Strange company for a president to keep

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I didn't realize I owed you an explanation.

You're a weirdo. You called it strange in a political debate forum. I challenged you on it as to why it was so different. If you can't do that, it's not because I'm being unreasonable or acting like you owe me anything. You made an assertion...one that you can't back up on closer examination. It's as simple as that.

Im sorry. i just find it strange and didn't realize I had to get an OK from you to have that opinion. if I couldn't explain it to your satisfaction. I think its strange as hell, you dont. I can handle that but it seems you're having a problem with it.

You can have any opinion you want. Feel free to hold the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese. If you want to throw said opinion out on a public forum for discussion though, expect to possibly have it challenged and be able to bolster it with something of substance.

If Obama spent less time with big donors and more time actually trying to affect positive legislation, by interacting with the opposition party, we may actually see some movement on the gridlock. Im pretty sure that's not going to happen. Too many rich donors out there that Obama is more interested in selling out to than anything else.

Congratulations. You've just identified the biggest problem with virtually every politician in the American government. They spend too much time with big political donors and not nearly enough working on the problems that matter. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I didn't realize I owed you an explanation.

You're a weirdo. You called it strange in a political debate forum. I challenged you on it as to why it was so different. If you can't do that, it's not because I'm being unreasonable or acting like you owe me anything. You made an assertion...one that you can't back up on closer examination. It's as simple as that.

Im sorry. i just find it strange and didn't realize I had to get an OK from you to have that opinion. if I couldn't explain it to your satisfaction. I think its strange as hell, you dont. I can handle that but it seems you're having a problem with it.

You can have any opinion you want. Feel free to hold the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese. If you want to throw said opinion out on a public forum for discussion though, expect to possibly have it challenged and be able to bolster it with something of substance.

If Obama spent less time with big donors and more time actually trying to affect positive legislation, by interacting with the opposition party, we may actually see some movement on the gridlock. Im pretty sure that's not going to happen. Too many rich donors out there that Obama is more interested in selling out to than anything else.

Congratulations. You've just identified the biggest problem with virtually every politician in the American government. They spend too much time with big political donors and not nearly enough working on the problems that matter. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

It is a political opinion forum but some things just seem rather obvious. I dont deny that Im a weirdo especially comparing my own opinions with most of yours. Did you even read the linked article. The guy who has spent so much time at the WH is a gay rights activist. You call me weird and i would say you're an interesting study in contrasts.

The gay rights movement is populated by people who seemingly believe it is their divine right to ruin people, personally and professionally and bankrupt them too if possible if they disagree with their lifestyle or do something "stupid" like, you know, contribute money to those promoting the protection of traditional marriage.

You have had no problem railing on them but you dont think it is strange, at all, that a sitting president invites a guy, who essentially represents that crowd, to the WH a minimum of 6 times and provides chariot service for him aboard AF-1. WE all know politicians are whores but this instance is still very strange IMO.

Again, I find it extremely inconsistent and frankly, a bit odd, that you'd make the arguments you've made in this thread given the heart burn you've expressed in the past over other gay rights activism.

[homersapien 11,374]

This is about Obama Derangement Syndrome and nothing else.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

It is a political opinion forum but some things just seem rather obvious. I dont deny that Im a weirdo especially comparing my own opinions with most of yours. Did you even read the linked article. The guy who has spent so much time at the WH is a gay rights activist. You call me weird and i would say you're an interesting study in contrasts.

The gay rights movement is populated by people who seemingly believe it is their divine right to ruin people, personally and professionally and bankrupt them too if possible if they disagree with their lifestyle or do something "stupid" like, you know, contribute money to those promoting the protection of traditional marriage.

You have had no problem railing on them but you dont think it is strange, at all, that a sitting president invites a guy, who essentially represents that crowd, to the WH a minimum of 6 times and provides chariot service for him aboard AF-1. WE all know politicians are whores but this instance is still very strange IMO.

Again, I find it extremely inconsistent and frankly, a bit odd, that you'd make the arguments you've made in this thread given the heart burn you've expressed in the past over other gay rights activism.

I guess I don't find it "strange" that a Democrat would spend time with big donors who are in favor of gay marriage, are pro-choice and so on. That seems perfectly in character for them even though I'm not in favor of either thing. To me, this would be like saying you find it strange that a Republican would give a big Wall Street donor a lot of face time. It's just not that strange at all.

But the truth is, this isn't just about him being gay. The point you wanted to insinuate is that it's strange Obama would cozy up to a donor who was sexually abusing children. And that is why you got the response from me that you got.

[AuburnNTexas 7,148]

This is a no story as far as Barrack Obama goes. I disapprove of his politics, but because somebody has donated large amounts of money to a party and been given access to the president and then is accused of something immoral does not make the President a bad person who approved of the immoral act. It makes him a political figure who gave access to a well heeled donor. This could have and probably has happened to every President regardless of political bent.

It speaks volumes about how money driven politics is, but it doesn't address any real political issue. A possible scum bag (not convicted yet)donated money to a political party and got access to the President sadly it happens from both sides of the political spectrum and there is no real solution to it.

It only becomes a story if one the act did occur and was proven and then the political committee knew about it and still took the money and gave the access.

There are many things Obama has done as our President that I disagree with I expressed my political view twice when I voted for his opponent but it serves no purpose to try and paint him with this person's actions as I am sure if the accusations are proven true people on both sides of the political spectrum will be upset by this abhorrent behavior. Let's stick to honest political disagreement with the President.

[TheBlueVue 177]

It is a political opinion forum but some things just seem rather obvious. I dont deny that Im a weirdo especially comparing my own opinions with most of yours. Did you even read the linked article. The guy who has spent so much time at the WH is a gay rights activist. You call me weird and i would say you're an interesting study in contrasts.

The gay rights movement is populated by people who seemingly believe it is their divine right to ruin people, personally and professionally and bankrupt them too if possible if they disagree with their lifestyle or do something "stupid" like, you know, contribute money to those promoting the protection of traditional marriage.

You have had no problem railing on them but you dont think it is strange, at all, that a sitting president invites a guy, who essentially represents that crowd, to the WH a minimum of 6 times and provides chariot service for him aboard AF-1. WE all know politicians are whores but this instance is still very strange IMO.

Again, I find it extremely inconsistent and frankly, a bit odd, that you'd make the arguments you've made in this thread given the heart burn you've expressed in the past over other gay rights activism.

I guess I don't find it "strange" that a Democrat would spend time with big donors who are in favor of gay marriage, are pro-choice and so on. That seems perfectly in character for them even though I'm not in favor of either thing. To me, this would be like saying you find it strange that a Republican would give a big Wall Street donor a lot of face time. It's just not that strange at all.

But the truth is, this isn't just about him being gay. The point you wanted to insinuate is that it's strange Obama would cozy up to a donor who was sexually abusing children. And that is why you got the response from me that you got.

I see along with your many other talents you're now reading minds. Its not about being gay at all..its about gay activism. News flash Titan, you're wrong and your comparison to republicans and Wall Street holds about as much water as the random guy in your sunday school class ending up having a problem. Do those evil Wall St guys set up thought police and exert every political tool at their disposal to ruin people who dont invest with them?

I have an opinion that you want to argue and prove wrong. You cannot. I find it quite strange but, to be perfectly honest, not nearly as strange as your commitmwent to this argument after all you've posted in the past about your disdain for gay activism. Seems like a personal thing to me.

BTW, did you ever find a source for your claim you made that Wal-Mart "pushes people onto food stamps"? Or is it much like your arguments in this thread, if you say it long enough it'll be true.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I see along with your many other talents you're now reading minds. Its not about being gay at all..

Which is what I just said. It wasn't about being gay, it was about guilt by association with a guy who was sexually abusing children.

its about gay activism.

Again, not shocking. The Democratic Party is practically the governmental arm for the gay activist movement.

News flash Titan, you're wrong

Nope. Spot on. And everyone here knows it. Except maybe you, but that's not my fault.

and your comparison to republicans and Wall Street holds about as much water as the random guy in your sunday school class ending up having a problem. Do those evil Wall St guys set up thought police and exert every political tool at their disposal to ruin people who dont invest with them?

The comparison was simple, but apt. Wall St, Big Business, etc lean heavily Republican and I'm not even saying for nefarious reasons. Certainly that happens, but many of those type lean GOP because they view GOP policies as more favorable to their interests and they view GOP politicians as more sympathetic to their views. Similarly, gay rights activists, pro-choice advocates and so on are heavily Democrat because they view Democratic policies as more favorable to their interests and Democratic politicians as more sympathetic to their views.

It really wasn't that hard an analogy to grasp.

I have an opinion that you want to argue and prove wrong. You cannot. I find it quite strange but, to be perfectly honest, not nearly as strange as your commitmwent to this argument after all you've posted in the past about your disdain for gay activism. Seems like a personal thing to me.

You have an opinion that you put in a political debate forum. Therefore it is reasonable and logical to argue the merits of it. Do the facts lend support to your opinion or not? Don't get butthurt because you're being challenged and failing to live up to it.

As far as my disdain for most gay activism, nothing has changed. And there is nothing inconsistent about holding that view and not buying your take that it's "strange" that Obama would be friendly or amenable to people who support various gay 'rights.' It's nothing personal. I don't care that it was you who made the assertion. I just find it lacking in logical basis and said so.

BTW, did you ever find a source for your claim you made that Wal-Mart "pushes people onto food stamps"? Or is it much like your arguments in this thread, if you say it long enough it'll be true.

I didn't mean "pushed" as in "Walmart Policy states that all employees be required to seek out food stamps." That's dumb if you're going to be that literal. The point was, Walmart and companies like them don't pay their full time workers enough. The substandard wages for full time work puts people in the untenable position of having either multiple jobs, having to accept various forms of welfare, or both. Keeping labor costs down allows them to keep prices low, which is great for Walmart and Walmart stock holders but terrible for workers. Again, not a hard thing to follow.

I also mentioned McDonald's though. And yes, they did explicitly suggest to their workers that they should apply for food stamps and other forms of welfare.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/23/video_mcdonalds_tells_workers_to_get_food_stamps/

http://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-mcresources-hotline-tells-nancy-salgado-to-get-on-food-stamps-2013-10

Walmart just held a food drive for their own workers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/11/18/walmart-store-holding-thanksgiving-charity-food-drive-for-its-own-employees/

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

It is a political opinion forum but some things just seem rather obvious. I dont deny that Im a weirdo especially comparing my own opinions with most of yours. Did you even read the linked article. The guy who has spent so much time at the WH is a gay rights activist. You call me weird and i would say you're an interesting study in contrasts.

The gay rights movement is populated by people who seemingly believe it is their divine right to ruin people, personally and professionally and bankrupt them too if possible if they disagree with their lifestyle or do something "stupid" like, you know, contribute money to those promoting the protection of traditional marriage.

You have had no problem railing on them but you dont think it is strange, at all, that a sitting president invites a guy, who essentially represents that crowd, to the WH a minimum of 6 times and provides chariot service for him aboard AF-1. WE all know politicians are whores but this instance is still very strange IMO.

Again, I find it extremely inconsistent and frankly, a bit odd, that you'd make the arguments you've made in this thread given the heart burn you've expressed in the past over other gay rights activism.

I guess I don't find it "strange" that a Democrat would spend time with big donors who are in favor of gay marriage, are pro-choice and so on. That seems perfectly in character for them even though I'm not in favor of either thing. To me, this would be like saying you find it strange that a Republican would give a big Wall Street donor a lot of face time. It's just not that strange at all.

But the truth is, this isn't just about him being gay. The point you wanted to insinuate is that it's strange Obama would cozy up to a donor who was sexually abusing children. And that is why you got the response from me that you got.

I see along with your many other talents you're now reading minds. Its not about being gay at all..its about gay activism. News flash Titan, you're wrong and your comparison to republicans and Wall Street holds about as much water as the random guy in your sunday school class ending up having a problem. Do those evil Wall St guys set up thought police and exert every political tool at their disposal to ruin people who dont invest with them?

I have an opinion that you want to argue and prove wrong. You cannot. I find it quite strange but, to be perfectly honest, not nearly as strange as your commitmwent to this argument after all you've posted in the past about your disdain for gay activism. Seems like a personal thing to me.

BTW, did you ever find a source for your claim you made that Wal-Mart "pushes people onto food stamps"? Or is it much like your arguments in this thread, if you say it long enough it'll be true.

Really, you can't find the information on how Walmart exploits food stamps and employee wages on your own?

http://www.jwj.org/walmarts-food-stamp-scam-explained-in-one-easy-chart

http://www.msnbc.com/disrupt/watch/report-walmart-employees-rely-on-food-stamps-232345667778

Plus as I have said before. Did a summer job at one in Auburn, watched Walmart management do it personally.

[homersapien 11,374]

You left out the step where they (undoubtedly) lobby and the support for the associated legislation.