Barak Obama's speech

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: sportage
My 32 year old cousin died of aids in 1991 and I could tell you of horror stories about his days in the hosp and how his family blocked his partner of 10 years of seeing him or even being mentioned at his funeral. It was like his partner never exisited to the family. I havent spoken to any of them since. Yeah... laws are badly needed and long overdue.

Generally speaking, most people don't have a problem with civil unions that would provide for visitation rights being mentioned, and which Obama alluded to tonight. And if it stopped there, people like me wouldn't have a problem with it.

But it doesn't stop there. The gays want me to accept "marriage" as meaning one man+one woman AS WELL AS two men, or two women which is a violation of natural law, nevermind the religious component that I have a problem with as well. This will in turn eventually lead to adoption of children by gay couples which I absolutely oppose in every sense.

There is the slippery slope to consider here and if I could be confident it would end at civil unions, I might be more amenable to a compromise position.

Sorry, but which "Natural Law" does that violate?
At the end of the day, ALL mariage goes against "Natural Law"...meaning that marriage is a function of culture and is not part of any inherent instinct.

As most tribal societies we have order--like other pack hunters that have alpha males and females. Actually human nature is to create order; we are a tribal society/animal. We just progressed tribes to what we call government. Marriage aids society by keeping order so marriage is actually human nature/instinct. Why is it that almost all humans/societies have/had a form of marriage; the native americans, middle east, the east, the west, etc.? Because marriage is human nature/instinct to keep order in the society.

Just my 2 cents.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: smashp
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: smashp
He beat a Clinton in an election. Show me a republican that has done that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_D._White
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Hammerschmidt

oh yeah, i forgot bill got spanked a couple times back in the day. I should have said Show me a republican that has done that in the last 26 years

Well, nobody then. But George W. Bush hasn't lost an election in 26 years either.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: sportage
My 32 year old cousin died of aids in 1991 and I could tell you of horror stories about his days in the hosp and how his family blocked his partner of 10 years of seeing him or even being mentioned at his funeral. It was like his partner never exisited to the family. I havent spoken to any of them since. Yeah... laws are badly needed and long overdue.

Generally speaking, most people don't have a problem with civil unions that would provide for visitation rights being mentioned, and which Obama alluded to tonight. And if it stopped there, people like me wouldn't have a problem with it.

But it doesn't stop there. The gays want me to accept "marriage" as meaning one man+one woman AS WELL AS two men, or two women which is a violation of natural law, nevermind the religious component that I have a problem with as well. This will in turn eventually lead to adoption of children by gay couples which I absolutely oppose in every sense.

There is the slippery slope to consider here and if I could be confident it would end at civil unions, I might be more amenable to a compromise position.

Sorry, but which "Natural Law" does that violate?
At the end of the day, ALL mariage goes against "Natural Law"...meaning that marriage is a function of culture and is not part of any inherent instinct.

As most tribal societies we have order--like other pack hunters that have alpha males and females. Actually human nature is to create order; we are a tribal society/animal. We just progressed tribes to what we call government. Marriage aids society by keeping order so marriage is actually human nature/instinct. Why is it that almost all humans/societies have/had a form of marriage; the native americans, middle east, the east, the west, etc.? Because marriage is human nature/instinct to keep order in the society.

Just my 2 cents.

And when we want to create more order by ending discrimination, some people try to create laws against that. It happened with miscegyny, it's happening with homogyny (??)
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,555
9,907
146
Originally posted by: Kanalua
...anyone can read a speech...it's the off the cuff remarks, it's the question from a non-planted town-hall questioner or a question in a debate...that's where Obama is weakest...

Whereas John (I don't know how many houses I own / I repeatedly don't know the difference between Sunnis and Shias / Less than 5 Million and you're not rich) McCain is such a quick on his feet, sliver tongued little scamp, eh? :roll:



 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: smashp
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: smashp
He beat a Clinton in an election. Show me a republican that has done that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_D._White
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Hammerschmidt

oh yeah, i forgot bill got spanked a couple times back in the day. I should have said Show me a republican that has done that in the last 26 years

Well, nobody then. But George W. Bush hasn't lost an election in 26 years either.

John McCain is probably a better name to bring up here
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Obama is good at reading from a Teleprompter but he is not even close to Reagan or Clinton when it comes to giving of the cuff remarks or answers.

Look at the videos of him fumbling through speech after speech and gafs etc etc etc.

Oh... I thought his line about wanting to debate McCain was funny since Obama has been running away from debating McCain for months now.
 

Adn4n

Golden Member
Aug 6, 2004
1,043
0
0
Originally posted by: Kanalua
I watched the speech...wasn't amazing to me...

His speech is not what I think is important...anyone can read a speech...it's the off the cuff remarks, it's the question from a non-planted town-hall questioner or a question in a debate...that's where Obama is weakest, and that is what people will remember long after this speech has been forgotten...

I lol'd at this as a CNET junkie. Don't worry, he's running against McCain. This comes to mind:

http://www.time.com/time/polit...0,8599,1836909,00.html
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: winnar111
Well, nobody then. But George W. Bush hasn't lost an election in 26 years either.
Of course he wasn't even running for public office for a notable portion of that period.
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Even the cynics, who will tear down all of Obama's ideas, can't tear down the fact that this rookie senator is a better politician than a 26 year Washington veteran.

McCain will struggle to fill the seats for his VP announcement tomorrow in Ohio. I heard they are organizing buses to bring people in from other states. He can't seem to rally his base, and that fact alone will sink McCain in November.

Obama has a 50-state campaign that is hell-bent on signing up record numbers of new voters. McCain is struggling to get Republicans out of bed on election day.

Regardless of your beliefs, you are the most full of shit poster I've ever seen. Nothing you say can be taken seriously.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Obama is good at reading from a Teleprompter but he is not even close to Reagan or Clinton when it comes to giving of the cuff remarks or answers.

Look at the videos of him fumbling through speech after speech and gafs etc etc etc.

Oh... I thought his line about wanting to debate McCain was funny since Obama has been running away from debating McCain for months now.

Look at Obama's previous campaigns if you want to see him off-the-cuff it all over the place. God, why is everyone on here so fucking stupid about politics when they spend so much time posting about politics? You people have the memory of a goldfish and everything you post on here is some regurgitated bullshit from some moron on TV who barely knows more than you do... and to know less than a poster on ATPN is not easily done.
 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: BigJelly
I'd rather hear a speech about ideas and policy that has 1 person in the room than another of Obama's vague "change...change...no details...blah blah blah...change...hope" speech that he has given time and time again with 85k cool-aid drinking lemmings in a stadium
My God, why didn't you say so? You'll be right at home watching the Republican convention next week.

lol you think I'm stupid enough to get any ideas from politicans? Sorry but ideas dont come from political speeches but you don't seem to get that.

Face it read Obama's transcript, when it comes out, he was vague and basically reworded his previous 2004 speech and countless speeches his given since then.

Seriously he never explained how he would do/pay for any of his promises.

BigJelly as Obama:
"I feel we need me to get into office to change how this country has been run. I will fix the education system, provide everyone will affordable healthcare, lower the costs of college, bring the jobs back to flint, I will come up with a new enegry policy that will replace oil in 10 years, ....more empty and no specifics on how to do any or fund any of these policies. We need to bring change and hope back to America."
BigJelly/Obama coolaid drinkers cry after the speech believing the horseshit I just delievered

 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Originally posted by: Viditor
Sorry, but which "Natural Law" does that violate?
At the end of the day, ALL mariage goes against "Natural Law"...meaning that marriage is a function of culture and is not part of any inherent instinct.
It's very simple. Man+woman can procreate. Two men or two women cannot NATURALLY conceive. Same as in the animal world.

Traditional marriage serves to provide societal order as well as to continue the human race. Virtually all studies show children grow best when they have mommy and daddy around (mommy=female, daddy=male, lest there be any confusion).

Now I'm waiting for one of the loonies here to reply, "well, then should we disallow a traditional couple to marry if they don't want to have children??!" To which my answer will be, "No dipshits. But at least they are in harmony with natural law and have that capability should they choose."
 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
699
0
71
Like all speeches, there is one thing I actually liked--i.e. the going through the budget from the top down. He probably won't be able to it, but like his whole speech it sounded nice. Like one poster said, he stopped short of giving everyone a puppy/$10 dollars in every pocket. Maybe I'm being cynical, but govt. can't be the answer to everything.
 

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Originally posted by: winnar111
Well, nobody then. But George W. Bush hasn't lost an election in 26 years either.
Of course he wasn't even running for public office for a notable portion of that period.

Hey, at least both Bill and Hill had viable opponents. Barry O had all his opponents removed from the Primary ballot for his initial State Senate run. And Jack Ryan's divorce papers being made public in 2004 (something that is virtually unheard of) basically left Barry w/o a opponent for his senate seat.
 

RKDaley

Senior member
Oct 27, 2007
392
0
0
I thought the speech was great. Probably one of his best.
And despite that clown Stuart Shepard praying, it did not rain.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: Viditor
Sorry, but which "Natural Law" does that violate?
At the end of the day, ALL mariage goes against "Natural Law"...meaning that marriage is a function of culture and is not part of any inherent instinct.
It's very simple. Man+woman can procreate. Two men or two women cannot NATURALLY conceive. Same as in the animal world.

Traditional marriage serves to provide societal order as well as to continue the human race. Virtually all studies show children grow best when they have mommy and daddy around (mommy=female, daddy=male, lest there be any confusion).

Now I'm waiting for one of the loonies here to reply, "well, then should we disallow a traditional couple to marry if they don't want to have children??!" To which my answer will be, "No dipshits. But at least they are in harmony with natural law and have that capability should they choose."

STFU, please. You're an embarrassing POS if you think marriage is for procreation. Until the last 100 years when female influence grew immensly, marriage has always been strategic. It has been used to consolidate power or finance. It was never about having children. Furthermore, 10% of all animals are gay. Get over yourself.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: Viditor
Sorry, but which "Natural Law" does that violate?
At the end of the day, ALL mariage goes against "Natural Law"...meaning that marriage is a function of culture and is not part of any inherent instinct.
It's very simple. Man+woman can procreate. Two men or two women cannot NATURALLY conceive. Same as in the animal world.

Traditional marriage serves to provide societal order as well as to continue the human race. Virtually all studies show children grow best when they have mommy and daddy around (mommy=female, daddy=male, lest there be any confusion).

Now I'm waiting for one of the loonies here to reply, "well, then should we disallow a traditional couple to marry if they don't want to have children??!" To which my answer will be, "No dipshits. But at least they are in harmony with natural law and have that capability should they choose."
You're ignoring the BASIC factual issue that many people DON'T have the capability to have children when getting married today.

For instance to stick with the logical extension of your apparent argument, we should bar women who are naturally infertile or over 60 from getting married since they can't have children except through artificial measures. Lesbians also can have children if artificially inseminated, so they are basically the same as the other cases you mentioned.

The study claim is BS. In fact one study on the subject suggests both parents being lesbians actually was more advantageous to the children. Regardless, the key point is right now there is a real lack of credible studies actually showing what you claim. Most of them are by religious groups with a very clear agenda rather than honestly seeking the answer to that question.
 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: sportage
My 32 year old cousin died of aids in 1991 and I could tell you of horror stories about his days in the hosp and how his family blocked his partner of 10 years of seeing him or even being mentioned at his funeral. It was like his partner never exisited to the family. I havent spoken to any of them since. Yeah... laws are badly needed and long overdue.

Generally speaking, most people don't have a problem with civil unions that would provide for visitation rights being mentioned, and which Obama alluded to tonight. And if it stopped there, people like me wouldn't have a problem with it.

But it doesn't stop there. The gays want me to accept "marriage" as meaning one man+one woman AS WELL AS two men, or two women which is a violation of natural law, nevermind the religious component that I have a problem with as well. This will in turn eventually lead to adoption of children by gay couples which I absolutely oppose in every sense.

There is the slippery slope to consider here and if I could be confident it would end at civil unions, I might be more amenable to a compromise position.

Sorry, but which "Natural Law" does that violate?
At the end of the day, ALL mariage goes against "Natural Law"...meaning that marriage is a function of culture and is not part of any inherent instinct.

As most tribal societies we have order--like other pack hunters that have alpha males and females. Actually human nature is to create order; we are a tribal society/animal. We just progressed tribes to what we call government. Marriage aids society by keeping order so marriage is actually human nature/instinct. Why is it that almost all humans/societies have/had a form of marriage; the native americans, middle east, the east, the west, etc.? Because marriage is human nature/instinct to keep order in the society.

Just my 2 cents.

In most tribal societies, monogomous marriage didn't really exist until the influence of Christian society. Originally, groups are thought to have been arranged similarly to the way Gorillas do (powerful alpha male with multiple females).
Those tribal societies were every bit as strong as our own (as evidenced in relatively recently discovered primitive societies like The Gilyaks).
 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: Viditor
Sorry, but which "Natural Law" does that violate?
At the end of the day, ALL mariage goes against "Natural Law"...meaning that marriage is a function of culture and is not part of any inherent instinct.
It's very simple. Man+woman can procreate. Two men or two women cannot NATURALLY conceive. Same as in the animal world.

Traditional marriage serves to provide societal order as well as to continue the human race. Virtually all studies show children grow best when they have mommy and daddy around (mommy=female, daddy=male, lest there be any confusion).

Now I'm waiting for one of the loonies here to reply, "well, then should we disallow a traditional couple to marry if they don't want to have children??!" To which my answer will be, "No dipshits. But at least they are in harmony with natural law and have that capability should they choose."

Group marriages also provide societal order (ask the Mormons), but they are outlawed in most states.
What you appear to be saying is that any marriage that doesn't have procreation as it's main goal is one that goes against Natural Law...is that correct?

Edit: To be clear, I'm not gay and don't wish to have a same-sex partner...that said, I loathe the idea of owning a pink car as well, but I have no objection if my neighbor has one.
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,899
63
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Obama is good at reading from a Teleprompter but he is not even close to Reagan or Clinton when it comes to giving of the cuff remarks or answers.

Look at the videos of him fumbling through speech after speech and gafs etc etc etc.

Oh... I thought his line about wanting to debate McCain was funny since Obama has been running away from debating McCain for months now.

Hes still better than McCain or Bush...
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Originally posted by: Dari
STFU, please. You're an embarrassing POS if you think marriage is for procreation. Until the last 100 years when female influence grew immensly, marriage has always been strategic. It has been used to consolidate power or finance. It was never about having children. Furthermore, 10% of all animals are gay. Get over yourself.
Touched a nerve did I? Good. Now take a hike. :evil:
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: Dari
STFU, please. You're an embarrassing POS if you think marriage is for procreation. Until the last 100 years when female influence grew immensly, marriage has always been strategic. It has been used to consolidate power or finance. It was never about having children. Furthermore, 10% of all animals are gay. Get over yourself.
Touched a nerve did I? Good. Now take a hike. :evil:

Nope. When it comes to confrontations, I'm brutal and unforgiving (The Texan way). I'm not gay and I don't have family members who are. But it bothers me that you can talk about people in such a distant and disrespectful manner. You should be ashamed of yourself for denying to others what you have. I merely (sic?) pointed out the fact about marriage and how stupid you are regarding it.
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Originally posted by: Viditor
Edit: To be clear, I'm not gay and don't wish to have a same-sex partner...that said, I loathe the idea of owning a pink car as well, but I have no objection if my neighbor has one.
And I loathe the idea of having to explain to my son and daughter why two men or two women on a park bench are sucking face or frolicking around in the park in public like a normal man+woman would do. Similarly, I loathe the idea that a gay "married" couple may eventually be able to adopt children as well as a society where a significant percentage of people might accept having two mommies or two daddies as being "normal."
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: Viditor
Edit: To be clear, I'm not gay and don't wish to have a same-sex partner...that said, I loathe the idea of owning a pink car as well, but I have no objection if my neighbor has one.
And I loathe the idea of having to explain to my son and daughter why two men or two women on a park bench are sucking face or frolicking around in the park in public like a normal man+woman would do. Similarly, I loathe the idea that a gay "married" couple may eventually be able to adopt children as well as a society where a significant percentage of people might accept having two mommies or two daddies as being "normal."

Societies should not be modeled around what individuals wish to be asked by their children.