Analogman Posted December 17, 2008 Author Share Posted December 17, 2008 NY gov proposes tax on drinks, downloaded music ALBANY, N.Y. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 This article may or may not be considered as 'spin'. But I agree, especially considering the current 'revelations' by the current VP. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16558.html And - how about Cheney's statements regarding authorization of /condoning interrogation techniques? If a man openly admits to what, by all accounts, would be considered 'war crimes' is it not a moral imperative for our society to prosecute? Aren't we guilty by association if we don't bust this man's balls? I say yes.No thoughts on this, my peeps? ALSO - I believe Lou brought up the subject (and we discussed) the tinge of disappointment some of us have felt about Barack's appointments to the incoming Administration. I know I've been a bit bummed about it - but I do understand....there's gonna have to be a real bi-partisan effort to confront this shitrain we now find ourselves in. BUT - I think today Barack made a pretty major fuck up by asking the infamous Pastor Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inauguration. He really threw our GLBT brothers and sisters under the bus with this selection. Really, what is to be gained by choosing Warren? That fucker is as intolerant as they come when it comes to gay rights and abortion rights. It's a sad day, folks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 No thoughts on this, my peeps? ALSO - I believe Lou brought up the subject (and we discussed) the tinge of disappointment some of us have felt about Barack's appointments to the incoming Administration. I know I've been a bit bummed about it - but I do understand....there's gonna have to be a real bi-partisan effort to confront this shitrain we now find ourselves in. BUT - I think today Barack made a pretty major fuck up by asking the infamous Pastor Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inauguration. He really threw our GLBT brothers and sisters under the bus with this selection. Really, what is to be gained by choosing Warren? That fucker is as intolerant as they come when it comes to gay rights and abortion rights. It's a sad day, folks. I am of two minds on this. On the one hand, like you said, I strongly disagree with many of Warren's views, and think he is a polarizing person for a certain percentage of the population. On the other hand, he is not being given any real power or a voice in the administration, so I feel like its just a display of bi-partisanship, like you said. As long as its just a symbol of "Hey, I can be friends with conservatives", thats fine. I think ideally Obama should have just picked a local priest that he was very good friends with and had no meaning attached to him. But I guess Jerimiah Wright is busy that day... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Maybe, but giving such a well known guy like Warren a high profile gig like the invocation just rubs me the wrong way (OK, bad pun there). I would think my gay/lesbian friends who went out there and pounded the pavement for Barack would be mightily offended - I know I am. I was really pissed when Bill signed the 'defense of marriage act' (or whatever the hell it was called) back in '96. It was so obviously the politically expedient thing to do considering Bill was up for re-election. Now, once again, the GLBT community have had their wishes of equal rights trampled upon. I know there's no real legislation involved here, but appearances ARE important - and this just doesn't look good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 I was really pissed when Bill signed the 'defense of marriage act' (or whatever the hell it was called) back in '96. It was so obviously the politically expedient thing to do considering Bill was up for re-election. Now, once again, the GLBT community have had their wishes of equal rights trampled upon. This is a ridiculous comparison. I know there's no real legislation involved here, but appearances ARE important - and this just doesn't look good.My initial reaction was that I liked it. It's great for appearances. It's ballsy. A lot of what the Obama administration has to do initially is show how it is different from the Bush administration. To me, this is to show he will the be the President of the entire country, not just the people that support him. Not only did I not agree with Bush, but I didn't agree with how he did things. I don't want to be now, "look my side won, it's our turn." We need fundamental transformational change in this country and that will only come if we have an open dialogue. If I'm wrong, yes, it would be horrible. But he's not president yet. If he's changed his positions on things I agree with him on, I haven't heard it yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 No thoughts on this, my peeps? ALSO - I believe Lou brought up the subject (and we discussed) the tinge of disappointment some of us have felt about Barack's appointments to the incoming Administration. I know I've been a bit bummed about it - but I do understand....there's gonna have to be a real bi-partisan effort to confront this shitrain we now find ourselves in. BUT - I think today Barack made a pretty major fuck up by asking the infamous Pastor Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inauguration. He really threw our GLBT brothers and sisters under the bus with this selection. Really, what is to be gained by choosing Warren? That fucker is as intolerant as they come when it comes to gay rights and abortion rights. It's a sad day, folks.This is kind of fucked up I admit. But the idea that Barack is playing to the entire country is trumping what should be his sensitivity to the gay community. This doesn't seem to make sense, but there was an article in the Trib this morning that evangelicals are worried that Obama is going to move the country toward gay marriage and there will be pornography all over the place (isn't it there now??) Trying to reasure these folks may not be the right (no pun intended) thing to do, but it is an olive branch of sorts. If we get to freaked out by everything that goes on we will be paralized and not move forward at all. LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 I don't like Rick Warren a bit, but if Obama really does dismantle DOMA and don't-ask-don't-tell as he's suggested he will, then I think he can be forgiven for this. Not that I'm certain he will, but I do think the way he governs is more important than the token figures on the right that he allows on stage with him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Al Sharpton calls Warren pick "gracious and courageous." That motherfucker is a poet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 From the Washington Post. A Progressive Case for Rick Warren By Geoffrey GarinFriday, December 19, 2008; 4:13 PM Many of Barack Obama's progressive supporters feel let down by his choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural. I understand why, but here's a different way to look at it. The real story here is not that President-elect Obama has somehow blessed Rick Warren's views on abortion or gay rights, but that one of America's leading evangelical pastors has decided to bless the presidency of someone who is strongly pro-choice and committed to the civil rights of gays and lesbians. That's a rather extraordinary development. Does anyone think the selection of Rick Warren means that Barack Obama will govern differently on social issues than he said he would during the campaign? I certainly don't. There has been a remarkable "what you see is what you get" quality to President-elect Obama's political career, and there's every reason to think that will continue to be the case. Rick Warren is the one who is making the bigger statement here. In no uncertain terms, the best known pastor of our time will be telling his followers and fellow evangelicals that there is nothing ungodly about a president who believes that government shouldn't interfere with a woman's right to choose and that gays and lesbians deserve the protection of our laws as much as any other American. That's a moment progressives should celebrate. Of course, there are other important aspects of Obama's selection of Warren. After the purposeful polarization of the Bush presidency, Americans are hungry for leaders who will move our country to a point where it is okay to agree to disagree, and where we can still find common ground even when some of our disagreements are fundamental. Americans elected Barack Obama in no small part because he promised to be that kind of leader. Obama has told us all along this is an all-hands-on-deck moment for America, when we have to start acting like we are all in this together. Putting that view of leadership into action as president isn't easy, but we are much worse off as a country because President Bush never tried for even a moment when he had the chance eight years ago. I have every confidence that Barack Obama will stay true to his campaign commitments on gay rights and reproductive health, but I'm also glad he is keeping his promise to lead us toward a more united, less polarized America. The writer is president of Hart Research Associates and conducts polling for many Democratic candidates and progressive organizations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 You all have talked me down for the moment. Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/us/polit...ml?ref=politics Remember when I asked why Democratic donors were being asked to pay off the Clinton campaigns debt, when she could just forgive the loan she had given (that is to say, why should anyone care if she loses those millions--she's still going to be rich and I'm not going to dig in my pocket to replenish the Clintons' personal wealth)? I was told that she couldn't write off the debt because of tax and/or FEC reasons. Well, here she is writing off the debt. The campaign does still owe some more, but most of it was owed to herself. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 I don't like Rick Warren a bit, but if Obama really does dismantle DOMA and don't-ask-don't-tell as he's suggested he will, then I think he can be forgiven for this. Not that I'm certain he will, but I do think the way he governs is more important than the token figures on the right that he allows on stage with him.I am totally with you on this. He needs to do those two things to get the gay/lesbian community back on his side. Meanwhile this is an interesting take from Melissa Etheridge... LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 why do you hate the baby Jesus? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Haven't you heard that Rick Warren loves gay people? He's removed the anti-gay rhetoric from his website and is hanging out with gays in San Fransisco to improve his image. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 This is one of the classier boards. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Haven't you heard that Rick Warren loves gay people? He's removed the anti-gay rhetoric from his website and is hanging out with gays in San Fransisco to improve his image. And that, I think, is the crux of Rick Warren Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Haven't you heard that Rick Warren loves gay people? He's removed the anti-gay rhetoric from his website and is hanging out with gays in San Fransisco to improve his image.Is this true?? Anything for more congregants I guess... LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Is this true?? Anything for more congregants I guess... LouieBYes, but West Hollywood, not SF. I guess I'm stereotyping now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 This is one of the classier broads.which one? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 And that, I think, is the crux of Rick Warren's message Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 "saving people from being gay" Man, I'd like to kick that bastard right in his atrophied testicles. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Goddamn -- just when you thought you couldn't stand one more second of GWB, you have to Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 And that, I think, is the crux of Rick Warren Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Goddamn -- just when you thought you couldn't stand one more second of GWB, you have to Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.