Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCyman
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008
     (4005.1)
    the republican revolution of 2016
    Shit! I must have accidentally clicked the "Things That Should Not Exist" thread.

    Yeah, I wish he weren't so religious, but that goes for all religious people in my eyes, so I'm never going to be happy with them. HOWEVER, the larger message that he's talking about is tolerance, which I've been having some struggles with recently (very nearly murdered 2 republicans-- They were mocking the fact that my good friend and I don't get to vote-- Details would involve me confessing felonies), and I see it is actually quite hypocritical of Obama to talk so much about tolerance and equality and then pull the separate but equal bullshit.
    Is it enough? No. Will it be over tomorrow? No. But is it the right direction? Hell yes. But this is a rehash of my last billion posts...

    Well done, everyone. I have derived much joy from this discussion, and I thank you very much. I don't get to vote, but I think the more important part will be living in Obama's America. Returning to democracy, practicing tolerance and compassion with a president who knows what the words mean. Changing the way we live. I'm excited for it.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008
     (4005.2)
    @arau

    The problem is that it would I doubt such a rewrite would ever happen, although it's one that many people would support (my mother, for instance, who is voting Yes on 8 would happily rewrite everything so everyone gets civil unions, which would be the legal aspect, and those people who wanted them could get "married", which would be the religious aspect).

    First of all, the rewrite would require a massive rewriting of not only federal law and tax code but also state laws.

    Secondly, those people who are opposed to homosexuals having any kind of equal rights would raise their fists and voices because now their marriages were going to be taken away, that they were going to be replaced by civil unions.

    Orwell is right in that "separate but equal" is complete and utter horse shit and civil unions, as they stand now, are crap.
    •  
      CommentAuthorparibolzi
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008
     (4005.3)
    I agree that the right direction is the gov't recognizing ALL marriages as civil unions only, and "marriage" is whatever individuals want to make it, with or without the involvement of a church.
    That said, I sometimes question the necessity of gov't recognizing civil unions at all. While both sides dress it up as "helping families," isn't government recognition of marriage, with all the attendant tax breaks, programs, etc., just a way to offer incentives for conservative/traditional behavior? Why do married couples deserve more help than unmarried couples, or single people for that matter? I mean, I understand the thinking, but I question its validity.
    Full disclaimer: I'm married, have a kid, and intend to take advantage of tax breaks. I'm just bringing up the subject for the purpose of debate. It's interesting.
    • CommentAuthorarau
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008
     (4005.4)
    @paribolzi

    It is an acknowledgment of biology to some extent. Governments want to encourage child birth, at least traditionally.
  1.  (4005.5)
    @arau

    It is an acknowledgment of biology to some extent. Governments want to encourage child birth, at least traditionally.


    That strikes me as an incredibly naive assumption, especially in the case of American politics, which is and always has been dominated by a certain amount of religiosity. Even Thomas Jefferson, who notably went through the New Testament and excised any references to supernatural or mystical phenomena, acknowledged that it was necessary for him to go to church in order to appeal to the electorate. I think this represents an appeal to a more conservative, church-going portion of the distribution of the voters whose opinions on the subject are largely uninformed by reality--that is to say a lot of people taking it on faith that marriage is by definition male/female because that's what they've been told by the church their entire life.

    Obama and Biden have presented an interesting position on it. I don't approve of it morally but find it interesting ethically; their position seems to encourage the idea that it's the rights of the individual state to decide, which has traditionally been the clarion call of Republicans (excepting the current neo-con version). This means they can have their cake and eat it to, reject gay marriage but promote the rights of the voter to create a mandate on the issue. It removes the stress of having to make a stand on either side (while in fact sort of stepping aside and letting civil rights take a beating).

    I don't know what Obama's personal views on the subject are. Even if he were actually for promoting the civil liberties of gay people I doubt that he could have run as successful a bid for president while espousing that belief. Or perhaps this is an issue where his politics mirror his personal beliefs. It's not something I'd like to believe, but then I also have trouble believing that Obama the face is Obama the man. In any case, it was clearly a political decision to avoid the subject altogether.

    It may have been a very shrewd move on their part. As John Stewart said on the Daily Show after Kerry was defeated, "It seemed to me this election had more to do with people not wanting dudes kissing dudes."
    •  
      CommentAuthorvrbtm
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008
     (4005.6)
    Great, now I have to stop working and read the Jefferson Bible for the rest of the day.

    Thanks, pal.
    • CommentAuthorRyan C
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008
     (4005.7)
    Will we ever escape the awful hand of religion? A friend said once, and he may have been quoting, "you need religion when you have idiots everywhere." I fear he is right and, therefore, we will always have it guiding our hand with 2000 year old views of morality.

    Back on topic, I know the election is just a way to make us feel like we have an opinion but I have never been this excited. If everything goes as I hope I will wake up Wednesday counting the days until January 20th. I just wish someone somewhere would do something to make Cheney and Bush pay for all they have done. I guess I'll just have to reread the first part of Black Summer.
    • CommentAuthorepalicki
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008
     (4005.8)
    So, I just received an email from www.democraticstuff.com. It seems they're already selling Obama victory kitsch.

    God, I hope they don't jinx it.
  2.  (4005.9)
    Will we ever escape the awful hand of religion?

    Not to get all quoty at you...

    "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson

    I could care less what people believe or not, as long as they keep it to themselves. I think of it like piercings, if you want to shot a railroad spike through your scrotum, good on you. If you try to do it to me, we will have words.

    I say this as a Unitarian.
  3.  (4005.10)
    Yeah, you just don't risk that kind of wrath from high atop the thing.

    • CommentAuthorpi8you
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008
     (4005.11)
    I might just have to pick this up:
    It's Time.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008 edited
     (4005.12)
    Obama's grandmother has reportedly just died.

    Cue the first wing-nut blog post about the "suspicious" timing in 3...2...1.... .
  4.  (4005.13)
    @Kosmopolit:

    Reuters just picked up the story.

    Christ, tomorrow's gonna be bitter-sweet for the man. She helped bring up a hell of a man.
    • CommentAuthorJEFFSJ
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008
     (4005.14)
    @pi8you

    Might want to read this very compelling endorsement from Tim O'Reilly as well.
  5.  (4005.15)
    Next Congress will likely consider national early voting law. Awesome. Better yet New York Democratic Rep. Steve Israel proposed elections as a 2-day weekend event in November.

    Also of note from the article: early votes breakdown 57.3 percent by Dems, 42.7 by GOP, according to election statistics (from nine states reporting).
  6.  (4005.16)
    @doclivingston:

    See, that's why this election is important, beyond the presidential horse-race. A democratic congress could get more good legislation like this in. Republicans win elections by keeping voters away from the polls, dividing on wedge issues and generally running a game.

    Now, if we had a voting holiday...that would be awesome.
  7.  (4005.17)
    How desperate are the Republicans?

    In Florida voters in heavily Democratic areas are receiving fake robocalls telling them that due to the high turnout they can vote by phone.
  8.  (4005.18)
    • CommentAuthorarau
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008
     (4005.19)
    @Kosmopolit

    That is sick.
    • CommentAuthorskwirl
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2008
     (4005.20)
    On the topic of Barack Obama and gay marriage, he has said the Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed, which would force every state to recognize gay marriage as long as the marriage was recognized in at least one state. And his former church (the one with Jeremiah Wright as reverend) performs gay marriages. So on a personal level, I doubt he has much of a problem with gay marriage. It is sad that he can't come out in favor of gay marriage for political reasons, but Barack Obama has always been an incredibly cagey politician so it doesn't surprise me that he hasn't been more publicly progressive on the issue. As a side note, I live in California, and I got a robo-call from Bill Clinton encouraging me to vote no on Proposition 8, which is encouraging, since he is very popular among more conservative Democrats.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.