RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

“for me personally” … “those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf …” [UPDATE]

All hail the King. Ah, but the King has ceded all control of ACTUAL law to each fiefdom state. Isn’t that rather a radical reversal of the kind of exploitative use of state’s rights for which Republicans have been excoriated lo these many years? And what of “those serfs and indentured servants those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf …”? What LEGAL rights have they? The King has declared that all of them fight “on my behalf.” Yet … [UPDATE AT END]

… yet … while, as before, they will fight for the pleasure of a single man King, that same King refuses to give them rights, or even the possibility of rights, by not expressing, let alone devising, any route for them to be married. They fight not for any of the 50 states. They fight, we now learn, not even for the federal government. They fight on the behalf of the King.

It’s all so ridiculous to me. And if what I wrote above is difficult to read, it’s because it was based on Obama’s verbal maze that, really, was non-sensical except for his astounding presumptuous use of personal pronouns.

Then there’s the ridiculousness because, although this is cynical, this all is quite likely nothing more than a crass move to scoop up the donations that LGBTs have been withholding from Obama.

[Update #1 of 2 Insert: I am listening to a DVR'd Piers Morgan show, and one of his guests says that Gawker has called this entire thing a "SHAM." RIGHT ON, Gawker!]

There’s also, the pundits say, that Obama had to make this move because of what Biden said. Really? I cannot believe — I do not believe for a moment — that Obama couldn’t have simply ignored the flap, regarding it as just another “Oh that Joe” moment.

Memeorandum is exploding with blog and news reports that go from one extreme to the opposite extreme.

There’s even a post about a social conservative who is worried. From The Hill‘s Ballot Box blog post, “Top social conservative worried the right may lose on gay marriage“:

— Conservative religious leaders predicted President Obama’s support of gay marriage will hurt him this election — but one fretted that the tide has turned against them long-term on the issue, and that Obama’s statement could further erode their position long-term. …

Among all the dithering posts, many of which appear to have been written by writers drunk on Scotch and irrational glee, there’s one cold sober essay by Elliot Abrams, not exactly someone I’d look to for commentary. But he does make some good points — which I read, I SWEAR, after I wrote the above:

[...]

The same advisers told the Post that Obama would make the decision based on his gut, but that is an insulting way to refer to the vice president. There is no evidence that Obama planned to speak until Joe Biden said last weekend that he was for gay “marriage” and forced the issue.

In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.

Mr. Obama’s statement today is a marvel:

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

The president, when he says, “at a certain point I’ve just concluded,” appears to refer to the point where Joe Biden smoked him out, unintentionally no doubt (as are most of Biden’s actions). And it is important “for me personally” to speak, the president says; this isn’t politics, you see, but some kind of testimony, a baring of the soul.

But Mr. Obama actually did bare his soul unintentionally today (perhaps the Biden disease is catching) with his astonishing characterization of American fighting men and women, whom he referred to as “those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf.” Really?

Most Americans thought they were fighting for the country, not on Barack Obama’s behalf. Slip of the tongue, to be sure, but can one think of another president who’d have made it? They are fighting under his command, under his orders, to be sure, but this particular locution is offensive and solipsistic. Mr. Obama has switched his position on the sanctity of marriage back and forth and has a new one, again, today, revealed when politics made that advisable to him and to his campaign. Whether this is the end or he will “evolve” some more is anyone’s guess.

But let’s leave our soldiers out of this. They aren’t fighting for Mr. Obama and his campaign, and no one sent them out to risk their lives to win same sex “marriage.” …

UPDATE #2 of 2: THE ONE KING sent me a personal missive, after which I have some questions:

Friend –

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you’ll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I’ve always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I’ve talked to friends and family about this. I’ve thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, I’ve gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I’ve come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn’t dawn on them that their friends’ parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

Thank you,

Barack

—–
More than 1.9 million people like you power this campaign. If you can, please donate today.

– END OF THE PERSONAL EMAIL I GOT FROM THE ONE –

I should “STAND UP”? On what, Dear The One, would I be standing? Help me, Oh One. I am but a frail, fragile supplicant who needs your “personal” directives.

Yet, my “personal” failings aside, KING O THANKED ME. And, like him, I haven’t done anything. Like him, I believe — oh I believe — that it is enough to believe. Personally.

If this is not the personification of the great film, “Being There,” I don’t know what is.

How dare cynics compare this to “Wag the Dog.” THAT president actually DID something — a lot of somethings!

Well, I kind of take that back. And you’ll just have to believe me on that. But I will share with you what I believe about King O and “Wag the Dog.” From that film, King O learned what should happen to threats to the KINGdom* — especially threats in the form of persons who would dare to assume independent, liberty-loving, capitalist-carousing roles not aligned with the ONE King. Just ask Dustin Hoffman’s Hollywood producer character.

=====

*Ever notice how the b is silent at the end of the Kingdom?

And that the u has been substituted by an o, and that that o should be capitalized?

  • MG6
  • EllenD818

    Never liked “Wag the Dog” but loved “Being There”.
    Remember the end scene where he walks on water.

  • arturo_ui

    Good lord you all are screwed up.  Every single one of you.  Good luck surviving this one.  I know it’s just horrible, horrible news to you that the President has endorsed marriage equality.  I truly wish each of you the best mental health care available in the coming weeks, months, years…

    • HARP2

       Smoke another one. You are almost there.

      • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

        We’ll let you go to mental health counseling first, Arturo.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hank-DeCat/100001190387982 Hank DeCat

      You (and the LBGT community) got punked again. Obama will not be making SSM a part of the Dem. Party platform.

      http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/wh-wont-call-repeal-doma/534831

      Don’t hate on us because we saw through him the first time. #gullible

  • shelldoll2

    OT: I listened  to a national security expert explain about the “terror” plots.  Does the TSA, MCA, DHS, NDAA also apply to Obama?  He railed against them as a candidate and supported them as President.

    He will support gay marriage in the military – until he gets re-elected.   It’s all bullsh*t.  This same man will go to conservative black churches and never mention the subject. He’ll use the call and response bull and those folks in the pews will fall for it.

    Ooooh look!  I can’t find a job but Josie Blow won American Idol!

  • FormerLiberal9

    What Barack will look like after evolving for another term. 

  • shelldoll2

    Is this anything like “To Serve Man”?

    I checked the menu. Filet of Human parts anyone?

    • FormerLiberal9

       Well done please.

      • BronwynsHarbor

        Um, do you want that done well?  Or well done?

        And don’t you DARE tell me you don’t know exactly what I mean!  I of course don’t, but I’m not the one being served!  And just how come you get to be served?

        • FormerLiberal9

           Maybe rare would be better. A little Leg of Lefty rare please. Lets eat them alive.

           I love election year. Off years we just get to bitch or defend our guy/gal. I’m pumped up.

          You Bronwyn are always clear. I however, being a Mormon convert and can’t have coffee anymore, am usually half asleep. Please forgive me for the often nonsensical gibberish that I pen.

          I’m sure there are many on this site who would love to serve me but I’m to old and tough to be very tasty. Sorry!

  • FormerLiberal9

    I was just thinking the other day that what this election really lacks is a good wedge issue.  Now the candidates can battle over an issue which neither candidate can do anything about even if they are elected.  And the press will be so happy to pound the candidates with questions over the issue while neglecting the really important matters facing the country. And as a side effect the controversy will probably be the death knell for Gay marriage  being legalized  because both parties will want to keep the issue alive in order to keep their bases fired up. 

    Personally for religious reasons I am against Gay Marriage. But will I lose any sleep over it should Gay Marriage be adopted? No!
    Will the issue cause me to vote for one candidate over the other? No! Will the issue substantially change the life of most Americans? Absolutely not!

  • Popsmoke

    “But let’s leave our soldiers out of this. They aren’t fighting for Mr.
    Obama and his campaign, and no one sent them out to risk their lives to
    win same sex “marriage.” …”

    Yes but we did not send them to war(s) for this either…. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/air-force-drones-domestic-spy/

    By the way, where is the outrage from either isle on this stuff? Big bad ole Mitt thinks this is ok?

    • Anthony_1

      Romney didn’t make that statement.  Obama did.  That’s why this post is about him and his narcissistic statement.

      • shelldoll2

        Thank you. 

        Obama said it therefore Mitt Romney is somehow to blame?

        I’ll have a straw man argument extra large please.

        • Anthony_1

          “Obama said it therefore Mitt Romney is somehow to blame?”

          Lol – apparently always, with some people

      • Popsmoke

        Both you and shelldoll2 ain’t getting it….

    • BronwynsHarbor

      Popsmoke, I was flabbergasted — should I have been? — to hear Charles Krauthammer, on Fox’s Special Report panel, wax poetically about Obama’s statements.

      I really need to review a video and transcript before I condemn Krauthammer.  Yeah, I know he’s in bed with Rummy and Cheney and the romance of heroic war, but heretofore he’s also seen through Obama.  Still, I best double-check what Charles said.

    • stodghie

      let’s stay away from running false flags go this way and don’t look at that.

      • HARP2

         Wake me when he starts to evolve on the national debt.

      • Popsmoke

        What false flag … Romney has flip flopped  on this issue and so this is a set up…. Look closely at Obama’s remarks… He says “personally” not as in the office of POTUS….

        • stodghie

          oh come on popsmoke everything obama does is about the election and office. sheesh!

          • Popsmoke

            That applies to 98% of all politicians…

        • FLDemFem

           Yes, he did and the implication is that he cannot do it officially because of the mean old Republican Congress. What a tool he is!!

  • HARP2

    Best comment on this yet.

     
    He didn’t get elected by proposing solutions. He got elected by
    repeating symbolic terms that people want to hear. He doesn’t know what
    they mean; he lets his audiences decide that.

    That’s a key to this man: he doesn’t know what he means. He doesn’t
    stand for anything. All he’s ever had to be to win is dark-skinned.

    Is he a Marxist? He probably doesn’t even understand Marxism, but he
    knows that pro-Marxist policies, publicly stated, seem to make his
    voters happy. Does he believe “taxing the rich” is a good idea? He
    probably hasn’t even thought about it, but he knows that publicly
    supporting the idea seems to please his voters.

    Similarly, does he support marriages between gay people? He doesn’t
    know. He probably hasn’t even thought about it. All he knows is that his
    supporters seem to like the idea, and he’ll get positive press coverage
    if he publicly supports it.

    • binky354

      Brought over from KatzPorch:  
      http://www.redstate.com/
      Many are reporting that this is the first time Obama has admitted his support for gay marriage. That is incorrect. During his 1996 run for Illinois state Senate, Obamaadmitted his support for gay marriage in a written response to a questionnaire from Chicago’s gay newspaper Outlines:“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”Since then, and until today’s admission Obama has been, well, nuanced. In true John Kerry fashion:President Obama was for gay marriage [1996].Before he was undecided [1998].Before he was “not a supporter of gay marriage” [2004].Before he was reminded to “remain” open to the possibility that his “unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided” [2006].Before he decided that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman[April 2008].Before he was not in favor of gay marriage [November 2008].Before he was for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act [2009].Before he admitted to an evolving attitude toward same-sex marriage [2010].Before, at least for now, he was again for it.

  • Flop_Flipper

    If this wasn’t ridiculous, it would be a funny SNL skit. With Obama, it’s always about him. All the rest of us, left to suffer the Jan Brady role while resident Marsha stands center stage congratulating himself. Double jointed arm permanently behind back in full automatic pat mode.

    Obama’s attitude seems to indicate that he believes the rest of us serve him. I don’t know whether to be enraged, insulted or merely amused that this person running our country has so little respect for it. This man becomes more contemptible by the day. As if that were possible.

    Not sure what to make of the gay marriage shift. I’m not opposed to it but I wouldn’t join a movement to make it legal. Letting the states decide seems a fair compromise.  Some in the GOP will pounce on this but I’d advise them to let it go and take a more moderate position. Letting states decide is a foundation of conservatism.

    I do find it particularly amusing that Obama claims he changed his mind because of his 14 and 11 year old daughters. They apparently convinced him. What do you expect from a guy who got his foreign policy experience at age 10?

    • HARP2

       Exactly. They want a wedge issue to mask his economic failure.
      RNC should leave it alone because nothing will change and this topic is not on anyone`s radar to begin with.

  • elizabethrc

    I’ve just read  a piece by David Kaiser, the historian.  It is chilling enough on it’s own and hearing Obama’s comments yesterday about whom our troops are fighting for makes his comments even more chilling.
    The direction Obama and a willing Congress are taking this country, the impunity of the Federal Reserve in spending some 2 trillion dollars recently without accounting for where any of it went and for what purpose, a practice which I’ve little doubt has precedent with that apparently lawless organization, Obama’s desire to build a domestic ‘military’ (brown shirts, anyone?), and the diminishing rights citizens have historically enjoyed are compared to the reshaping of Germany under Hitler. 
    I’ve been quick to poo-poo such a comparison but I’m beginning to question my own compacency in the matter.  At some point when the evidence piles up higher and higher, one is compelled to take another look and I’m not liking what I’m seeing. 
    The German people  lived in an intellectually sophisticated country but  nonetheless acquiesced to Hitler’s actions, allowing him to turn the country into something unrecognizable.  I have to hope that our knowing what happened there will keep us alert to what is happening here.  The prospect Mr. Kaiser suggests is hard to envision, but not as much as it was before Obama.
    One last thing:  I started thinking about all of those crosses at Normandy and all of the others scattered across the battlefields in Europe and the Far East.  How could we do this to those who fought and continue to fight for our freedoms?  How can we look in a mirror? 

    • BronwynsHarbor

      I hope you realize, Elizabeth, that those crosses at Normandy and other battlefields in other countries are RELIGIOUSLY OFFENSIVE.  They represent an ongoing Christian war on all non-Christian “faiths.”  

      (Of note: Cynicism can be expressed in very dark ways.)

      • elizabethrc

        I think we are politically correcting ourselves out of existence.
         I have always referred to myself as ‘vaguely Presbyterian’, but I’ll always reserve the right to call myself as whatever I choose and PC be damned.

        • EllenD818

           As another vaguely Presbyterian at one time, I understand you perfectly.
          I’m an atheist now but I’ve stood on the beach at Normandy and gone to see those crosses. Powerfully affecting no matter what your religion. They still bring tears to my eyes.

          • elizabethrc

            What moves me most deeply is manifestations of the majesty of the human spirit.  For me it has not so much to do with religion as with what each of us is capable of, and when tested, as those who fight our wars were and are tested,how splendid that human spirit can be.  I find it humbling.

          • EllenD818

            For some reason I can’t reply to Elizabeth’s post below.
            Well said, Elizabeth!

        • stodghie

          thanks, enjoyed your comment!  i have always thought of myself as liberal as far are religeon goes. but i have found a healthy anger at the mean disresectful way the obama administration and liberals in general have treated people of faith.

           maybe i am finding my childhood religeous roots. at the very least i have found my respect for the good people of this country and their rights will not be infringed by a mean spirited self involved nitwit.

      • Flop_Flipper

        I understand how someone not of a particular religion might feel uncomfortable around the symbols of it’s faith. That said, as long the symbols are not forced upon anyone and alternative religious and/or non-religious symbols are not banned, there really shouldn’t be an issue.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hank-DeCat/100001190387982 Hank DeCat

    NC gay rights activist to Obama: where the eff where you yesterday when it could have helped? 

    • KenoshaMarge

      Deciding which way he should evolve politically?

    • BronwynsHarbor

      Hank, you are so bitter.

      King O didn’t want to interfere with a state’s rights issue.  

      Actually, for him, his “personal” statement was akin to a Friday night news dump.

      • TeakWoodKite

        Will he missed and dumped all ove the US Constitution. He used gays and the military personel to score cheap political points. Makes me sick.

  • arturo_ui

    It is really sad that you have become so bitter over the past 4 years, Bronwyn, that you simply cannot be happy about the fact that the first sitting President in American history supports marriage equality.  No matter who it is, that fact alone should please you, but it doesn’t.  A different you, from 4 years ago, would have had a very different reaction to today’s wonderful news.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hank-DeCat/100001190387982 Hank DeCat

      No, the sad thing is people who buy  it as anything other than a craven move because (1) the polls suck and (2) donations are down. There are only so many $2 “Have Dinner with Obama” raffles one man can do.

      It is also sad that people don’t realize that Obama has evolved to the exact same position as Dick Cheney — personally supporting SSM but leaving it completely up to the states and not lifting one finger to help. This “wonderful news” could have happened beforethe NC vote when it could have, you know, make a difference. IOW, Obama is A-OK with what happened in NC & the other 43 states that don’t allow SSM. But of course, those people who eviscerated Cheney for that exact same stance they hail in Obama.

      People who actually support SSM should tell Obama the same thing he told them today: I personally think you should be re-elected,  but I won’t do jack sh!t to make that happen.

      • Hokma

        Please be sure to highlight “evolved” which is new Obama-speak for “flip-flop.”

      • arturo_ui

        “This “wonderful news” could have happened beforethe NC vote when it could have, you know, make a difference. ”

        How’s that work?  The amendment passed by over 20 points.  You’re claiming Obama could have turned that tide in a state where he’s also already down in the polls?  Please.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hank-DeCat/100001190387982 Hank DeCat

          BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You are the one who said how “wonderful” this evolution is — and yet you don’t think it could have made any  difference on any votes or changing any hearts & minds if  he had said it BEFORE the NC election? So the status quo is perfectly acceptable to you on this issue, as long as Obama says (not does, but SAYS) the right thing.
          As I’ve always thought, in order to support Obama one needs to find fantasy more important than reality.

          PS — you basically just admitted it was a craven pandering move on Obama’s part. But you also seem OK with that, which is really, really sad.

          • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

            Note to Arturo:

            It isn’t Obama’s endorsement or will that decided the gay marriage issue in NC.  It was the VOTERS – the collective voice of the people that decided to join 30 other states in having a state level stance on this subject.

            Now, with stats like that, you have to ask yourself, ‘Why?’

            And no canned cliches or knee jerk whines on this..deeper…why would people say no…why…

        • beachnan

           Why not speak up, if that is your belief.  Since Obama didn’t speak up before the NC vote, than why now?  Everything is about politics to Obama.  What can I gain from this?  Besides, he always talks the talk, but rarely walks the walk.  It’s all hot air.

      • BronwynsHarbor

        I am blown away that George Clooney only raised $15 million. Seriously. It’s not like people were restricted to a $3 donation.

        The only explanation I can think of is that the dinner is at George’s Hollywood house (snore), not his villa in Italy.

        It could also be that — we must admit — he’s getting on in years and there’s nothing that makes that as obvious as when a man beds one young thing after another — so frequently that in the Red Carpet interviews, he turns to introduce the young thing, then stops because he can’t remember her name.  

        I swear he calls Charlie Sheen and Heidi to find these young things.  (I don’t call them things to denigrate them; it is how they are seen by those using them like disposable diapers, condoms, what have you.)

        Then there’s that giveaway in the trailer for “The Descendents.”  ”DAD! [paraphrasing] You don’t get it. MOM WAS CHEATING ON YOU!”

        No woman would cheat on George Clooney unless …

        And it did NOT help that that girl called him “Dad.”  (Well, at least she didn’t call him “Grandpa.”)

        • EllenD818

           Thanks for reminding me that Obama is in the middle of my commute today. I’d better warn the rest of the office.

        • elizabethrc

          Whenever I think of the gathered intelligence of the Hollywood ‘elite’ I am reminded of that old Hanks phrase “stupid is as stupid does”. 
          Hollywood intelligence has to be an oxymoron without parallel.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hank-DeCat/100001190387982 Hank DeCat

           Ah, but before Obama’s BIG.EVOLUTION.ANNOUNCEMENT the fundraiser was only on track to raise $12 million. $3 million for 30 seconds of pandering isn’t bad.

    • artist

      I guess Bronwyn must have evolved since then!

    • Hokma

      Bronwyn is not highlighting Obama’s sudden pandering to gays and lesbians. What the story highlights is Obama’s uncontrollable narcissim but clearly stating that our military fight for HIM and not our country.

      When we get to debates, unless they invent some technology is an implanted teleprompter Obama is going to get beaten badly in all 3 debates – even with the assistance of the left wing propaganda machine asking the questions.

      • arturo_ui

        “Bronwyn is not highlighting Obama’s sudden pandering to gays and lesbians.”

        Sudden?  Pandering?  Not quite.

        See below.  The list of things this administration has done on behalf of gay and lesbian Americans is overwhelming and ongoing, and has been since day one:

        http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality

        • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

          Yawn.  The people of NC have voted and spoken.  

          Personally, I think civil marriage should be an option.  Leave churches out of it.  Do I think it will remove the substance abuse and mental health issues that many from the gay and lesbian culture engage in?  No. 

        • Hokma

          You are avoiding the point of the story.

          It ONLY has to do with gay marriage. That is it.

          Obama’s was firmly opposed to gay marriage until Jerky Joe shot his mouth off and forced Obama to suddenly reverse his position.

          That is called flip-flopping excerpt when a Obama does it. Then it is called “evolving.”

          It is best called Pandering.

          All the evidence supports that and none supports any other way of looking at it.

          But he stepped in it when he said clearly that our soldiers fight for him and therefore not for their country.  That too will be another Rove commercial to remind people what a narcissitic pandering opportunist Obama really is.

      • BronwynsHarbor

        Hokma, you verbalized my views better than I did.  Thank you.

    • Popsmoke

      This is a stupid position for any president to take either way… This is really best left up the the States and its people to decide…. Not the federal government….

      This position could be a real problem from Obama in the general. Most of America is either fence sitting or right of the issue. By the way, spare me the polls… Go to the south and Midwest and see what the response is….

      Now this is also bait for Romney. He has flop flopped the issue so many times its not even funny anymore. If i was ole Mittenberg I would say its a States and local decision and the federal government needs to stay out of people private lives.

      But watch Romney have a bad case of acute foot in mouth disease…..

      • Hokma

        It is not longer called “flip-flopping.” The proper new term is called “evolving.”

        On gay marriage Romney has always been opposed and stated the same yesterday.

        The CYA part of Obama’s interview (he always has one) is that it is up to the States to decide.

      • stodghie

        obama is the one here with shoe in mouth

    • BronwynsHarbor

      What Hank said.  And get those rose-colored glasses off your face. They are out-dated. At least four years out of style. Not to mention that they clearly make it harder for you to see reality.

      No gooey, over-the-moon swooning from me.

      Since you seem so close to Mr. President, can you ask him WHERE IN THE HELL THE FUNDING WENT FOR SECTION 8 HOUSING?  ASK HIM WHY THE ONLY SECTION 8 OFFICE IS PERMANENTLY CLOSED, and only a message remains stating that Section 8 is a goner and that there’s nowhere else to go for help with housing — this at a time when more and more Americans are losing their homes and are finding it harder and harder to rent because apartment managers gleefully are raising rents — EVEN in LOW-INCOME HOUSING.  DESPITE the fact that ELDERLY AND TRULY DISABLED PEOPLE HAVE HAD ONLY ONE COST OF LIVING INCREASE DURING HIS PRESIDENCY, despite massive increases in the costs of food, essentials not covered by food stamps, gasoline, auto maintenance, tires, INSURANCE OF ALL KINDS — oh, and how about the MAJOR INCREASES IN UTILITIES at the same time that federally-funded programs like LIHEAP are getting LESS FUNDING while TRYING TO HELP TWICE AS MANY PEOPLE.

      • arturo_ui

        Huh?  So now we pivot to ranting about Section 8 Housing?  Man was that out of left field.

    • TeakWoodKite

      He lies. BO can howl at the moon for I care, saying he supports..” _____”.

      It is actions or lack of them that is what is important. Only a zombie would take this fool at his word. So it doesn’t mean squat what he says….especially when he is playing the “LGBT” community for straight up suckers and you want people to be happy about it?
      . (LGBT itself an ugly label, they are US peeps)               

  • Retired_from_SPOnaj

    Hey, Mr. Obama believes in it “personally,” but it’s not like he’s going to make a Federal case out of it with over half of the states in opposition.  Duplicitous weasel or man of evolving principal.  You decide.

    By the way, has the oath of office changed for the military?  When I was in, I swore to support and defend the Constitution.  The last guy to require a personal loyalty oath by the military to the leader in a “modern” country was Hitler.

    Note to Axelrod:  You need better message control, no more leaving Barry to his own devices.  He must be on the teleprompter 24/7.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hank-DeCat/100001190387982 Hank DeCat

       Over half is an understatement. Only 7 states allow SSM (if you count Maryland, where it won’t go into effect until Jan. 1, 2013). CA doesn’t allow SSM, only civil unions, which is *not* the same thing, according to the GLBT, so it isn’t fair to count CA (where, in fact, a proposed law to allow SSM failed twice, in huge numbers), nor the other 10 states that allow civil unions, either.

      But even it you did count those 11 states with civil unions with the 7 states that allow SSM,that is only 18 out of 50 or 57 (depending on who you ask).

    • Popsmoke

      “The last guy to require a personal loyalty oath by the military to the leader in a “modern” country was Hitler.”

      Well…….

      Kind of the last guy to even do something close to the Hitler Oath was…… our National Guard…. http://www.examiner.com/article/national-guard-ad-revives-nazi-oath-to-hitler-always-place-mission-first-not-us-constitution

      • Retired_from_SPOnaj

        I read the article, thanks. My reaction to it is: A deadline can be a terrible thing for an editorial writer. As schmaltzy as The Soldier’s Creed is, the only legally-binding oath that a serviceperson takes is his or her oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Stupid people up the chain of command notwithstanding.

        Of course, there are other, informal “oaths” that some must take in order to be fully accepted into some of our more elite military formations. Along with a considerable degree of physical and mental anguish.

        • Popsmoke

           Yes you are very correct… But the problem as you know is perception…..

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UO5JXEHLNEZAN7DSAMQQ6ZJSQA o o

    Downright treason!

  • HELENK2

    several days ago it came out that the government was releasing high up taliban prisoners just making them pinky swear that they would not fight again.

    Well how come with those releases this soldier was not part of a trade agreement??????
    doesn’t backtrack think he was fighting for him???

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57431391/parents-of-bowe-bergdahl-claim-there-are-secret-talks-for-a-swap-with-the-taliban/

    • Popsmoke

      Helen, the situation in Afghanistan is at a point where we really no longer matter. We have basically lost a ton of control.  It would be best for all concerned to get our folk out like as fast as our logistics would allow.

      • BronwynsHarbor

        Please.

        Like yesterday.  Please.

  • HARP2

    Congratulation Barry. You finally agree with Dick Cheney. Hardly earth shattering.

     ”I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” replied the former
    V.P. “As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is
    something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think
    people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any
    kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there
    ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do
    believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at
    the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is
    the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. … But I
    don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.”

    • NoQuarterUSA

      As if geographic location had anything, logically, to do with whether or not one can marry.

      That worked SO WELL in the pre-Civil Rights era when blacks and whites couldn’t marry — by STATE LAW.  

      How is the Barry/Dick affirmation of state’s rights in any way different from the black/white prohibition?

      (It’s logically no different than saying that, because women are born in Egypt or many African nations, their parents have the right to mutilate their genitals.  It is logically no different than saying that, because women are born in Pakistan, men have the right to burn their wives alive.)

      State’s rights, to me, seem like a huge cop-out on issues that politicians want to avoid because they care only about winning.

      – This is BRONWYN’s HARBOR, not NoQuarterUSA — which I logged in to in order to blacklist an intruder.

      • HARP2

         I get it. It`s only States rights when it`s convenient.

        • BronwynsHarbor

          Yes, Harp.

          And I get it that it is heretical to speak ill of state’s rights.  But a little soul-searching should be required before one waves that card.

          Bill Clinton gets a hell of a lot of criticism for his “no ask no tell” — BUT (!) what he did was FAR more courageous because he did it right after he took office (he *sincerely* felt he owed it to GLBTs who had worked so hard to help get him elected). He got severely beaten up for it, and it was truly miraculous — it was, at that time in history, the very best thing he could have come up with.

          It’s not fair because he created a a working system — not just some “for me personally” BULLSHIT.

      • FLDemFem

         Actually, Obama could do a lot more than lip service to gay marriage. He could order the IRS to institute rules that allow gay couples to file jointly, that give gay couples the same deductions, etc. as married people. Single hetero couples already have that, it’s called POSSLQ, Persons of the Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters. After sharing the same address for a year or two, don’t remember exactly, the couple can file a joint return and pretty much get the same tax privileges as married couples. There is a lot he could do at the Federal level to bring gay relationships into the 21st century. But he won’t..that would entail work, and committing himself to the policy. He doesn’t know how to do either.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UO5JXEHLNEZAN7DSAMQQ6ZJSQA o o

      It is sad that there are those like yourself who have no understanding of reality of what the journalist has implied than Obama’s position.

      • HARP2

         Piss off.

      • FLDemFem

         Your run-on sentence makes no sense.

      • BronwynsHarbor

        You’ve gotten fair warning: Do not mess with the Harp Monster. As Dr. Bailey says on Greys Anatomy, “You mess with the She Shepherd, she mess wit you.” (I’m sorry, but the first episode of Downton Abbey left me irrevocably confused as to who is who, not good since my fav TV is that which I need not look at frequently.)

  • HELENK2

    I guess he did not read this letter from a retired Navy Seal

    DO NOT USE US FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES

    http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/navy-seal-hands-obama-his-arse/

    • HARP2

       Military response.

      • elizabethrc

        This definitely needs to be a bumper stick.  Where can I buy one????

        • FormerLiberal9

           I would buy one.

    • Popsmoke

      Sorry Helen, but this letter is stupid shit…. Just stupid… Where was the Seal outcry when Bush used the military as a token political tool?

      This letter is just as stupid and politically motivated as what Obama did and insults every service member buried at Arlington or for that matter buried anywhere…..

      • FLDemFem

         There is a difference between some photo ops and outing a covert team to the enemy. Big difference.

        • Popsmoke

          Outing a cover team? Hold that thought….

    • BronwynsHarbor

      HELENK2 ALERT!  The link has changed.  He bumped it up to his home page:  http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/
      (i.e., your link doesn’t work since he moved it … hey, not even Navy SEALS are perfect or he would have left that page up with a link to his home page).

  • stodghie

    i glanced at one of barry’s book once in a book store. the number of times i saw the use of the pronoun I was astonishing and spoke volumes to me then. i put it back as boring and not worth reading.

  • HARP2

     I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
    defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
    foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
    same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United
    States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to
    regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

  • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

    Effing clueless…that’s all you can say about this one.

    Actually, I hope he keeps it up.  He gives out freebie  ad content to the GOP on a daily basis. 

    They don’t even have to make stuff up or spin (ala the Dem party).  They just have to run with the latest BS that falls out of his mouth.

  • HARP2

    Back in the days when men did fight on the King`s behalf, the King would be in front leading his troops.

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      Could you see Barry leading the charge?   

      Okay, you can pick yourself off the floor from laughing too hard!!

      • HARP2

         Never before seen picture of Obama on his trusty steed ‘No Balls’, leading a clandestine operation to the malt shop.

    • HELENK2

       please remember that backtrack has a strict policy of
      Lead from Behind

      • FormerLiberal9

         And from his behind is where most of his policies  originate.

        • shelldoll2

          LMAO!

        • HARP2

           He is so far behind the parade, he can`t even hear the music anymore.

      • Anthony_1

        Yeah, he’s been “leading from behind” for a while now.

        Guess “leading from behind” is Bot-speak for “F*cking us in the ass”

        • http://mcnorman.wordpress.com/ mcnorman

           That’s putting it mildly Anthony.

    • elizabethrc

      That would only happen with Obama if it were fought on the back nine.

    • Popsmoke

      Does landing on an aircraft carrier count?

      Oh yeah, neither Obama nor Romney ever served. Matter of fact, ole Mittenberger did the Tumbleweed dodge and Obama? The closest he ever came was going to the army surplus store in Chicago to buy a field jacket.

      • BronwynsHarbor

        I don’t fault people who haven’t served. (I’d have never made it through basic training because, unbeknownst to me until five years ago, I was born with severe hip malformations, both, which (sigh). And I was a forceps baby, so injured that, my mother told me countless times, the doctor had to use both hands to reshape my head.) It makes me sad because I would have loved to work in an office or played the French horn in a band.

        It is actually possible to become very well-informed on the military in all aspects without having served. I have it on VERY GOOD AUTHORITY that Hillary Clinton knocked the socks off two pros who had entered her personal Senate office expecting the worst rumors about her to be proven true.  Their POV got up-ended when they listened as Hillary talked special forces operations with a level of comprehension that comes from actual special forces service. Hillary has the kind of brain and love of country — as well as the discipline usually seen only in the special forces candidates who actually survive the hell of training — to put in the time (no substitute for that) to really know about the military, all of it.

        • Popsmoke

          Yes many military historians have never served…. I understand completely….

        • piattq

          With Hillary you are actually dealing with a brain—a big one that is always on.

  • HARP2

    Since Barry is still evolving, there is still enough time for him to come out and admit he favors Marxism.

    • BronwynsHarbor

      Of course he loves Groucho and Harpo!  Why, his grandfather and grandpa’s friends raised him on Marx humor!