A President Romney would not support a federal workplace nondiscrimination law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, continuing to leave many workers vulnerable to rampant discrimination on the job. And under a President Romney, gay and transgender youth would likely find little help from the federal government when it comes to bullying and harassment in our nation's schools.
This analysis was based on actions Mitt Romney took as the governor of Massachusetts, as well as public statements he's made since he started running for president several years ago. The results of the analysis are in stark contrast to Gov. Romney's statement last year when he said, "I favor gay rights."
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/08/28/34648/6-questions-for-mitt-romney-on-gay-and-transgender-equality/ (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/08/28/34648/6-questions-for-mitt-romney-on-gay-and-transgender-equality/)
http://dodsonandross.com/blogs/carlin-ross/2012/10/pleasevote-your-clit-election (http://dodsonandross.com/blogs/carlin-ross/2012/10/pleasevote-your-clit-election)
The other side wasn't too keen on passing ENDA when they had the chance either. The whole election is just coming down to who you wanna vote against again and that sucks.
Quote from: Jaime on October 27, 2012, 11:14:51 AM
The other side wasn't too keen on passing ENDA when they had the chance either. The whole election is just coming down to who you wanna vote against again and that sucks.
Not sure I agree. This administration DID include anti-discrimination wording in the Affordable Care Act to protect transgender patients. To me that trumps any speculation about what either side would or would not do. (Though Mr. Romney says he wants to repeal part of the ACA and won't say which parts. I guess that's better than a few months ago when he said he wanted all of it gone.)
Quote from: agfrommd on October 27, 2012, 11:53:40 AM
Not sure I agree. This administration DID include anti-discrimination wording in the Affordable Care Act to protect transgender patients. To me that trumps any speculation about what either side would or would not do. (Though Mr. Romney says he wants to repeal part of the ACA and won't say which parts. I guess that's better than a few months ago when he said he wanted all of it gone.)
Well, I'm one of those poor people that can't afford health insurance, but still above the official "poverty level" because I'm single, so I'm likely going to get penalized for that. Not too keen on the act in its current form.
Quote from: agfrommd on October 27, 2012, 11:53:40 AM
Not sure I agree. This administration DID include anti-discrimination wording in the Affordable Care Act to protect transgender patients. To me that trumps any speculation about what either side would or would not do. (Though Mr. Romney says he wants to repeal part of the ACA and won't say which parts. I guess that's better than a few months ago when he said he wanted all of it gone.)
I don't think there is any such "wording" in the Act. What you have is an after-the-fact interpretation by a Commission. As such, the interpretation is wide open to legal scrutiny, in the Courts, as to whether that was the intent of the law.
As as we all remember, Nancy Pelosi said that "We need to pass the law so we can see what's in it" (!)
Sadly the personal presidential votes in California have no effect on the outcome of the election due to the electoral votes charade!
At least we are spared the viewing of presidential campaign TV ads in this state!!
Tekla...well said, and my thoughts exactly
It is important to remember Susan's "Political Rule" - the discussion of specific candidates is permissible within the context of GLBTQ issues.
How and if the Affordable Care Act affects is community is fair game. Religious bigotry is not.
Ok, as for Jaime D's claim that there was a chance for action to be done in Congress, it was only for a total of 72 days. There was no filibuster-proof senate for 2 years. It was technically 5 months, but the summer recess and the time off the senate took in some sort of weird protect in the fall cut it down to 72 days. I just found another topic of politics locked (was that you Jaime?) after Jaime said something along the lines of democrats somehow controlling Congress for 2 years. Honestly, these political discussions are infuriating sometimes.
I simply think that the US needs a complete political overhaul. Perhaps I'll move to Canada. :laugh:
Diana, your claim disregards two important considerations. First there were moderate Republicans in the Senate, such as the Senators from Maine, who would not have blocked legislation on these issues. The actual filibuster-proof supermajority lasted the entire Congress.
Second, NO BILL made it from the House to the Senate, regarding ENDA or DOMA. The Democrats did nothing to advance the issue. Nothing. None of the Administration's apologists can explain why.
With regard to the topic of Mr Obama's comments on MTV, about declining to ever push for marriage equality, I started the thread, but apparently it was giving some of the "true believers" angst.
I completely understand the feeling, though. When I was young and impressionable, I had to break up with psycho ex-BFs and ex-GFs. The feeling of disillusionment is a difficult one to cope with.
Ok, I already gave my piece and the House never had a supermajority (why things couldn't get passed), while the Senate only had one for a 72-day period. I don't like the US political system, so I frankly don't care who wins. I'll just be staying out of these sorts of topics, considering that it's impossible to get people to change their views, especially those who follow party lines, be it Democrat or Republican. All parties do is keep us mad at and focused on each other rather than on the facts and those who are actually screwing things up. ::)
Quote from: Jaime on October 27, 2012, 11:14:51 AM
The other side wasn't too keen on passing ENDA when they had the chance either. The whole election is just coming down to who you wanna vote against again and that sucks.
It's always been that way, voting for the lesser of two evils. I burnt my voter registration card after the 08 election (it didn't matter anyway since this was before I went full time and it had my birth name on it.) and I will never bother voting again. I remember when I had my first chance to vote in the Clinton/Dole race and I thought to myself: "why bother? All politicians are bought off, crooked and full of crap.".
I voted in 00,04 & 08 thinking (foolishly) that if the right person got in that things would change for the better. I realized that this is never going to happen and that the illusion of choice is just something that makes people believe they have a voice when none actually exists. It is all just a lie and that is all it ever was and will ever be.
Maybe Mr. Obama did not pass ENDA and other laws when he could have, that does not diminish his record in protecting us TG folks.
More important, Mr. Obama short comings with the GBLT community in no way come close to the open hostility and threats we have received at the hands of the republican candidates
ADMINISTRATORS: PLEASE DO NOT LOCK THIS THREAD, WE ARE TALKING POLITICAL ISSUES THAT AFFECT US ALL TG FOLKS
Quote from: Jamie D on October 27, 2012, 01:14:39 PM
Second, NO BILL made it from the House to the Senate, regarding ENDA or DOMA. The Democrats did nothing to advance the issue. Nothing. None of the Administration's apologists can explain why.
I can explain it, they were kinda busy trying to deal with the country melting down from 8 years of GWB.
Obama said he is interested in passing a federal law about same sex marriage and Romney has stated multiple times he WILL veto anything like this that comes across his desk and fully supports DOMA. With Romney we have ZERO chance of anything positive being passed as far as LBGT rights while he is in office. I'm willing to bet he tries to repeal the progress made in passport laws. He will make abortion illegal etc. Socially, the country will go back 30 years from where we are today.
Quote from: Stephe on October 28, 2012, 01:04:10 AM
I can explain it, they were kinda busy trying to deal with the country melting down from 8 years of GWB.
Obama said he is interested in passing a federal law about same sex marriage and Romney has stated multiple times he WILL veto anything like this that comes across his desk and fully supports DOMA. With Romney we have ZERO chance of anything positive being passed as far as LBGT rights while he is in office. I'm willing to bet he tries to repeal the progress made in passport laws. He will make abortion illegal etc. Socially, the country will go back 30 years from where we are today.
Sorry Stephe, but that one just doesn't pass the sniff test. The real reasons were discussed by Rep. Barney Frank's legislative aide, Diego Sanchez:
Still, it troubled some people recently when a legislative aide to U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, Diego Sanchez, told a "virtual forum" sponsored by eQuality Giving that the votes were there in the House to pass ENDA and to defeat any Republican attempt to kill the measure with some heinous "motion to recommit."
Sanchez made his remarks in response to a question from a listener who asked for the "true reasons" why ENDA was not put up for a vote last year.
"The thing that breaks my heart the most," responded Sanchez, "is that we did have the votes this time...."
So, in 2009, Rep. Frank introduced what is commonly referred to as a "fully inclusive ENDA"—a bill that seeks to prohibit discrimination based on "sexual orientation and gender identity."
Both the House and Senate held committee hearings on the fully inclusive ENDA, but neither committee voted on the measure. And neither the House nor the Senate voted on the measure.
"ENDA didn't come up because of two things, primarily," said Sanchez. Those two things, he said, were health care reform and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repeal legislation....
With Democrats controlling a majority of both the House and the Senate, as well as the White House, the 111thCongress seemed to present ENDA with its best prospects ever for passage. In late 2009, the fully inclusive ENDA appeared to have the attention of Democratic leaders in the House. Health care reform took until March 2010 but, even as late as May 2010, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was reassuring LGBT leaders that ENDA would get a vote in 2010.
Of course, the difference between a political promise and reality is political."Rep. Frank, along with Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (
R-Fla.), introduced ENDA in the 111th Congress. Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Susan Collins (
R-Maine) introduced the bill in that chamber. "
http://www.keennewsservice.com/2011/02/24/enda-lost-pending-or-obsolete/ (http://www.keennewsservice.com/2011/02/24/enda-lost-pending-or-obsolete/)
Quote from: peky on October 27, 2012, 04:46:16 PM
Maybe Mr. Obama did not pass ENDA and other laws when he could have, that does not diminish his record in protecting us TG folks.
More important, Mr. Obama short comings with the GBLT community in no way come close to the open hostility and threats we have received at the hands of the republican candidates
ADMINISTRATORS: PLEASE DO NOT LOCK THIS THREAD, WE ARE TALKING POLITICAL ISSUES THAT AFFECT US ALL TG FOLKS
"For us to try to legislate federally into this area [Marriage Equality]
is probably the wrong way to go," Obama told MTV presenter Sway Calloway.This is the record - the record of utter failure.
Um, that whole supermajority in both houses thing never actually happened. Also, I know that neither candidate won't do anything for TG rights because, admittedly, we are not far enough yet for pro-TG legislation to be passed easily, so if anything, attempting to pass that legislation would only slow down government. It's an unfortunate reality.
Also, I looked into it, and if you fact-check either candidate, you will find that they both lied, but Obama lied a lot less. So Laura was right in that these elections are just picking the lesser of two evils, but I don't think that should stop someone from voting because while it may not be perfect, it's better to make sure that the lesser of two evils gets in office.
Quote from: Jamie D on October 28, 2012, 02:52:22 AM
Sorry Stephe, but that one just doesn't pass the sniff test. The real reasons were discussed by Rep. Barney Frank's legislative aide, Diego Sanchez:
Nice seletive editing " The Democratic majority in the both chambers was losing power, and nobody knew for sure what hostile language Republicans might push in a last-ditch attempt to kill ENDA. "
I hope everyone will read the whole thing, not this right wing "fox news" editing job here.
So please anyone: post where the R side has tried or even planned to introduce, pass ENDA or repeal DOMA? Maybe if the R side hadn't fought health care every inch of the way and this don't ask don't tell stuff, there might have been some time? You keep saying failure, they fail being the republicans fight these every time and we want more of them in office?
Again, please post a list of the things republicans have done to help the LBGT. I have asked this many times and never has this list been produced.
BTW here is a list Obama did do, sorry if I don't see this as failure:
http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality (http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality)
FEDERAL LEGISLATION SIGNED INTO LAW
Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability -- the first positive federal LGBT legislation in the nation's history
Repealed Don't Ask/Don't Tell
Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
POLICIES CHANGED
Reversed US refusal to sign the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees in 2009 and, further, in 2010
Lifted the HIV Entry Ban
Issued diplomatic passports, and provided other benefits, to the partners of same-sex foreign service employees
Committed to ensuring that federal housing programs are open to all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity
Conceived a National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Elders -- the nation's first ever -- funded by a three-year HHS grant to SAG
Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government (the nation's largest employer)
Eliminated the discriminatory Census Bureau policy that kept our relationships from being counted, encouraging couples who consider themselves married to file that way, even if their state of residence does not yet permit legal marriage
Instructed HHS to require any hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds (virtually all hospitals) to allow LGBT visitation rights
Required all grant applicants seeking HUD funding to comply with state and local anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT individuals
Adopted transgender recommendations on the issuance of gender-appropriate passports that will ease barriers to safe travel and that will provide government-issued ID that avoids involuntary "outing" in situations requiring ID, like hiring, where a gender-appropriate driver's license or birth certificate is not available
Extended domestic violence protections to LGBT victims
[full list at link]
http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality (http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality)
Wow!!
Very nice Steph!
I'm going to save that post :)
Quote from: Stephe on October 28, 2012, 08:16:04 AM
Nice seletive editing " The Democratic majority in the both chambers was losing power, and nobody knew for sure what hostile language Republicans might push in a last-ditch attempt to kill ENDA. "
I hope everyone will read the whole thing, not this right wing "fox news" editing job here.
So please anyone: post where the R side has tried or even planned to introduce, pass ENDA or repeal DOMA? Maybe if the R side hadn't fought health care every inch of the way and this don't ask don't tell stuff, there might have been some time? You keep saying failure, they fail being the republicans fight these every time and we want more of them in office?
Again, please post a list of the things republicans have done to help the LBGT. I have asked this many times and never has this list been produced.
BTW here is a list Obama did do, sorry if I don't see this as failure:
Stephe, if Democrat majorities were "losing power" during the course of the Congress, it is because they were losing the support of the people. In fact, Pelosi led the House with an iron fist, and suffered a colossal loss in the General Election of 2010. And there is still no good reason they did not choose to pursue repealing DOMA or enacting ENDA, other than they did not feel it was in
their own political advantage to do so.
Politicians are like that.
As you realize, there is a limit on the amount of copyrighted material that we can cut and paste here. Your post looks to be way over the mark, but for the point of discussion, I will let another moderator deal with it.
Quote from: peky on October 27, 2012, 04:46:16 PM
ADMINISTRATORS: PLEASE DO NOT LOCK THIS THREAD, WE ARE TALKING POLITICAL ISSUES THAT AFFECT US ALL TG FOLKS
I would be happy to let this discussion continue. A reminder though, please keep it civil or it will be locked.
Admin
Quote from: DianaP on October 28, 2012, 06:19:59 AM
Um, that whole supermajority in both houses thing never actually happened. Also, I know that neither candidate won't do anything for TG rights because, admittedly, we are not far enough yet for pro-TG legislation to be passed easily, so if anything, attempting to pass that legislation would only slow down government. It's an unfortunate reality.
Also, I looked into it, and if you fact-check either candidate, you will find that they both lied, but Obama lied a lot less. So Laura was right in that these elections are just picking the lesser of two evils, but I don't think that should stop someone from voting because while it may not be perfect, it's better to make sure that the lesser of two evils gets in office.
Diana, in the US House of Representatives, you only need a simple majority to move legislation. The Democrats controlled the House by a large margin of 257 to 178. No "supermajority" needed. And no legislation on ENDA or DOMA was moved. By choice.
In the Senate, the "cloture" rule requires a 60% vote (or 60 out of 100 senators, when all seats are filled) to end debate. Unending debate is called a "filibuster". On the issue of ENDA, that supermajority existed. Susan Collins (R - Maine) was a co-sponsor of the unenacted Senate bill. It died, because the Democrats allowed it to die in the 111th Congress.
Quote from: Jamie D on October 28, 2012, 12:17:37 PM
As you realize, there is a limit on the amount of copyrighted material that we can cut and paste here.
Links to the list of pro-LBGT actions the republicans as a group have initiated will be just fine. Please post them ASAP. And yes, I'm sure you would like a mod to remove what I posted.
BTW here is how the house vote in 2007 went as far as republican support for EDNA the first time around.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1057.xml (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1057.xml)
Dems voted 200 for, 25 against
Rep voted 35 for, 159 against
And while you seem to totally discount the "don't ask don't tell" in the military being repealed, it was a huge move forward in LGBT rights under Obama. And while we might not see this being a priority over EDNA, they clearly did.
Here is the senate vote
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/281 (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/281)
Dems voted 55 for 0 against
Rep voted 8 for 31 against
House vote:
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/638 (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/638)
Dems voted 235 for 15 against
Rep voted 15 for 160 against
I'm not sure about how you see this, but to me one group seems to be voting for our rights and the other not so much. They did have to pull TG rights out of that first EDNA version to get the 35 R votes they needed to pass this. Unfortunately the senate just ignored it.. As far as EDNA not being passed being "a total failure" by the Dems, why hasn't it been moved forward and passed that the R party is in power? And it seems by these comments some feel if we vote more republicans into power, LBGT rights will then be able to move forward? O.o
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the list of LBGT accomplishments the republicans have done for us! And what further progress I can expect if Romney wins.
BTW your post had plenty of "cut and pasted" material. :P
Quote from: Jamie D on October 28, 2012, 02:08:18 PM
Diana, in the US House of Representatives, you only need a simple majority to move legislation. The Democrats controlled the House by a large margin of 257 to 178. No "supermajority" needed. And no legislation on ENDA or DOMA was moved. By choice.
They did get the DADT repealed and were working on that during this time period. Now if the republicans you are asking us to vote for were no road block to this, why would it matter who controlled anything?
Quote from: Stephe on October 28, 2012, 02:44:47 PM
They did get the DADT repealed and were working on that during this time period. Now if the republicans you are asking us to vote for were no road block to this, why would it matter who controlled anything?
you go girl!
I'm too lazy to collect facts and figures, good thing you aren't :3
Quote from: Stephe on October 28, 2012, 02:44:47 PM
They did get the DADT repealed and were working on that during this time period. Now if the republicans you are asking us to vote for were no road block to this, why would it matter who controlled anything?
Stephe, show me one place where I asked anyone to vote for a Republican or Romney.
Pointing out the obvious pandering by the Democrats on GLBTQ issues, and their manifest failures of the past four years, is not the same as making an endorsement.
Regarding "cut and paste" material. My posts all fall within the "Fair Use" doctrine of the Copyright laws. They are cited from the original source and fall within the amount that can quoted without obtaining the publisher's permission.
As it is, I did not edit any posts.
However, the issue is not what may have happened in votes in prior Congresses. The issue is what happened, or rather, failed to happen when a political party which claims to represent the interests of the GLBTQ community had the votes to pass important legislation, and made a decision not to.
I think the reason for that failure is obvious. Re-election was more important than principle.
Ok, ladies and gents, let's cool our jets here. I'm sure that whether you're Democrat or Republican, you can agree that politics suck. :P
Also, I once again refer everyone here to fact-checking. Try Politifact. It's a good site for unbiased answers.
Well, just to help us feel a bit better I ran across this today :)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_mcr9tnq14x1qkai7ko1_500.jpg&hash=846876c6a64354378cf45baa88704d605f20e3be)
Quote from: Michelle G on November 02, 2012, 04:42:11 PM
Well, just to help us feel a bit better I ran across this today :)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_mcr9tnq14x1qkai7ko1_500.jpg&hash=846876c6a64354378cf45baa88704d605f20e3be)
Here's the link for the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/joe-biden-transgender-rights_n_2047275.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/joe-biden-transgender-rights_n_2047275.html)
It's on the Huff Post site so I imagine it's true. First time I've heard a major politician from either party mention us.
Politician talk is cheap. Where is the legislation?
Don't ask don't tell was repealed is one thing they did recently, voted strongly opposed by the republicans. Now that the republicans are the majority, no further legislation can be moved forward.
PLEASE Jamie or anyone of you who support the R party show any LBGT issue that the right wing, as a majority, voted to support. Not that one or two R's co signed a bill, but a strong majority of them voted for it. Just one single issue will suffice. I've posted multiple legislation votes over the past 10 years and in every instance, the vast majority of republicans vote against it. EDNA failed only because of the republican opposition is a good example. You blame that on Obama? It was your party that blocked it! Both times!
And if you really have to ask why more progressive legislation isn't being presented, you have some heavy duty blinders on. It's ONLY because of the strong opposition the republican party puts up. I guess when Romney says he supports DOMA and will veto any same sex marriage bill that comes across his desk, it is really him saying he supports LBGT rights? O.o
I can understand if you like the R party stance on economic issues to the point of ignoring how they treat minorities and repress social progress, but please don't try to even pretend they are working for LBGT rights. Or that they aren't working overtime to stop any progress. Given this forum is supposed to limit political discussions to how it affects trans people, again, please post links to what the republican party has ever done for LBGT rights.
please post links to what the republican party has ever done for LBGT rights.
They seem to enjoy gay sex and rent-boys on the down low.
This thread will be locked before proof is ever provided.
I am so glad I voted. Go obama. He may not be perfect but compared to the other side. *shudder* It's mind boggling how Mittens can even be a option for some of us. Downplaying him aside, I find it funny how people always rag on Obama/Biden about not supporting us. Serious moment here, sis level... What has Romney/Ryan ever done for the GLBT community besides pander to the hateful and change his stances? I await with bated breath. We might not see certain GLBT things passed with Obama/Biden...But at least we will have a chance with him at those being passed.
Quote from: Stephe on November 02, 2012, 10:50:38 PM
... EDNA failed only because of the republican opposition is a good example. You blame that on Obama? It was your party that blocked it! Both times!
Simply not the case. The Democrats has
absolute control of the legislative agenda in the 111th Congress, and they chose not to even move ENDA out of committee. Obama failed to lead on the subject.
That shows how serious they are to further equal rights.
Quote from: Snowpaw on November 03, 2012, 02:30:43 AM
This thread will be locked before proof is ever provided.
... What has Romney/Ryan ever done for the GLBT community besides pander to the hateful and change his stances? I await with bated breath.
Trivia question. Of Ryan, Obama, and Biden, who most recently voted in favor of ENDA legislation?
You guessed it ... Ryan.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 03, 2012, 04:38:26 AM
Trivia question. Of Ryan, Obama, and Biden, who most recently voted in favor of ENDA legislation?
You guessed it ... Ryan.
In the past. Which he quickly changed his tune on likely after the rest of the republican party jumped on his case. Oh fun fact :D who is currently speaking about our rights now? In the face of a upcoming election? In spite of the fact it may lose them votes? Hint hint, there is a thread about it ;) Awwwww, sorry but while both sides suck I stand by my belief that we will lose with romney. Hard. With Obama, we at least have a chance.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/paul-ryan-gay-rights_b_1768962.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/paul-ryan-gay-rights_b_1768962.html) At least here is a link.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 03, 2012, 04:34:47 AM
Simply not the case. The Democrats has absolute control of the legislative agenda in the 111th Congress, and they chose not to even move ENDA out of committee. Obama failed to lead on the subject.
That shows how serious they are to further equal rights.
No link.... Strange but eh saw it coming. Erm not coming. :D
Trivia Trick question. Of Ryan, Obama, and Biden, who most recently voted in favor of ENDA legislation?
Nice try, but that question it deliberately misleading to the point of being an outright lie - A Big Lie - and you know it. Obama ain't votin on nuttin for the last 4 years because he's been POTUS, I'm sure you remember that since it pisses you off to no end. Ditto Biden who only votes in order to break a tie.
Better question: Who's the best pitcher in baseball never to have won a Cy Young Award?
a - Cy Young.
Quote from: tekla on November 03, 2012, 05:33:33 AM
Trivia Trick question. Of Ryan, Obama, and Biden, who most recently voted in favor of ENDA legislation?
Nice try, but that question it deliberately misleading to the point of being an outright lie - A Big Lie - and you know it. Obama ain't votin on nuttin for the last 4 years because he's been POTUS, I'm sure you remember that since it pisses you off to no end. Ditto Biden who only votes in order to break a tie.
Better question: Who's the best pitcher in baseball never to have won a Cy Young Award?
a - Cy Young.
Both Biden and Obama served in the 110th Congress (2007-2009) in the Senate. Neither raised the issue of ENDA, nor voted in favor of it. Paul Ryan, on the other hand, did vote in favor of ENDA.
In 2007, [Ryan] supported the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, banning workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians and said he has gay friends. "They didn't roll out of bed one morning and choose to be gay. That's who they are," he said, acknowledging he "took a lot of grief" for the ENDA vote from members of his own party, so much so that he "stopped worrying about it." He says his attitude towards gays is a "generational thing" — less important to him than to older people, perhaps, and he is willing to go along with whatever the generals propose regarding gays in the military. -
The Fiscal Times
Both sides suck I've made that abundantly clear as my view. So here is the simplest way I can put it... Which side panders to us, which side panders to the people who hate us. If I wanted to piss my vote away I would vote for someone else entirely, however I want 4 years of a "yeah
maybe we will look into helping you out" vs a "hah screw you abominations, in fact let's take away any chance you have of getting married or having job protections." I mean if you really want to gamble and think that Romney/ryan would change their stances after being elected, it's your vote. If you want to sit at home dressed like a clown instead of voting, your choice. Just don't whine when the obvious happens and our rights are put on hold for 4 years.
Oh well. Such is life. I would rather not stick that gun to my foot.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 03, 2012, 05:55:18 AM
Both Biden and Obama served in the 110th Congress (2007-2009) in the Senate. Neither raised the issue of ENDA, nor voted in favor of it. Paul Ryan, on the other hand, did vote in favor of ENDA.
In 2007, [Ryan] supported the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, banning workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians and said he has gay friends. "They didn't roll out of bed one morning and choose to be gay. That's who they are," he said, acknowledging he "took a lot of grief" for the ENDA vote from members of his own party, so much so that he "stopped worrying about it." He says his attitude towards gays is a "generational thing" — less important to him than to older people, perhaps, and he is willing to go along with whatever the generals propose regarding gays in the military.
- The Fiscal Times
Annnnnd he quickly changed his mind on it, didn't he? Yeah we always forget to mention their current political status don't we. I find it odd for someone who is such a crusader for gay rights is running with someone who is so oh shall we say fervently against it.
Quote from: Snowpaw on November 03, 2012, 05:07:39 AM
In the past. Which he quickly changed his tune on likely after the rest of the republican party jumped on his case. Oh fun fact :D who is currently speaking about our rights now? In the face of a upcoming election? In spite of the fact it may lose them votes? Hint hint, there is a thread about it ;) Awwwww, sorry but while both sides suck I stand by my belief that we will lose with romney. Hard. With Obama, we at least have a chance.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/paul-ryan-gay-rights_b_1768962.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/paul-ryan-gay-rights_b_1768962.html) At least here is a link.
No link.... Strange but eh saw it coming. Erm not coming. :D
The membership of each House of Congress in the 111th Congress is a matter of public record.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 03, 2012, 06:02:36 AM
The membership of each House of Congress in the 111th Congress is a matter of public record.
So we should have to google your statements?
No, it adds to credibility to
1. Not play devil's advocate for the lulz
2. If stating something one should at least try to provide a source. www.google.com (http://www.google.com) or any other search engine doesn't count btw ;)
Not great but here is a quick search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act)
I digress.
Trivia question still stands :O
Who is currently pandering to us and who is pandering to the people who hate us?
Quote from: Snowpaw on November 03, 2012, 05:59:12 AM
Both sides suck I've made that abundantly clear as my view. So here is the simplest way I can put it... Which side panders to us, which side panders to the people who hate us. If I wanted to piss my vote away I would vote for someone else entirely, however I want 4 years of a "yeah maybe we will look into helping you out" vs a "hah screw you abominations, in fact let's take away any chance you have of getting married or having job protections." I mean if you really want to gamble and think that Romney/ryan would change their stances after being elected, it's your vote. If you want to sit at home dressed like a clown instead of voting, your choice. Just don't whine when the obvious happens and our rights are put on hold for 4 years.
Oh well. Such is life. I would rather not stick that gun to my foot.
Annnnnd he quickly changed his mind on it, didn't he? Yeah we always forget to mention their current political status don't we. I find it odd for someone who is such a crusader for gay rights is running with someone who is so oh shall we say fervently against it.
Mr Romney is not against "gay rights." However, he supports traditional marriage.
"I oppose same-sex marriage," Romney told [CNN host Piers] Morgan. "At the same time, I would advance the efforts not to discriminate against people who are gay."You misrepresent Romney's position. Obama, on the other hand, recently stated he will not push for marriage equality on the Federal level.
Ryan's vote on ENDA is a matter of record. He has never repudiated his vote.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 03, 2012, 06:13:35 AM
Mr Romney is not against "gay rights." However, he supports traditional marriage.
"I oppose same-sex marriage," Romney told [CNN host Piers] Morgan. "At the same time, I would advance the efforts not to discriminate against people who are gay."
You misrepresent Romney's position. Obama, on the other hand, recently stated he will not push for marriage equality on the Federal level.
Ryan's vote on ENDA is a matter of record. He has never repudiated his vote.
Well there is a reason for that. He like your posts in regards to politics tends to dance around avoiding that certain subject. Oh and he is for censoring porn. How sad a chip in every new computer to stop us for seeing free pooters! Or at least he wants that :<
Oh and just to show I am not biased. Obama did sign a very controversial NDAA act I believe. Nothing like a fear of being imprisoned for political dissention, (well at a very worst shtf scenario) Still not a very nice thing of mister obama to do :O
Oh well I do tire and wish to sleep and other stuff. Or at the very least stop using my brain power. Think I will just go geek out on some criminal minds. <3 garcia
Quote from: Snowpaw on November 03, 2012, 06:13:01 AM
So we should have to google your statements?
No, it adds to credibility to
1. Not play devil's advocate for the lulz
2. If stating something one should at least try to provide a source. www.google.com (http://www.google.com) or any other search engine doesn't count btw ;)
Not great but here is a quick search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act)
I digress.
Trivia question still stands :O
Who is currently pandering to us and who is pandering to the people who hate us?
Democrats in the House, under Speaker Pelosi, began the 111th Congress with a 257-178 majority. They controlled the legislative agenda. Rep Frank (D-MA) introduced ENDA, where it stalled in a Democrat-controlled Committee.
The Democrats in the Senate began holding 57 seats, with 2 Independents who caucused with them. Republican Arlen Spector then switched parties, and two other Republicans openly supported ENDA legislation, for an effective filibuster-proof supermajority.
There is nothing more that needs to be said. The Democrats failed to move the legislation, and Mr Obama failed to provide any leadership.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 03, 2012, 06:13:35 AM
Mr Romney is not against "gay rights." However, he supports traditional marriage.
"I oppose same-sex marriage," Romney told [CNN host Piers] Morgan. "At the same time, I would advance the efforts not to discriminate against people who are gay."
I read: "I oppose same-sex marriage," because homosexuals are second class citizens that do not deserve the same right as we heterosexuals. According to my religious beliefs, homosexuals are an abomination."
"So, when I become President, you can kiss goodbye the church-state separation BS." "Oh, BTW, the best way to protect homosexuals from discrimination, is to segregate them from the general population, right?"
Of course, this is just my interpretation (pretty much ala bibible-bangers)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash4%2F317183_4885062206893_515046124_n.jpg&hash=70f4d054af34da006bbd159eb0fe1539c8d13bf4)
The issue is, you have to read between the lines on what they say because, they never talk in specifics. Romney may be "for gay rights" but it isn't like we know what that means, in my view any opposition to SSM is opposing LGBT rights in general. The president isn't much better when it comes to specifics, but I would take the devil I know over the one I don't any day of the week.
I would really like ENDA to be passed, due to bizarre laws, my workplace is not governed by the laws in DC (where I live) or VA (where I sorta work) but by the laws of Utah (where I have only been a few times in my entire life). Enda seems to be the only real solution to that aside from.finding a different job as Utah is not known for being super LGBT friendly.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 03, 2012, 06:25:00 AM
Democrats in the House, under Speaker Pelosi, began the 111th Congress with a 257-178 majority. They controlled the legislative agenda. Rep Frank (D-MA) introduced ENDA, where it stalled in a Democrat-controlled Committee.
The Democrats in the Senate began holding 57 seats, with 2 Independents who caucused with them. Republican Arlen Spector then switched parties, and two other Republicans openly supported ENDA legislation, for an effective filibuster-proof supermajority.
There is nothing more that needs to be said. The Democrats failed to move the legislation, and Mr Obama failed to provide any leadership.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg94.imageshack.us%2Fimg94%2F8387%2F1323566435057.jpg&hash=7d87bb3805f5ef661fd37ea2e00e46a5f7533600)
Okies I'm out, this is just getting nowhere.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 03, 2012, 04:34:47 AM
Simply not the case. The Democrats has absolute control of the legislative agenda in the 111th Congress, and they chose not to even move ENDA out of committee. Obama failed to lead on the subject.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/ (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/)
quoted from this website:
QuoteWhat this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:
From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman's challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy's illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux
So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).
Quote from: Snowpaw on November 03, 2012, 06:18:12 AM
Well there is a reason for that. [Romney] like your posts in regards to politics tends to dance around avoiding that certain subject. Oh and he is for censoring porn. How sad a chip in every new computer to stop us for seeing free pooters! Or at least he wants that :<
SNIP
Your allegation sounded wrong, and indeed, it was. But I had to research the issue.
"Computer pornography has given new meaning to the words 'home invasion,'" Romney said at a 2007 Values Voter summit, "If I am President, I will work to make sure that every computer sold into the home has an easy to engage pornography filter so that every parent can protect their child from unwanted filth."- http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/24/could-romney-really-ban-porn/ (http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/24/could-romney-really-ban-porn/)
It is readily apparent that Romney wanted parents to have the ability to screen pornography on home computers from their children. That is not government censorship.
You really need to get your facts straight.
Quote from: Zythyra on November 03, 2012, 03:57:15 PM
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/ (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/)
quoted from this website:
"So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame)."
The problem with that analysis is that Susan Collins (R-ME) was a co-sponsor of the legislation in the Senate. And Olympia Snow (R-ME) would have supported ENDA as well. (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Olympia_Snowe.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Olympia_Snowe.htm))
The argument that "Republicans" or "Conservatives" could have blocked legislative action fails on its face.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 03, 2012, 07:15:07 PM
Your allegation sounded wrong, and indeed, it was. But I had to research the issue.
"Computer pornography has given new meaning to the words 'home invasion,'" Romney said at a 2007 Values Voter summit, "If I am President, I will work to make sure that every computer sold into the home has an easy to engage pornography filter so that every parent can protect their child from unwanted filth."
- http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/24/could-romney-really-ban-porn/ (http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/24/could-romney-really-ban-porn/)
It is readily apparent that Romney wanted parents to have the ability to screen pornography on home computers from their children. That is not government censorship.
You really need to get your facts straight.
Considering I said he wanted to. Just wanted to. Never said he would. :3 You were wrong here or at least in regards to what I was saying.
Given that I recently rescinded myself from this I can now merely dance around the topic.
You can dance with me! Hugs, Devlyn
Quote from: peky on November 03, 2012, 10:02:08 AM
I read: "I oppose same-sex marriage," because homosexuals are second class citizens that do not deserve the same right as we heterosexuals. According to my religious beliefs, homosexuals are an abomination."
"So, when I become President, you can kiss goodbye the church-state separation BS." "Oh, BTW, the best way to protect homosexuals from discrimination, is to segregate them from the general population, right?"
Of course, this is just my interpretation (pretty much ala bibible-bangers)
You have a vivid imagination.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 04, 2012, 02:32:21 AM
You have a vivid imagination.
Which has been prove to be pretty accurate, from Mr. Ronald Reagan's trickle economics that triplicate the National debt & started the "outsourcing plague," to George H. Bush "read my lips: no more taxes," which translated in to "read my hips" as new taxes were imposed in the middle and poor classes.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 03, 2012, 04:34:47 AM
Simply not the case. The Democrats has absolute control of the legislative agenda in the 111th Congress, and they chose not to even move ENDA out of committee. Obama failed to lead on the subject.
That shows how serious they are to further equal rights.
Yes they were busy getting don't ask don't tell repealed before the republicans took over. So again: what has the republican party done for LBGT rights since they have been in power after this "failure"? If they are who we want to represent our civil rights, ENDA should have blown through once they took over right?
Quote from: Jamie D on November 03, 2012, 07:24:30 PM
The problem with that analysis is that Susan Collins (R-ME) was a co-sponsor of the legislation in the Senate. And Olympia Snow (R-ME) would have supported ENDA as well. (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Olympia_Snowe.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Olympia_Snowe.htm))
<sarc> Wow that is awesome, 2 republicans out of how many were in support of this and how many were against? I see now the republican party is who we want if we are concerned with our civil rights being moved forward! </sarc>
Quote from: Stephe on November 05, 2012, 12:24:45 AM
<sarc> Wow that is awesome, 2 republicans out of how many were in support of this and how many were against? I see now the republican party is who we want if we are concerned with our civil rights being moved forward! </sarc>
The point being, Stephe, the excuse made for the lack of any action by the Democrats was the "Republicans" would stop them in the Senate with 40 votes, and the ability to filibuster. That is plainly wrong. There were never 40 votes in the Senate to stop ENDA.
Democrats only support GLBTQ issues with words. Their inaction on ENDA and DOMA from 2009-2011 prove that.
DADT was repealed in December 2010. It took almost two years, with large majorities. Odd, don't you think? Came right after the electoral rout in November 2010. Even odder.
Nor has there been any action in the Republican-controlled House of the 112th Congress, to take away any civil rights.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 05, 2012, 01:26:30 AM
Nor has there been any action in the Republican-controlled House of the 112th Congress, to take away any civil rights.
Their considerable efforts in trying to defund Planned Parenthood and limit abortion is working against the rights of women.
Z
Quote from: Jamie D on November 05, 2012, 01:26:30 AM
The point being, Stephe, the excuse made for the lack of any action by the Democrats was the "Republicans" would stop them in the Senate with 40 votes, and the ability to filibuster. That is plainly wrong. There were never 40 votes in the Senate to stop ENDA.
Democrats only support GLBTQ issues with words. Their inaction on ENDA and DOMA from 2009-2011 prove that.
DADT was repealed in December 2010. It took almost two years, with large majorities. Odd, don't you think? Came right after the electoral rout in November 2010. Even odder.
Nor has there been any action in the Republican-controlled House of the 112th Congress, to take away any civil rights.
What do you call this? LBGT support from the republican party? O.o
http://www.progressivepunch.org/vote.htm?member=NC11&issue=R8&year=2011&num=516&district=11 (http://www.progressivepunch.org/vote.htm?member=NC11&issue=R8&year=2011&num=516&district=11)
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/05/10/house-approves-amendment-reaffirming-doma/ (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/05/10/house-approves-amendment-reaffirming-doma/)
They made DOMA worse and are actively working overtime to make SURE no one sneaks through and has any rights as a LBGT person.
http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews40_19/mobile/page3.cfm (http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews40_19/mobile/page3.cfm)
That was their reaction to Obama saying he now supports same sex marriage.
So yes there has been plenty of
"action in the Republican-controlled House of the 112th Congress, to take away any civil rights". The facts do not support your beliefs nor what you are posting here.
On 'don't ask don't tell', all 55 dem senators voted yes, 8 republicans did and 31 voted no.
In the house dems 235 for, 15 against, republicans 15 for, 160 against.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/281 (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/281)
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/638 (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/638)
The republicans at the state and federal level are constantly trying to do things like make it illegal for trans people to use gender correct bathrooms etc.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/12/403043/tennessee-legislature-introduces-transphobic-bathroom-bill/ (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/12/403043/tennessee-legislature-introduces-transphobic-bathroom-bill/)
You have posted a lot of stats with ZERO links to back up any of it. You wonder why it took so long for DADT to get passed when there was a HUGE majority of republicans fighting against it and working overtime to keep it from even being voted on? And that was before they "took over", nothing has moved forward since. And this is just LBGT issues, don't get me started on womens rights.
And you seem to be constantly preaching here if we want LBGT rights to move forward, vote republican. That is not supported by any facts other than your repeating "Look what they didn't do!" when the republican party is who worked to block those actions. Can you honestly say EDNA not being moved into the senate had nothing to do with heavy republican opposition to it? And the democrats are the ones at fault here?
The reality for anyone not wearing blinders is: that has no basis in fact whatsoever that the republican party supports LBGT rights and the ONLY thing stopping these civil rights from moving forward IS the republican party.
Once again, PLEASE post anything showing where the republican party as a whole has actively worked to improve the civil rights of the LBGT, or anyone for that matter. I've asked this at least a dozen times. I searched myself and you can't, because they have NEVER done anything for us and in fact are actively working against us.
All I need to know about Mitt's gay rights stand is found in his reaction to the revelation that he led a bunch of high school bullies to restrain and disfigure a gender-variant student.
He found such an event so unremarkable that he doesn't even remember it.
The man is DANGEROUS.
inb4 "liberals never really worked for it until lately when it was good to pander to votes"
Florida looks like it is going to Obama. Looks like we won't have Mitt Roney to kick around anymore.
Quote from: UCBerkeleyPostop on November 06, 2012, 09:30:17 PM
Florida looks like it is going to Obama. Looks like we won't have Mitt Roney to kick around anymore.
The chickens haven't hatched yet.
315K votes still out in "Obama" majority counties
350K votes out in Romney majority counties.
16,000 vote difference.
Moot point, Romney concedes.
Joelene
I'm happy, my daughters are happy!
Congrats Mr President and your lovely family!
Gay marriage 'won' in 4 states. Pot in 2. The President is still black. The 'Pubs didn't gain control of the Senate, they didn't even gain seats, they lost them. 20 women in the U.S. Senate now.
The Sixties have won - the only thing that election lacked was a Grateful Dead concert. People need to get over it, and get on with it. People - as in "The People" (as in 'We the People") have chosen a direction, and we're still on it, and it does not look like we're going back, no matter how the South and Middle-west would like to. They will have to be content with Federalism and they are free to make their states as regressive as they like (though it's hard to imagine how much worse some of them could be.) But the rest of us are going to let woman make their own health decisions. That if you're not pregnant - then you don't have a say in the decision about what to do from that point. Climate Change is serious and steps need to be taken to mitigate some of the driving factors. We're going to try to join the other industrial powers and do something about health care. And Michelle is still the First Lady, and that's pretty cool all in itself.
Interesting to note.
Women, Blacks, Latinos and people under 30 massively rejected the Romney/conservative stuff by large margins. It's all old angry white guys supporting that stuff, and there are not that many left.
When you wonder how the 'rape candidate did' and you have to ask 'which one' - you're in trouble. BTW, they ALL lost.
Of the ten best educated states, all went for Obama, of the ten worst educated states, all but one went for Romney.
The 10 richest counties in the US, 8 went for Obama, 2 for Romney. He didn't even get the rich people's vote.
Of the 8 'Swing' states that Romney had to win, in order to win - he lost seven.
The Democrats have a solid lock on several states in New England, the Midwest and on the West Coast. (I didn't even have a Republican running for state office where I live). That gives the Democrats a near permanent advantage where they start with 240 electoral votes. It's going to be hard to run as a Republican, unless they radically change the direction of the party - and NO, it's NOT, more conservative - thought I think that's the way they are going to go first.
Oh yeah, Four presidents in the last century have won 50 percent of the vote twice: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and now Obama.
Can't we all just get along? The President doesn't really matter if you look at all of the little power he has.
Quote from: DianaP on November 12, 2012, 08:12:08 PM
Can't we all just get along? The President doesn't really matter if you look at all of the little power he has.
The temperature in city X was a balmy 5,000 degrees this morning
I don't think that anyone wants to get along. There are two radically different world views, each wants a profoundly different society and culture, each has extremely different outcomes - outcomes that neither side wants to live in, or though.
Quote from: DianaP on November 12, 2012, 08:12:08 PM
Can't we all just get along? The President doesn't really matter if you look at all of the little power he has.
As I have begged everyone who I have ever met that doesn't bother to vote, the election of the President matters very much. The president gets to pick the Supreme Court nominees. The reasons we women are losing reproductive rights and WRONG decisions such as Citizen's United are made is that conservative president picked nominees Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito. One more conservative and Roe would be history and laws protecting LGBTs could even be reversed.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 06, 2012, 09:55:45 PM
The chickens haven't hatched yet.
315K votes still out in "Obama" majority counties
350K votes out in Romney majority counties.
16,000 vote difference.
This is what happens when you depend on Fox News. I checked the Florida election website and saw that Miami-Dade and Broward were out and knew that Obama had the votes.
The senate has to approve any Supreme Court nominees. Thus, the president doesn't have the last say in the justices' nomination. The legislative branch has much more power than the president. Then again, I've always blamed partisan politics for the nation's problems. The country is split and a few people in government decide everything based on impossible divisions.
This is why Ecuador has a real democracy. If the people don't like a leader, they just kick him/her out of office, literally. :laugh:
(Let me make clear that that bold statement was a joke, albeit an accurate one, so chill.)
Moderators: I think this thread has outlive its purpose, perhaps it is time to lock it out.
I agree, moot point.
Joelene
Very Moot. [however, I secretly hope that Obama calls Romney every time he gets on Air Force One and says: "Hey, guess where I am."]