Reply With Quote
If they don't care about it, why do they talk about it all the time and vote about it?
lol hit piece
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...trategy/597176
What issues are most important to voters this presidential election year? If you said the economy, jobs and the budget deficit, congratulations, you are like the rest of America. But if you said gay marriage, birth control and pranks Mitt Romney pulled in high school in 1965, then you either already are, or may have a future in the liberal media.
The Labor Department reports that 367,000 more Americans applied for unemployment benefits last week. That is still about 100,000 more than prerecession levels. Economists lowered their economic growth projection for 2012 from an already stagnant 2.2 percent to an anemic 1.5 percent. Gallup reported one-in-three young U.S. workers is underemployed. The federal budget deficit is at an all-time high. Americans are fleeing the workforce in record numbers. And if Congress and Obama do nothing, we will all be hit with a job-killing $494 billion tax hike on New Year's Day.
So what is the liberal media covering this week? Gay marriage. In fact, not only are they covering it, they created the story. Obama's flip-flop on the issue was forced after NBC News popped the question to Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday. On Monday, NBC News followed up by trapping Education Secretary Arne Duncan with the same question. By Tuesday, the White House press corps would not let Obama spokesman Jay Carney talk about anything but gay marriage. And on Wednesday, it was the only subject being covered by the elite media.
On Thursday, the Washington Post chimed in with a 5,000-word hit piece accusing Romney of being a bully in high school. Except that story didn't even make their print edition because it was pre-empted by ... gay marriage, of course!
Do Americans care about any of this? Not according to the Pew Research Center. They presented Americans with a list of 18 issues and asked them to identify which ones were important to their vote. The top three? The economy, jobs and the budget deficit. The least important issue of the 18? Gay marriage.
If voters decide the 2012 election based on Obama's economic record, he will lose. And so the liberal media, as in love with him as ever, is helping him parade shiny objects to distract voters from that record. The wall-to-wall coverage of Obama's sudden evolution in his personal position on same-sex marriage follows in the tradition of the Republican War on Women; the Buffett Rule; tax breaks for private jets; Romney's supposed soft-spot for Osama bin Laden; a student loan bill that would save the average borrower all of $7 per month; and endless 30-year-old stories about Romney's dog.
If he wishes to be president, Romney must not take the bait. This is not the ground he should fight on. He should keep talking about the economy and other issues that actually affect Americans' lives. Eventually, they will hear him through all this sound and fury.
If they don't care about it, why do they talk about it all the time and vote about it?
lol hit piece
Who talks about it?
Lots of people. You should look around.
The media is talking about it. Most people are talking about the economy.
Untrue. People are perfectly capable of talking about more than one thing, even if you aren't.
"economy, jobs and the budget deficit"
economy and jobs are not talked about by Repugs, only "Christian" topics.
Gecko endorses Ryan's budget which has nothing to with the economy or jobs, only about gutting the social safety net for the criminalized poor, protecting/increasing defense budget, and cutting taxes on the 1% and UCA.
people are being scare mongered about the deficit by the Repugs, but are more concerned by the immediate economy, jobs, their mortgages, etc, not some theoretical deficit.
Spot on. Obama didn't in fact "endorse gay marriage," he endorsed state's rights. Kinda, uh ironic, isn't it, that our first Black president decides that equality is a state-by-state issue?
ing coward.
Consider page one (of this forum) a barometer. Doesn't look like Obama's so-called "shiny objects strategy" has even begun to get out of hand yet.
Worse yet, with all the calls for Health care to be states rights, he nationalized health care.
He's a ing hypocrite.
The thing is not even on the front page of this forum but for this thread.
The woman thing is because Obama is trying to court their votes as it was huge in the previous election. Its an election year. Get over it.
http://pewresearch.org/databank/dail...?NumberID=1497
http://features.pewforum.org/same-se...c=prc-headline
This is a graph that shows that opinions over the last couple of years have changed significantly.
This is the graph which talks about the 18 listed. What the article fails to mention is that gay marriage still was an important issue for 28% of all Americans. That's over 1 out of 4 Americans find it an important issue. The point of the list was to show the issues important to Americans; not that it wasn't important.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/...-lead-narrows/
what's the irony? being black and antigay?
agree 100% about the whole cowardice of his convictions thing, but POTUS even pretending to endorse gay marriage and doing so openly on top, is a big big deal.
Not an unequivocal big deal, I disagree. His states-rights position is identical to Cheney. No progress, just "feel your pain" calculated rhetoric.
perhaps so. my analogy would've been Ron Paul wrt abortion.
If civil rights for African-Americans was a state-by-state issue do you think Obama would have been our first black POTUS?
Ironic that such a actual and symbolic beneficiary of the struggle for civil rights would insist on states rights.
You would think that someone whose parent's marriage was illegal in 22 states when he was born would have more perspective.
Last edited by Capt Bringdown; 05-12-2012 at 12:05 AM.
must say, that's a pretty good answer. you'll get no argument from me there. did you have something more to say?
LOL, are you my regulator now? Must I ask permission?
I found this on another forum, it's apparently from an op-ed piece somewhere. The poster didn't link the source, but the "compression paradigm" is right on IMO.
In the new 'compression' paradigm all possible outcomes exist simultaneously, thus allowing politicians to satisfy all of their cons uencies. President Obama is tough on Iran, but will prevent war. He is cutting en lements, but will preserve them. He is shielding the bankers, but will hold the 1% accountable. He is prosecuting whistleblowers but is promoting openness in government.
Not at all. Presumed situation of liberty: have yer say.
surely it goes beyond off the rack playing both sides of the fence generalizations...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
