Obama's pandering is really making me sick! Allows anti-gay activist to speak - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-18-2008, 08:04 PM   #1
Refugee
 
Muldfeld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,891
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Obama's pandering is really making me sick! Allows anti-gay activist to speak

I knew for the last year that Obama was not as principled as he let on. His compromise is ego-centrically driven because he feels he can be the GREAT MAN that unifies people, even if the compromises forced on people are unjust.

Hilary's nomination

First, he nominates that vicious thug Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State, when her views are aggressive and cowardly, threatening to obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel; if taken on first principles, this means that, if one's ally were attacked, one would be right to destroy the attacker of that ally; on this basis, Iran would be in its rights to obliterate Israel for attacking the Palestinian people since 1948 with ethnic cleansing, colonization and occupation. The right-wing mainstream media likes to blame everything on Hamas, but that group is only 21 years old folks. If fundamentalist Jews who felt it was okay to mistreat and murder Palestinians for decades believed in compromise or a fair peace, they could have reached it decades before Hamas, which is actually still a reasonable group, despite its ethical problems.

Let us suppose Hilary was lying and that she really cared for Muslim peoples and nations, then she proved herself more willing to pander to nationalist and American Jewish fundamentalist fears than Obama; she's still proven herself a bad choice.

I would much rather have had the brave Republican Senator of Nebraska, Chuck Hagel, who is retiring in January 2009; he bravely admitted supporting the war was a mistake, criticized Bush at every turn (more than even McCain), supported Obama as President against the wishes of his own party, and decried Israel's 2006 massacre of over 1,000 innocent Lebanese when most Dems were too busy kissing up to American Jewish fundamentalists instead of standing for human rights.

Obama could have picked someone with honor, but he went for the very political choice of Hilary to please nutcase nationalist supporters of her and prevent her criticism of him in Congress. As Jon Stewart pointed out, Hilary and Barack agreed on nearly every domestic issue; international affairs was the only real division between them. Hilary's more likely to mess it up, unless the idealistic side of her wins and she actually cares about justice for the Palestinians.

Let's not forget that the underlying story of this campaign, despite McCain's unforgivable selection of that racist bigot Sarah Palin as his running mate, was that Hilary was more willing to play dirty with racism than even McCain. It was she who brought up Bill Ayers and exploited Rev. Wright on Fox News, even though both men are American heroes in standing for social justice and not hypocritical American nationalism. Yes, I said it; Hilary Clinton's behavior was more shameful than that of McCain.

Inviting Rev. Rick Warren to the inauguration
Far more disgusting is Obama's decision to invite an anti-gay bigot like Rick Warren. It's not enough that Obama, in cowardly fashion, dismissed Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but he goes so far as invite a leader of the bigoted community that supports him.

Obama says it's about bringing people together. Since he's proud of Lincoln, I'll say a parallel would be if Lincoln said, as a compromise, that slavery could exist in a few states after the civil war as a compromise with the misguided South. There are certain things over which one does not compromise. I'm not gay, but I have seen gay people in hiding and have seen stories about them. They suffer enough in the shadows due to a society that shames them; they don't deserve to be treated this way.

It's obvious Obama truly believes that gay marriage is perfectly okay, but that he took on the political stance of only accepting straight marriage and civil unions for gays as a compromise with America's bigoted aspects. You don't bridge that gap by appeasing these sentiments. You eradicate them by proving they have nothing to fear by allowing these people equal rights and fighting for them.
Obama's just like John Kerry or that shameful President of the '90s Bill Clinton, after that President failed to get rid of the ban on gays in the military and got all conservative to win reelection; at least Bill tried, though.

Furthermore, Rick Warren is an egocentric windbag. Anyone who thinks he's generous and good-hearted is dumb enough to think Sarah Palin is genuine and down-to-earth; these people are obviously not good at reading people. They're both phony power-hungry freaks. I'm not saying to not engage Rick Warren, but this is an important symbolic moment. Gay people aren't trying to take away fundamentalist Christians' rights, but fundamentalist Christians are trying to destroy gays, as they have all non-Christians.

Enough! Stand up for what's right, Obama! Be cautious and economize your power, but don't sacrifice what's right for what's obviously wrong.

There could have been plenty of reverends or pastors that accept gays or don't vocally hate them from which he could choose. Instead Obama picked a guy politically designed to appeal to those who voted against him with the wrong tools. What's wrong with giving people health care or jobs? Why continue this culture war?

I was very happy to hear you go ahead with health care and environmental protection, but this sets my expectations back. Shame on you, Mr. Obama.
__________________

Muldfeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 08:24 PM   #2
Refugee
 
Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: K-Mart Lingerie Section
Posts: 1,799
Local Time: 11:40 PM
I generally agree that his choice for speaker seems ignorant, but maybe Obama is trying to make a symbolic gesture by even inviting the opposition despite a contrast in views.

But I can't help but feel for the gay community...how else would you feel when someone you despise is brought to speak to the nation?
__________________

Moser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 08:33 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:40 PM
Quote:
If fundamentalist Jews who felt it was okay to mistreat and murder Palestinians for decades believed in compromise or a fair peace, they could have reached it decades before Hamas, which is actually still a reasonable group, despite its ethical problems.
What is the Hamas policy towards Muslim Palestinians who leave Islam?

Is it a fairly reasonable attitude?
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 10:11 PM   #4
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:40 AM


Obama and Miracles that Never Happen

Quote:
If 10 times more people claimed to have attended Woodstock than were actually there, I suspect 10 times more people claim to have wept at Obama’s election victory than actually did. Weeping on the night of November 4 – or claiming you did -- has now become a fashion.
Quote:
...Obama’s ascendancy, he said in a Dec 1 interview published in the British newspaper, The Morning Star, “is an excellent illustration of how the system handles dissent. A black face, a soothing voice and a vague message of change - all designed to keep the rabble pacified without changing anything at all.”
Quote:
Obama’s election is no miracle, just what was needed to create the illusion of change. Any chance of meaningful change will require more than the election of another exhibitionist lawyer whose charm, forensic skills and ambition allowed him to catch the eye of people with the connections and resources to get him elected – the people who really rule America. The United States’ first black president is just another instrument of moneyed interests whose decisions will be structured by his obligations to the people who put him power and the logic of the capitalist system in which he must work -- a charming Bush, with darker skin and a liberal pedigree.
For the record, I did cry during the election night acceptance speech...lol
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 12:44 AM   #5
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,466
Local Time: 11:40 PM
oh, please.

his middle name is Hussein. he defeated the two biggest brand names in American politics -- Clinton, and McCain. don't forget, 4 years ago McCain was the most popular politician in America.

underestimate his skills at your own peril. believe him to be a puppet at your own risk. but do recognize that he does not walk on water, never did, and that he lives under the same system that we all do.

and if you want to discuss the shrewd but entirely contemptible Warren subject, there's another thread.

also, the US has vastly more complex foreign policy pursuits than just securing "justice" for the Palestinians.

it amazes me how much attention this single issue gets. millions of Congolese have died in the past 6 years, but who cares about that? i guess it's because they're not being killed by Jews?
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 09:37 AM   #6
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
but do recognize that he does not walk on water, never did, and that he lives under the same system that we all do.
Exactly my point.

Anyone who thinks Obama will implement meaningful change under the current system is misguided. Choosing his administration from both sides is nice symbolism for the romantics but it's not meaningful change - it's just making the existing system more transparent.

Change will only come from ordinarily passive people actively demanding it on an ongoing basis.
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 05:10 PM   #7
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,183
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Mr. Obama is choosing folks cut from the same cloth that McCain might have chosen.
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 05:17 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,153
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Mudfield, is there a tv show that captures your sentiments well? I sure hope so.
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 06:39 PM   #9
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,466
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Mr. Obama is choosing folks cut from the same cloth that McCain might have chosen.


and yet, both had to swing to their respective bases to win their respective party's nominations.

i do think it's good that Obama appears to be valuing proven competency over ideology, and given the fact that Bush has unquestionably run the country into the ground, now is the time for practicality.

still, one wonders what overtures a McCain/Palin ticket would have had to have made to the Religious Right.

i think, though, that, overall, the Obama picks underscore the point that his position on Iraq is by far the consensus viewpoint, one that McCain would have adopted had he won the election, and the viewpoint that Bush now adopts. again, Obama was right, and the rest have followed.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 06:40 PM   #10
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,466
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Mr. Obama is choosing folks cut from the same cloth that McCain might have chosen.


does the TV show involve Jews killing people? because that certainly seems to be the only thing that captures some people's attention and sympathy.

fuck the Congolese. and fuck those Buddhist monks in Burma.

some of us only care when there are Jews involved.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 06:55 PM   #11
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 11:40 PM
wait, you didnt really think you were going to get "change" did you?

ill let you in on a little secret:

both parties have become one in the same, big government that does its own thing rather than looking after the people. your vote means nothing and the REAL powers that be will stay in power. they got us divided, fighting over democrat vs republican, liberal vs conservative, all the while the country is going to hell in a handbasket relatively unnoticed.

"When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is freedom." -TJ
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 07:51 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kony Island Baby
Posts: 10,244
Local Time: 01:40 PM
Yeah, that's right, they're all puppets of the illuminati. There is no hope, we might as well load up the old revolver in the back cupboard now, and just end it.

There is a lot wrong with the American political system, but Obama is not its cause. I've said it before, if he proves to be merely sensible and somewhat reasonable, in comparison to his precedessor, I will consider that a Very Good Thing.
Kieran McConville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 08:01 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
does the TV show involve Jews killing people? because that certainly seems to be the only thing that captures some people's attention and sympathy.

fuck the Congolese. and fuck those Buddhist monks in Burma.

some of us only care when there are Jews involved.
Some of us prefer not to talk about bad things Israel does, or indeed, throw around insinuations of anti-semitism when their precious Obama is criticized.
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 08:03 PM   #14
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
if he proves to be merely sensible and somewhat reasonable, in comparison to his precedessor, I will consider that a Very Good Thing.
Yep.
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 08:07 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
it amazes me how much attention this single issue gets. millions of Congolese have died in the past 6 years, but who cares about that? i guess it's because they're not being killed by Jews?
By the same logic, why should anyone care about gay rights? Those gays are a minority. Who cares about their trivial concerns, there are more important matters to address ourselves to. Or, you know, let's not discuss the issue of US gays being denied marriage rights, because this discrimination is trivial by comparison to that suffered by gays in, say, Iran.

These Palestinians are only getting killed in their hundreds, we should only trouble to get concerned when it's in the millions.

Your logic, Irvine, not mine.
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 01:00 AM   #16
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,300
Local Time: 10:40 PM
I have not been into FYM in a while because of my firm belief that this is a U2 forum first and my not wanting to fray relationships w/other fans of my favorite band. I venture in here in spurts, sometimes(alot) more than others, almost never during contentious election seasons. I enjoy politics, I study it and economics like crazy and sometimes, sadly, for fun. However, it is not my favorite forum topic.

This is the first thread in a while that has drawn me back into FYM. The unreasonable are already out in full force, and Obama is a month from becoming President. To recap: This man was elected the first black President and not by the razor thin margins we have become accoustmed to since 2000! He won 53% of the vote, greatly increased turnout, and got 7 million more popular votes than Bush in 2004! Not only that, he is the first non incumbent Democrat since FDR to win more than 50% of the vote and by a margin of more than 5 points compared to his opponent. In other words, FINALLY, the Democrats have won by building a broad coalition and isolating the Republicans into 2 groups: the religious right and those who believe that economic opportunity should prevail only for the top 1% of the population. Notice that I said their beliefs, not their actual status as top 1% as Obama actually won this group. If you are in the group, nothing against you, more power to you. Theocons and economic royalists, and everyone else.

The above being said, PLEASE, PLEASE stop pushing Obama to govern from the far left. He was never going to, and he always made that clear. Proposition 8(I am from MA, I didnt support it, gay marriage hasn't hurt me or my family) was no secret- it defined marriage as man and woman. Obama always said he supported this concept, and therefore, supported proposition 8, or at least its practical effects. I keep hearing from Rachel Maddow and her ilk(really starting to upset me, BTW) that "the gay community got Obama elected, so he cant pick a bigot, etc, etc." Complete BS. If 69 million people voted for the man, most of them were not gay, in fact, not even a significant amount of them were. Of course, he won the gay vote, but this vote just is not that damn big. Most people are straight. I have no problem w/ gay, but get over it, they are a minority.

This selection in no way signals a change in policy toward gays from Obama. It was not like he picked Warren as a Congressional liasion, his chief of staff, a senior adviser, Sec of Health and Human services, etc, etc. Warren will have no policy role, zero, none! All he is doing is reading a prayer that opens the inagural ceremonies. He will be one of literally millions of people in attendance. This is being blown completely out of proportion, and I am glad Obama is standing up to that vocal minority egging it on. Like they do not think we have bigger fish to fry right now???!!!!!!

To those who think that, in general, Obama is pushing the same agenda as McCain, are you kidding me? Look who he has picked- moderate, pragmatic experts, Geithner, Napolitano, James Jones, Richardson, Summers, Pete Orszag, the list goes on and on. The last Democratic administration did the same thing. The proper contrast between Republicans and Democrats is not Republicans pick from the far right(Cheney, Phill Gramm as McCain's top econ adviser) and Democrats pick from the far left, it is that Republicans have governed from the far right(focus on ideology) while Democrats have governed from the center(focus on competence). Competence, not ideology- principle first used by Democratic President JFK's transition. Find everything you can about these picks- they support Democratic principles just as Obama does. Napolitano has spoken for comprehensive immigration reform that includes vigorous enforcement, Jones and Gates have spoken of the need for diplomacy. Summers, Orszag, etc have LITERALLY thousands of writings stating that the Republican policy of tax cuts and deficits and removal of all oversight DOES NOT WORK.

This is a huge contrast from McCain. If McCain were elected, you would have seen the same governing from the far right that Bush gave us. A relatively moderate Warren would have been passed over for the inaguration and those well to his right(Warren speaks of health care, poverty, lack of opportunity, genocide, etc) would be ACTUALLY influencing POLICY on such important issues as gay rights. Sarah Palin nutjobs would be in charge of HHS, making rape victims pay for tests! Everyone criticizing this needs to calm down and realize the limited, symbolic role Rick Warren is being given as well as see his important contributions to the development of an evangelical movement focused on MORE than abortion and gay marriage. Obama looked at the sum of this man's work and saw that his efforts to promote dialogue across differing points of view matched his own. Do they agree on everything? NO. Are critics wrong to suggest that Obama pick someone who shares all of his views? Damn right they are. We run into trouble when we govern from the far right, we run into the same when we govern from the far left.

In conclusion, remember what happened the last 8 years when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld insisted on only those viewpoints they agreed with being heard? Remember the implications? I sure as hell do, we are paying for them now w. a major financial catastrophe, a rebuilt Al Qaeda, an ongoing war in Iraq, and a need to quadruple our deficit and bail out every incompetent piece of crap company just to avert a permanent depression. All happened on Bush's watch, all a mess Obama needs to clean up. Obama ran for President on the same premise I just discussed re:everyone agreeing with you, and nowhere in his campaign promises or themes did he even come remotely close to saying he would be shutting out all but those who supported gay marriage. Just realize, regardless of your viewpoint: 1.)Obama was elected with a very large majority, the largest in a long time for a Democrat and the first time the party has received broad based support since 1964 2.)He is taking a pragmatic course, as he has said all along and most importantly 3.)Those who elected him elected him to take on much more important issues than this non issue being blown up for no reason.
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 01:48 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
By the same logic, why should anyone care about gay rights? Those gays are a minority. Who cares about their trivial concerns, there are more important matters to address ourselves to. Or, you know, let's not discuss the issue of US gays being denied marriage rights, because this discrimination is trivial by comparison to that suffered by gays in, say, Iran.

These Palestinians are only getting killed in their hundreds, we should only trouble to get concerned when it's in the millions.

Your logic, Irvine, not mine.
Not really, he was talking about the magnitude of coverage the Palestinians get. Not that no one should care.

...

If Obama really wanted to pick a pastor on gay marriage for Postpartisan Outreach™, he probably could have found one who didn't equate gay marriage with pedophilia, or one who implicitly suggested the assassination of Iran's foreign leaders.

I don't think that's a necessary part of the gay marriage deal.

But he did pick a pastor who thought that.

Also, there's absolutely nothing new about this "flee running in terror from the far left to prove how moderate and centrist and reasonable Democrats are" theory that proves how New and Postpartisan Obama is. It's the same old story the Clintons and the DLC have peddled for the last 16 years. Triangulation, anyone?

Maybe Obama is different. Maybe he gets rid of DADT and DOMA, which would make this inauguration a really pointless controversy. But so far he's stepped out on the exact same foot as the timid Democrats of old. I suppose we'll have to wait and see how this shakes out.
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 11:10 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Ann Curry interviewed him on Dateline last night

Rick Warren: Pastor in the political spotlight - Newsmakers- msnbc.com

In a video released to church members just before Election Day, Warren urged his followers to vote for California's Proposition 8, which aimed to reverse a ruling by the California Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriage.

Warren says he joined the fray out of a concern if Proposition 8 wasn't passed, pastors would lose their right to preach about the Biblical definition of marriage. But many constitutional experts say that fear was totally unfounded and gay rights leaders saw Warren's stance as an infringement on their civil rights.

After Proposition 8 passed, same-sex marriage supporters converged on the entrance to Warren's Saddleback Church.

This week, when President-elect Obama named Warren to deliver the opening prayer at the Inauguration, the controversy flared up again. The president of the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign wrote a letter to Obama saying Warren's selection "tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table."

Ann Curry: Some people in the gay community wonder why you supported Prop 8. Why you supported taking away their right to love each other in marriage.

Rick Warren: Yeah, well, I'm not taking away their right to love each other.

Ann Curry: In marriage.

Rick Warren: I am opposed to the redefinition of marriage. First place, to me, it was free speech issue foremost of all. First place, I don't know any church in America that's done more to help the gay community, particularly with AIDS, than Saddleback.

Ann Curry: And, in fact, gay people will say that is true.

Rick Warren: Yeah. And my wife and I have given millions of dollars to help people--

Ann Curry: Which is why they're so hurt.

Rick Warren: Yeah.

Ann Curry: Why many gay people are so hurt because of their faith and and reverence for what you have done in this issue. How have you reconciled yourself with that pain that you've caused because of that loss of faith in you?

Rick Warren: Well, because if that hadn't passed, the pain it would have caused to far millions more, I think, would be more severe. And here's what I see in this, Ann. For 5,000 years every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman, not just Christianity [but also] Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism.

Ann Curry: Your position has raised the specter that you are homophobic. (laughter by Warren) And that is why people are angry. Gay people are angry. And how is it possible for them to be civil when someone-- maybe deny-- you would say, "I don't like what you are." You understand that.

Rick Warren: Yeah, I could give you 100 gay--

Ann Curry: Are you homophobic?

Rick Warren: Of course not. I've always treated them with respect when they come and wanna talk to me. I talk to them. When the protesters came, we served them water and doughnuts.

But Warren says he's surprised by the hostile reaction of gay rights advocates.

Rick Warren: The hate speech against me is incendiary.

Ann Curry: So what happened to Mr. Reconciliation?

Rick Warren: Tolerance used to mean, "I treat you with respect even though we disagree." Some people want tolerance to mean now that all ideas are equally valid. That's nonsense. There are some things that are right and there are some things that are wrong.

Ann Curry: If science finds that this is biological, indisputably, not something that can be explained in any other way except that people are born to be gay, would you change your position?

Rick Warren: No. And the reason why--

Ann Curry: Why?

Rick Warren: I'd be happy to tell you why. The reason why is because it doesn't matter to me. If it's biological, we'll be glad to know. We all have biological predispositions. Some people struggle with anger. And other people say, "I don't struggle with anger, but I sure struggle with fear." Some people say, "Oh, I don't struggle with this. I struggle with being shy."

Ann Curry: You're saying if it's part of your biology, it's your job to struggle against it if, in fact, it's the wrong--

Rick Warren: Well, here what I'm saying. I've had many gay friends tell me, "Well, Rick, why shouldn't I have multiple sexual partners? It's the natural thing to do." Well, just because it seems natural doesn't mean it's best for you or society. I'm naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. And why should I reign in my natural impulses and you say, "Well, because I have natural impulses towards the same sex, I shouldn't have to reign them in." Well, I disagree. I think that's part of maturity. I think it's part of delayed gratification. I think it's part of character.

Warren says his opposition to same sex marriage is shared by a majority of Americans and by President-elect Obama — and is based on Biblical teachings.

Rick Warren: God said in Genesis 1, a man and woman should cling to each other for life. Now I'm in favor of human rights for everybody...everybody. I'm against redefining marriage historically 5,000 years... because then it'll be re-defined. What if it's between a brother and a sister?

Ann Curry: You said that God says in the Bible that a man and a woman should cling to each other for life, but it does not say that a marriage is only between a man and a woman. In fact the Bible says that King Solomon had 700 wives. Leviticus speaks of homosexuality as being a sin, but also orders the death penalty for eating fish that had fins and getting a tattoo.

Rick Warren: The people that make that argument don't understand there are three kind kinds of law in the Bible that are very different. There's civil law, which is for the nation of Israel. There's ceremonial law, which is for the Jewish priesthood. And there is moral law, which is for everybody. The laws about eating fish and stuff, those are civil and ceremonial laws for Israel. No Christian follows those.

Unlike like many opponents of same sex marriage, though, Warren doesn't see it as a danger to heterosexual married couples.

Rick Warren: I don't think gay marriage is any threat to marriage. So that's not why I'm voting the way I did. I think divorce is a bigger problem to marriage than anything else.
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 02:16 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Obama seems able to do what most people cannot. See the good in everyone.
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 03:04 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

To those who think that, in general, Obama is pushing the same agenda as McCain, are you kidding me?

This is a huge contrast from McCain. If McCain were elected, you would have seen the same governing from the far right that Bush gave us.

In conclusion, remember what happened the last 8 years when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld insisted on only those viewpoints they agreed with being heard? Remember the implications? I sure as hell do, we are paying for them now w. a major financial catastrophe, a rebuilt Al Qaeda, an ongoing war in Iraq, and a need to quadruple our deficit and bail out every incompetent piece of crap company just to avert a permanent depression. 1.)Obama was elected with a very large majority, the largest in a long time for a Democrat and the first time the party has received broad based support since 1964
John McCain would have kept Bill Gates as Secretary Of Defense, and was also considering James Jones for a position. Obama decided to select both of them. Gates and Jones are Republicans that supported the Iraq war and opposed Obama's withdrawal plan. Although she is a Democrat, the biggest differences that Hillary had with Barack Obama were on Foreign Policy, yet, Barack Obama picks her to be Secretary Of State.

Its simply a myth that Bush never used diplomacy the past 8 years and did not listen to other opinions. Dozens of countries have deployed troops with US forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO is involved in its first large scale mission outside of Europe.

Al Quada is reported to have regrouped, but they have not been able to hit the United States, and they have come close to being defeated in Iraq. With Iraq, one of the worlds worst dictators and US security threats has been removed and replaced with a developing democracy. Levels of violence are at their lowest levels since the invasion. The economy and production of oil are ahead of pre-war levels now. It is likely that the success that Bush has achieved in Iraq influenced Obama to pick people like Gates and Jones. Its a sign that he may not be planning a radical change from Bush policy in Iraq. Why change what is working so well now? But it remains to be seen what he will actually do.

Yes, Obama appears to have won with a little over 7 percent margin in the popular vote(their actually still counting votes). But the average popular vote margin in US Presidential elections is 9 points, so this is not a large victory in that respect. Lets not forget that over 60 million people voted for John McCain.

McCain won Whites 30 and older by landslide numbers of of 17 to 18 percentage points. If you look at the electoral map, the old divisions or polarisation seen in recent elections is still there. Its not at all a broad based victory like Reagan's two victories and Bush Sr. victories were in the 1980s. Its not even remotely close to being the victory that LBJ had in 1964.
__________________

Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×