RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

you ignore the more realistic outcomes of systems like canada and england.

Yes, the holocaust wasn't real ray, we understand Louis Farrakan and Rev. Wright's teachings....

Obama’s Campaign Logo derived from the Weather Underground?

There's an entire thread here somewhere that the doctor (not me, not BSAMS, not the WB, the doctor) started a few years ago about how England and Candada have more or less gutted their free-speech protections over the past few years.

Furthermore, perhaps this is because San Francisco only teaches "the history of white oppression" in their public school social studies class, or something, but the founding fathers started this country in large part to avoid many of the aspects of English rule.

So that's hardly reassuring.

I know people from England that have told me personally how the free speech laws are bent depending on who is in charge of the country, if we are not allowed our constitutional right to free speech things could get really bad, really quick.


Years ago it was considered offensive for people to claim slaves were legitimate human beings, if offensive speech was squashed, we likely would have never got away from that oppressive chapter in American history.

Yes, and the gays here, like MEM and Ray, should remember how-until very recently-any discussion of their lifestyle or rights was quickly censored.

Isn't Ray straight, your not mixing your fantasy world with the real one are you?

As I've noted several times I'm not for censorship no matter if it's VP candidate Palin asking a librarian repeatedly if she would remove books for her or if it's progressives that want to reinstate the old fairness laws in the media.

I also am quite aware which party supports my rights. It's your party G-man that talks about changing the constitution against gays.

I'd like to see where g-mans party wants to change the constitution against gays.

You would do well to look at what's happening in Europe, MEM. As Muslim radicals push through more of their agenda (in the guises or recognizing their "Right" to practice Islam) it's getting increasingly dangerous for homosexuals there. Even if Obama isn't a Muslim, it's no secret that he's "tolerant" of "the religion of peace."

Not having gay marriage will be the worst of problems when some Muslim radical group stones your boyfriend to death and get away with it because it's part of their "culture."

This is just MEM once again sticking his head in the sand to excuse his blind obedience to his Democrat masters.

He's done it before. Remember the time it was pointed out that Bill Clinton signed the defense of marriage act and MEM tried to tell us that Clinton banned gay marriage in order to save it?

It was only a couple of years ago President Bush & the GOP ran on this BSAMS...
whitehouse.gov

When it comes to an individual's rights there is more than one party you need to worry about.

Your the one G-man side-stepping what your party just pushed for in recent elections.

that's not against gays, it's preserving a long standing understanding that marriage is a woman and a man.

Bullshit, it's against gays & state rights besides.

I agree it should be left up to the States, there is a crapload of laws the fed has(like Obama's upcoming National Police Force), but because a law doesn't cater to a specific groups wishes does not mean it is against them.

are you kidding? failing to stroke a people group's ego is so much worse than charming them into complacency until it's time to call for their annihilation!

It does more than not cater to gays BSAMS, maybe this rationalization makes you feel ok with what the GOP tried to do but it's very much against gays.

CNN: Barack Obama Opposes same-sex marriage.

When the tax code gave a bigger break to two gay guys living together than two hetero's married living together, no one believed the government was anti-heterosexual. I appreciate your sensitivity to the subject as you've been bombarded by these left wing fear tactics for years, but if you would look at this objectively, I think you'd have a more rational belief.

He's not trying to change the constitution though G-man. While that might not mean anything to you it does to me. If you ever found yourself in the same situation I think we would agree.

How do you know he's not going try and to change it? Or put in judges that will interpret it different. Get the blinders off man.

Who's spouting fear tactics here? Obama has a record of supporting gay rights & is in a party that also supports gay rights.

So now you want us to base our opinions on his history? When it's Farrakan, Ayers, and Rev. Wright, we ignore his history, when it's for a policy you support it is the real him. Gotcha.

Nice of you to just make that up, I never said those guys were off the table though. Or does that matter to you at this point?

If you are going on his history, then he has been palling around with real anti-gay figures, not just people who would like to make sure marriage is kept traditional.

So then would McCain's associations also be a matter for me to consider?

You do reallize Bush endorsed McCain don't you?

You're the one trying to argue that casual associations mean exactly the same thing as long-running friendships.

You know full well that Bush and McCain have never been close friends and that Bush is not McCain's mentor the way that Wright and Ayers were Obama's.

My point still holds.

MEM is grasping at straws. again.

I feel sort of sorry for him.

"straws"

You'll continue to rant G-man but don't confuse that with a point. McCain is obviously a Bush buddy now. While Katrina was happening who's birthday party was he at?

Only MEM would compare a conservative President to a terrorists, a racist, and a antisemite....

well him and whomod...