2008 Vice-Presidential Thread - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-30-2008, 10:19 AM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 03:21 AM
(AP)CAMPAIGN NOTEBOOK
Powell is favorite in online VP poll

June 30, 2008

Ever wonder what it would be like if the vice presidential sweepstakes was conducted like "Survivor"? Now we know, because of Affinnova, a Massachusetts-based company that used "evolutionary optimization" to trim down a list of 100 possible vice presidents to the strongest candidate for each party.

Participants in the Internet sample, taken from June 12 to 17, were presented with three president-vice president combinations and asked to pick the one that most appealed to them. Over time, those tickets not picked dropped off, and the more commonly selected moved up the list.

There was just one winner: retired general Colin Powell. Powell, who has said countless times that he has no interest in running for office, wound up atop both the Democratic and Republican lists.

Rounding out the top five picks for Democrats, in order, were former vice president Al Gore, former representative Dick Gephardt of Missouri, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina. On the GOP side, the results for second through fourth place were: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and former governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, in a virtual dead heat. Former mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City took fifth.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 01:26 PM   #47
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
I think Sam Nunn won't be asked. Apparently he once fired 2 aides solely because they were gay, and said they would have been considered risks to the CIA and Defense Department.


i agree with you.

Nunn was also rabid about DADT in the early 1990s.

the only risk to our security is that which is posed by DADT which fires gay soldiers -- including over 30 fluent in Arabic translators.

if Bush was actually serious about fighting terror, he'd repeal this asinine law (which was given to us by the Clintons).
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 03:13 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i agree with you.

Nunn was also rabid about DADT in the early 1990s.

the only risk to our security is that which is posed by DADT which fires gay soldiers -- including over 30 fluent in Arabic translators.

if Bush was actually serious about fighting terror, he'd repeal this asinine law (which was given to us by the Clintons).
What do you think it was like before DADT ?

Repeal it ? Are you clueless ?


Repeal and go back to asking all inductees are you now or have you ever been gay ?

Gays had to lie to get in the service.

If they were ever caught, they suffered severe penalties.

Officers had the right to ask anybody anytime and they had to tell on themselves and others .


After 12 years of Reagan and Bush. Gays had a great and sympathetic friend in Bill Clinton. If you lived through the 90s you would know this.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 04:59 PM   #49
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
What do you think it was like before DADT ?

Repeal it ? Are you clueless ?


Repeal and go back to asking all inductees are you now or have you ever been gay ?

Gays had to lie to get in the service.

If they were ever caught, they suffered severe penalties.

Officers had the right to ask anybody anytime and they had to tell on themselves and others .

no, silly. repeal it all. let gays serve openly and honorably. that's what Clinton should have done in the first place. he FAILED. and he threw gay people under the bus for the rest of his term -- who signed the first DOMA?



Quote:
After 12 years of Reagan and Bush. Gays had a great and sympathetic friend in Bill Clinton. If you lived through the 90s you would know this.

Clinton was a friend to the gays only when it served his purposes, like getting elected in 1992. when they became an issue for him, he dropped them.

yes, Clinton was better than Bush/Reagan. no question. i suppose i should just shut up and be grateful when someone doesn't directly spit in my face? that person is a great and sympathetic friend when he sometimes acknowledges my existence?

i don't regard Bill and Hillary as an enemy. but they are not, i repeat, NOT great allies. they are convenient allies.

Obama mentioned gays in his 2004 convention speech. he has gone to black churches and chided them for their homophobia. he gave an extremely thoughtful answer in the LOGO forum about marriage rights and it's parallels to the civil rights movement. i might disagree with him, and i might think he's a coward for not doing more, but the level of thought with him goes far beyond mere expedience.

i am not a gay who adores Hillary because she's some sort of drag queen template, a great diva who pratfalls as hard as she rises.

they have not fooled me. i see them for who they are, and i know i am nothing to them beyond a demographic to be won over, and then tossed some scraps if/when it serves them best.

but at least they haven't centered an entire social policy on my social death and destruction.

but, hey, i've come to lower my expectations, and smile and speak in a real friendly-like voice whenever them straights be comin' round. after all, us uppity faggots get what's coming to them, don't we.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 05:31 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
no, silly. repeal it all. let gays serve openly and honorably. that's what Clinton should have done in the first place. he FAILED. and he threw gay people under the bus for the rest of his term -- who signed the first DOMA?


Clinton was a friend to the gays only when it served his purposes, like getting elected in 1992. when they became an issue for him, he dropped them.

yes, Clinton was better than Bush/Reagan. no question. i suppose i should just shut up and be grateful when someone doesn't directly spit in my face? that person is a great and sympathetic friend when he sometimes acknowledges my existence?

i don't regard Bill and Hillary as an enemy. but they are not, i repeat, NOT great allies. they are convenient allies.

Obama mentioned gays in his 2004 convention speech. he has gone to black churches and chided them for their homophobia. he gave an extremely thoughtful answer in the LOGO forum about marriage rights and it's parallels to the civil rights movement. i might disagree with him, and i might think he's a coward for not doing more, but the level of thought with him goes far beyond mere expedience.

i am not a gay who adores Hillary because she's some sort of drag queen template, a great diva who pratfalls as hard as she rises.

they have not fooled me. i see them for who they are, and i know i am nothing to them beyond a demographic to be won over, and then tossed some scraps if/when it serves them best.

but at least they haven't centered an entire social policy on my social death and destruction.

but, hey, i've come to lower my expectations, and smile and speak in a real friendly-like voice whenever them straights be comin' round. after all, us uppity faggots get what's coming to them, don't we.

I did a google search and see where you are getting some of this complete bullshit you are regurgitating


I was there, I remember the debates, in the Democratically controlled congress

here is a gay man, maybe you will listen to him

Quote:
Dems on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Cowards Then and Now.
Posted on June 11, 2008 by gary chapelhill

Back when the primary was in full swing, I wrote a post contending that Hillary was the better candidate when it came to LGBT issues such as marriage and gays in the military. Obama supporters who commented, and those I know in “real-life” always responded with sentiments such as “but Clinton got us into the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ mess in the first place”. First of all this is not true. Bill Clinton wanted there to be no ban whatsoever on gays serving in the military. After all, we have been serving proudly (if not openly) in just about every conflict and every branch of the military since the birth of this nation. Of course the GOP was adamantly opposed to overturning the ban on gays in the military. But Clinton had a Democratic majority to work with in congress, so you would think he could have easily passed this reform, which he had campaigned on before being elected President. Like so many other aspects of the Clinton Presidency, the Obots prefer revisionist history to reality. They claim that Clinton is to blame for the policy we have now, “don’t ask, don’t tell”. While he did eventually sign the compromise into law, it was Democrats in congress who blocked an outright ban.

Congressional opposition to lifting the ban on gay and bisexual people in the armed forces was led by Democrat Sam Nunn of Georgia who organized Congressional hearings that largely buffed the armed forces position that has remained unchanged since the 1981 directive.

After backlash from members of his own party, Clinton agreed to a compromise. While not perfect, the compromise did seem to open a pathway for gays and lesbians to serve legally in the military:

The final result was a Congressional compromise of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” that was later amended to include “don’t harass”. Officially, the compromise dictates that the armed forces will no longer ask recruits about their sexual activity and/or orientation, will not investigate any serviceman or servicewoman’s sexual activity and/or orientation without solid evidence (thus preventing witch-hunts), and self-identified homosexual servicemen and women agree that they will not engage in homosexual sex acts, or do anything that announces that they are a homosexual, i.e. public statements or participate in a same-sex marriage openly.

Once the Republicans regained control of the government this policy was perverted to indeed serve as the basis for witch-hunts to purge gay/lesbian service members, but that was clearly not Clinton’s intention, and in my opinion hardly his fault. I lay blame with Democrats like Sam Nunn who didn’t fully support Clinton’s promise to end the ban entirely.

Today the Oborg tries to paint Clinton as anti-gay, saying that he backed down in the face of adversity. To begin with, many of these 20 somethings were still in diapers when this occurred. They may not remember the hostility towards gays and lesbians in the early 90’s. Those of us who are old enough to remember can recall that the AIDS crisis was threatening to decimate the gay community. Many people in our society (not just the military) didn’t even want to shake our hands or drink after us at water fountains out of fear of the disease. Sodomy laws were still on the books (I wonder if any of these kids even realize that at that time just being gay was technically illegal). So for Bill Clinton to even make this stand is in my eyes heroic. He could have very easily ignored his campaign promise when he saw that the political wind was at his face. But he tried, and when he couldn’t get the ban overturned, he compromised. If he had had the support of his fellow party members he may have very well been successful.

Their cowardice then led to the policy that we have now. They also showed the nation that they had no principles and were easily frightened by a small but vocal minority of religious bigots. The Obamanuts today will Blame Clinton.
And what about the rest of the Democrats, some of whom are still around from back in 1993? Nancy Pelosi (from San Fran-freaking-cisco!!!) wants to study the issue:

Davis said she plans to convene a hearing on the issue by the end of the year. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she supports the creation of a panel of military experts to study the issue.

While others are being considered for some very serious roles in an Obama administration:

Last week, Nunn — whose name has been floated as a possible running mate to Obama — told reporters in Atlanta that he thinks it would now be appropriate to revisit the matter.

“I’m not advocating anything — except I’m saying the policy was the right policy for the right time, and times change. It’s appropriate to take another look,” Nunn was quoted as saying by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Yes, that’s the same Sam Nunn who obstructed Clinton’s attempt to overturn the ban in 1993. Now he is being considered as a running-mate for Obama and Clinton is being trashed for his historic attempt to gain equal rights for the LGBT community.

To all you sweeties out there: This is the reason I will never vote for Obama.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 05:44 PM   #51
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:21 AM
[q]
I did a google search and see where you are getting some of this complete bullshit you are regurgitating[/q]


and what did you find? nothing? because i wrote that, no assistance from anywhere else.

as opposed to your various Obama crisis of the day.

i'll deal with the article in a moment.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 05:57 PM   #52
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:21 AM
[q]Dems on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Cowards Then and Now.
Posted on June 11, 2008 by gary chapelhill[/q]


erm, do you find this compelling? he thinks that Clinton was heroic because he caved to conservative Democrats?

keep googling, deep. and let's talk about the 1996 DOMA. because that and DADT are the two biggest pieces of discriminatory legislation passed in my lifetime at least. the christian right would be proud of GWB had he as much success.

but, yes, i will have a problem if Nunn is the VP. is Clinton as much to blame for this as Nunn was? no. but did Clinton throw us to the wolves after the 1994 elections? absolutely.

are the Clintons generally good for the gays? yes. but that's not saying much. and if the winds change, we know where we stand.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 06:32 PM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
[q]
keep googling, deep. and let's talk about the 1996 DOMA. .

sure, it passed overwhelmingly with Dems supporting it, a veto would have been overridden and this was an election year

I remember the climate in the 90s well

things are much better now

I believe CA will vote down gay marriage ban

this is 2008, why is Obama signing DOMA now? (see no 6, from Obama's website )

http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/n...pdfs/obama.pdf
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2008, 12:29 PM   #54
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:21 AM
i'm still waiting for you to show me where i ripped off my post.

did you read the Obama document you just posted?

[q]I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all people – gay or straight – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.

However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. [/q]

so while the irony of a black man supporting a separate-but-equal institution is not lost on me, it hardly seems that he's "signing DOMA now." he supports federal benefits for those people who live in states that have marriage equality. i don't see how a mainstream politician does any better. you're so ready to defend poor Bill Clinton and offer him aloe after he bent over and sold out the gays for various political expediencies ... and yet you hold Obama to a vastly higher standard.

your spin takes on new levels of torque.

but it's entertaining.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2008, 01:50 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i'm still waiting for you to show me where i ripped off my post.

did you read the Obama document you just posted?

[q]I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all people – gay or straight – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.

However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. [/q]

so while the irony of a black man supporting a separate-but-equal institution is not lost on me, it hardly seems that he's "signing DOMA now." he supports federal benefits for those people who live in states that have marriage equality. i don't see how a mainstream politician does any better. you're so ready to defend poor Bill Clinton and offer him aloe after he bent over and sold out the gays for various political expediencies ... and yet you hold Obama to a vastly higher standard.

your spin takes on new levels of torque.

but it's entertaining.
I think you believe, like myself that the CA Gay Marriage Ban will not pass the November.

Comparing Bill Clinton's actions in the 90s, that actually moved the ball further in both Gay rights and Civil Rights enforcement, to what a Politician does today, in 2008 when we have a much stronger "Progressive Movement" and the Democrats in control of both houses is just plain wearing "blinders".


maycocksean, who is a 100 % Obama supporter, is at least objective enough to admit he thinks "ethanol" is not a good idea.


Quote:
Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse': from DOMA 1996

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Quote:
Denial of 'marriage' and 'spouse' for Gays: from Obama 2008

Do you believe the civil institution of marriage (with absolutely no equirements imposed on religious institutions) should be made legally available to two committed adults of the same sex?
Obama - I oppose.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2008, 02:34 PM   #56
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I think you believe, like myself that the CA Gay Marriage Ban will not pass the November.
yes, i do.



Quote:
Comparing Bill Clinton's actions in the 90s, that actually moved the ball further in both Gay rights and Civil Rights enforcement, to what a Politician does today, in 2008 when we have a much stronger "Progressive Movement" and the Democrats in control of both houses is just plain wearing "blinders".

but this is what i've been saying all along. yes, OF COURSE the Clintons were better than any Republican would have been, and advancements were made during the 1990s. but the biggest strides were made by ordinary gay people themselves who refused to be treated as second class citizens, and there was not comparable help from the White House. the gays helped get Clinton elected in 1992, and two things they got were DADT and DOMA. yes, much of that had to do with the Congress at the time, as well as the culture climate, but to sit there and pretend that the Clintons treat gay people with any more respect than that which they'll get from said community in political returns is just silly. when gays became radioactive, the Clintons dropped us like kryptonite.


Quote:
maycocksean, who is a 100 % Obama supporter, is at least objective enough to admit he thinks "ethanol" is not a good idea.
erm, so do i, and i have stated, in no uncertain terms, that i think Obama is a "coward" on marriage rights. and sean is far more honest than you, who manufactures what i'm now going to call "Deep's Daily Obama Disaster." because it's getting bewildering.

however, to equate his semantical, politically necessary need to toss the straights a bone about the precious word "marriage" as equivalent to the passage of DOMA -- in and of itself a perfect example of Clintonian triangulation, he tossed the gays under the bus so that he could get other legislation passed through the Republican controlled house, and it's only retroactively that it's been spun as some kind of bill that enabled the passage of marriage equality in MA and CA.

i know you'd like to think that you're more aware of the 1990s because you were an adult and i was a teen, but i paid attention, and i wrote a paper on the passage of DOMA in college.

you're also not quite aware of the abuse of DADT in the military itself, not least of which how it's often used to target women disliked by their superior (male) officers.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2008, 03:04 PM   #57
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post

I believe CA will vote down gay marriage ban


[q] Dear Friends, 


Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country. 



As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of fully inclusive laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states. 



For too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success. 

 


Sincerely,

Barack Obama 


Obama Calls Calif. Amendment 'Divisive and Discriminatory'  | News | Advocate.com

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 07:24 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:21 AM
Looks like we have a V P for McCain

Quote:
Florida Gov. Crist says he's getting married

By Adam Smith, Times staff

Published Thursday, July 3, 2008 6:43 PM

ST. PETERSBURG — Florida's most powerful bachelor is getting hitched.


Gov. Charlie Crist, single for nearly three decades, on Thursday morning became engaged to his girlfriend of nine months, Carole Rome.

"She's special in every way. She's brilliant, beautiful and sweet. I'm very, very lucky," Crist told the St. Petersburg Times in an exclusive interview.

Crist said he picked out the sapphire and diamond ring on Wednesday at the Gold and Diamond Center in St. Petersburg's Northeast Shopping Center.

No date has been set for the wedding, but Crist, 51, said it would be in St. Petersburg, where he is a member of First United Methodist Church. There probably also will be a reception in Tallahassee.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 07:45 PM   #59
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:21 AM
^ The ultimate move to the center? Or just a lesson for the Florida press in not being too quick to put the pieces together?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 08:00 PM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:21 AM



a man could be tempted

to move to her center
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com