Obama’s announcement reminder of vote’s importance
May 13, 2012 01:13 AM | 923 views | 13 13 comments | 11 11 recommendations | email to a friend | print
DEAR EDITOR:

Anyone gullible enough to buy Obama’s explanation that his views on aberrant, unnatural sexual proclivities were “evolving” is probably gullible enough to vote for him.

This most radical socialistic president of all times undoubtedly supported gay “marriage” all along — he merely wished to delay announcing his position until after this election in hopes that undecided voters who oppose homosexual “marriage” might be strung along and cast their votes to return him to office.

Many national elections have been characterized as “the most important election in our lifetime.”

If any one truly deserves that sobriquet, it is this one.

Scott Chadwick
Marietta
Comments
(13)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Too funny
|
May 14, 2012
Why not just cut to the chase with something like, "I'm a homophobe and I can't stand the President?" Would've saved everyone the time of looking up your $.25 thesaurus words.
GoodScout
|
May 14, 2012
Good, Scott. Use the force. Let the hate flow through you. With every evil thought you make the Democrats grow stronger.
Don H.
|
May 20, 2012
In no country on earth is homosexuality a fully accepted lifestyle. Deal with it.
Backwards Chadwick
|
May 13, 2012
Yeah, if Chadwick is fer it, I'm a'gin it.
Just the Plan
|
May 13, 2012
As a Christian, who is heterosexual, gays being allowed to married does not affect me. I'm tired of hearing about it. I'm tired of hearing about Romney's Mormon faith and how his Father and Grandfather lived their Mormon faith. I am also tired of hearing about Obama's religion or the lack of it. I'm tired of hearing about where he lived or about his Mother and his Father.

I want each candidate to tell me what their plan is to solve the economic problems of the United States and for the media to report on paper or on TV what those plans are without their slant.
Citizen Sane
|
May 13, 2012
President Obama only supported gay marriage and not "aberrant, unnatural sexual proclivities" as you would have your reader believe. Heterosexual couples are free to practice whatever love-making they wish with complete freedom from judgmental Pharisees like you.

Gay married couples would be able to obtain employment benefits presently denied to them separately. They would be able to visit their mate in the hospital when visits are restricted to "family". And a host of "RIGHTS" currently denied them.

And their marriage would not affect yours in ANY way---unless you are terribly paranoid.
just sayin
|
May 13, 2012
There could be no better reason to vote for Obama than the backward, ignorant rants of Scott Chadwick.
a I nuts?
|
May 13, 2012
Am I the only American who thought Obama's announcement was funny? This man simply can't be a competent leader no matter if he spends 10 minutes out of every day practicing. So he has "evolved". I though that was hilarious and frankly, it brought a wicked smile to my face.
otter357
|
May 13, 2012
It is not about Obamas' views on aberrant, unnatural sexual proclivities. It is about, "Do we permit legislation that discriminates against the civil life of these people?"

One doesn't need to be pro gay marriage to be pro civil rights for all people. Even the ones that engage in "aberrant, unnatural sexual proclivities".

My own views have evolved similarly to Obama's, so I don't find the evolution of his views so hard to believe. I originally felt, "What's wrong with a civil union?" But if forced to pick a side, i would make the same pick Obama has.

Mr. Chadwick has this scenario in his head about how Obama wished to delay announcing his position. I think Obama would have been happy to avoid the whole thing. Gay marriage is one of those issues that can lose you votes a lot quicker than it will gain you votes.

Where Mr. Chadwick sees a planned conspiracy, I see more randomness. Biden says something, and then the president had to take a position. The republic will survive gay marriage handily, just as the military survived the end of "don't ask, don't tell"; with barely a ripple of turmoil.

No tinfoil hat needed.

And guess what Mr. Chadwick, Obama is going to get a second term. He won't win Georgia, but conservative enclaves like Cobb overestimate the ubiquity of like minded conservatives, and underestimate Obama's support in the rest of the country, relative to Mr. Romney.

Look at the numbers in the seven or so swing states. Imagine what happens after more than two years of Romney's tax returns are leaked, (I'm only guessing but I guess they will come to be public..after Romney is nominated).

If the republicans had nominated Huntsman, they'd have had a good chance. But Mr. Romney will not be able to beat Obama, and this voter is glad.
southernbychoice
|
May 14, 2012
As someone who has a gay member in the family, I guess I must be misreading your comment - you say you are going to vote for Obama (again) because he has "evolved" into believing gays should be able to "marry"? As was stated before, this is all smoke and mirrors to avoid the issue of the disaster which has become America and a record that no politician could ever hope to win re-election on. I also assume you would have voted for Barney Frank because he is openly gay. Can't think of a better reason to give someone my vote. I could go along with civil unions - but marriage should be kept as between a man and a woman - period. Can't wait to see the law suits come because someone wants to marry their dog. This is not beyond ralistic since the human in that relationship is a human who is being denied his civil rights - that way the dog could get hospital visits with its partner, as well as be entitled to survivor benefits for his/her old age. So why don't we just throw out all of the laws and let everyone do whatever they want to do. I have no problems with gays - as I said we have one in our family, but for God's sake let's keep something sacred in this country. And for yor information "don't ask don't tell" was a smashing success because the Pentagon was prohibited from publcizing all of the negatives that it caused in the ranks - the same as the rescinding of this caused major problems - not reported, but known about by those who are in the military.
otter357
|
May 14, 2012
@southernbychoice

How the heck did you read my post and get this:

"As someone who has a gay member in the family, I guess I must be misreading your comment - you say you are going to vote for Obama (again) because he has "evolved" into believing gays should be able to "marry"?"

I didn't say that at all.

You ARE misreading my comment, but don't feel badly, I didn't understand parts of yours, either.

I will answer the parts of your post I understand.

I am going to vote for Obama, but I didn't make up my mind last week. His stance on gay marriage made no appreciable difference to me. But in Obama vs Romney, I vote Obama.

I might vote for Barney Frank, if I lived in the Massachusetts 4th district, but his being gay wouldn't have anything to do with it.

I'm not sure what you mean by the following part, it seems to contradict itself:

"And for yor information "don't ask don't tell" was a smashing success because the Pentagon was prohibited from publcizing all of the negatives that it caused in the ranks - the same as the rescinding of this caused major problems - not reported, but known about by those who are in the military."

I don't get the above paragraph. ?Caused major problems that are a secret from those that don't share your position as an elite as far as military information goes? Oooo K

Cite one "major problem".

I think you have difficulty seeing there weren't any major problems.

Truman's integration of race in the military caused some problems, too, should he have skipped it?

scottchad37
|
May 22, 2012
Obama will NOT receive a second term. Unfortunately for him, this time he has a record he must defend--and that record is indefensible.

Scott Chadwick
anonymous
|
May 23, 2012
southernbycoice you are correct when you say:

"I guess I must be misreading your comment - you say you are going to vote for Obama (again) because he has "evolved" into believing gays should be able to "marry"?

....you DID misread my comment.

it is the same error as this one: "So why don't we just throw out all the laws and let everyone do what they want to do"

and this one: "I also assume you would have voted for Barney Frank because he is openly gay"

It is the "non sequitur" error, Latin for "it does not follow".
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides