belongs to the states? Any pipeline stuff? The fact that he doesn't even try, yet is credited with "being for gay marriage" is laughable. I'm for gay marriage, but so far I've done the same to make that happen as Obama, wanna suck my dick too?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Paul says it's a state issue, Obama says it's a state issue. I don't know how you can say otherwise.
paul is hoping states hold out and that bigots can "win back" the "hearts and minds" of people. if a bill for nationwide marriage equality came to his desk (lol, like he could ever be president) he would veto it.

obama is hoping states endorse equality ASAP. if a bill for nationwide marriage equality came to his desk, he would sign it.

see how they have completely different stances on the issue?

One...punts to the state out of cowardice
that would be rend pawl, who is too much of a coward to stand on his principles because he knows how horribly unpopular his ideas are.

...one believes in state's rights to allow gay marriage even though it goes against his own personal philosophy.
rend pawl wants to leave it to states because he knows 20 or 30 states will keep inequality in place you idiot.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
and if he did try, bigots like ginwilly would be up in arms talking about his dictatorial fiat and tyrannical nature and his "phone and his pen".

we've seen it all before.
Oh so THAT's what's stopping him. Some fictional character on a pot forum.......

You mad?
 

MidwesternGro

Well-Known Member
Paul says it's a state issue, Obama says it's a state issue. I don't know how you can say otherwise.

Personally, they both believe differently, professionally, they would both govern the same. One says he supports gay marriage but punts to the state out of cowardice, one believes in state's rights to allow gay marriage even though it goes against his own personal philosophy. I know which one you praise and which one you mock, I'm just wondering if you know how it looks stomping your feet and saying Obama doesn't think it's a state thing.
A majority of Americans and our president thinks that the federal government should undermine states' rights and that gay people should have their marriages recognized on the federal AND state level. You conservatives were wrong about interracial marriage, women's rights and slavery and we undermined states' rights to make this a freer country for its citizens. People will continue to vote for liberals because they don't buy the bigotry that the rethugs are selling anymore and there is NOTHING you can do about it. Just watch them win presidential elections and appoint liberals to the supreme court. LOL!
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
PERSONALLY favored...... but punts to states. Sorry man, he could push to make gay marriage legal across the board if he wanted
it's up to congress to put a bill on his desk. you think the GOP house is gonna put that bill through when they won't even leave cannabis up to the states?

wanna suck my dick too?
i'm not gay, but if i were, i would go for someone who is not so old, overweight, obviously unlikeable (i'm sure your wife didn't leave you for nothing), and impotent. i would want someone who could at least get an erection.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
paul is hoping states hold out and that bigots can "win back" the "hearts and minds" of people. if a bill for nationwide marriage equality came to his desk (lol, like he could ever be president) he would veto it..
Because he agreed with the SCOTUS decision that overturned DOMA. Marriage is not and should never have been a federal government matter.

obama is hoping states endorse equality ASAP. if a bill for nationwide marriage equality came to his desk, he would sign it..
Yep, if someone else was willing to invest their political capital, he would sign a bill passed by majority. Oman, I see what you mean, he's dreamy.

see how they have completely different stances on the issue?.
Different stance personally, same stance governing. You support Obama and throw Paul under the bus, weird.


that would be rend pawl, who is too much of a coward to stand on his principles because he knows how horribly unpopular his ideas are..
I've seen him do this, he's a politician, it's disappointing.



rend pawl wants to leave it to states because he knows 20 or 30 states will keep inequality in place you idiot.
Paul wants to leave it to the states because he agreed with SCOTUS that it's a state thing. Obama believe that too? He must, that's what he said.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
it's up to congress to put a bill on his desk. you think the GOP house is gonna put that bill through when they won't even leave cannabis up to the states?
You mean like what just got passed through congress? Passed in an effort to reign in Obama's DOJ btw, you seem behind.
 

MidwesternGro

Well-Known Member
You mean like what just got passed through congress? Passed in an effort to reign in Obama's DOJ btw, you seem behind.
lol, nice misleading title.

this was passed on the strength of democratic votes, something like 170 Ds voted for it, and only 49 Rs. about 17 Ds voted against it, along with 170+ Rs who voted against it.

misleading title is obvious and desperate. like ginwilly on match.com.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
A majority of Americans and our president thinks that the federal government should undermine states' rights and that gay people should have their marriages recognized on the federal AND state level. You conservatives were wrong about interracial marriage, women's rights and slavery and we undermined states' rights to make this a freer country for its citizens. People will continue to vote for liberals because they don't buy the bigotry that the rethugs are selling anymore and there is NOTHING you can do about it. Just watch them win presidential elections and appoint liberals to the supreme court. LOL!
LOL boy do you get your stereotypes fed to you or what?

I'm for gay marriage and always have been, even when it wasn't so popular, mixed marriage was never an issue to me, before my time but I'm cool with it which is consistent with my libertarian views. I'm against slavery and women are awesome in my book, you'll not see me call anyone a fat cunt here. So that box you built and tried to put me in? How do you handle reality?

You are stating Obama wants to undermine state's rights yet everything he says contradicts that. He really does have the power to make it happen without even having to use up one of his three wishes.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Different stance personally, same stance governing. You support Obama and throw Paul under the bus, weird.
i'm not sure why you insist on dishonesty, but you do. it's pathetic, but i expect no less from you.

rend pawl is against gay marriage. he wants states to hold out and wants to "win back" the hearts and minds of people towards inequality. he is not ready to give up on marriage inequality and would veto any attempt at it.

obama is for gay marriage. he wants states to endorse marriage equality and would sign a bill for nationwide marriage equality.

completely different stances and governing decisions.

you are an idiot.
 
Top