|
Okay Obama, This Is Pretty Dispicable
|
So, Obama basically says "fuck you" to the GLBT
community. Fuck him right back. I don't care how much political cpaital he needed or what justifications he offers, this is evil and I hope he get burned for it. -------------------- Epsilon
Yikes, that is a big disappointment. I hope this backfires spectacularly on him. (Disclaimer; I havn't read the full brief yet, just the article, I assume
it's accurate.) E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?" B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
fucking fuckshit shit FUCK.
bulllllllllshit. lies, damned lies, and bullshit. "No can brain today. Want cheezeburger." From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies
Yep, it is. But it's also nothing new; Obama has been openly anti-gay-marriage from before he even started campaigning.
Soo... How's that Hope and Change working out for ya?
Quote: Logan Darklighter wrote:Still better than what we would have gotten had they voted in the other guy. But you see, unlike right-wing idiots, we are capable of holding our own guys' feet to the fire when we think they did wrong. -------------------- Epsilon Quote:But you see, unlike right-wing idiots, we are capable of holding our own guys' feet to the fire when we think they did wrong. Ahhh, so that's why you haven't actually done it for the past 24 years? -- Sucrose Octanitrate. Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode. Quote: ECSNorway wrote: I... have no idea what you are refering to. If you think I was not critical of the Clinton administration or the Chretien government then you, sir, are sadly mistaken. --------------------- Epsilon
... Budget? What the...
*read read read* Okay, is there even serious reason to think that the cost of benefits for same-sex couples would be more than a drop in the bucket compared to, you know, not-same-sex couples? o.O -Morgan.
Sadly enough Obama has so far conformed to the classical path of a true populist politician...
Promise your voters (read suckers) whatever you think will want to get elected only to very conveniently abandon said promises once in power... --Werehawk-- My mom's brief take on upcoming Guatemalan Elections "In last throes of preelection activities. Much loudspeaker vote pleading." Quote:Quote: Logan Darklighter wrote:Still better than what we would have gotten had they voted in the other guy. I'm glad I wasn't drinking something when I read this, Epsilon. My monitor screen would have been wearing it! Democrats protect their people just like Republicans. Pelosi accused the CIA of lying to congress, which is a felony, yet the Democrats are protecting her from having to show her proof. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200905 ... tico/22550 is the original story link http://cbs13.com/politics/nancy.pelosi. ... 17351.html is the response. Democrats also protected Clinton from his empeachment for purgery.. As for the article.. it's really a interesting debate. Is being gay a physical trait or a psychological one? It seems Obama sees it as a psychological one. I personally look at it like this. As long as they are married they deserve the benefits just like any married couple. Quote: Fidoohki wrote:I am not a Democrat, and thus they are not my "we". And while you want to impeach Cliton for lying about sex, I would rather try Bush/Cheney for violating the fuckimg Geneva Conventions. But yes, I do critisize Pelosi for lying to people. Now, do you admit that Bush/Cheny are war criminals and should go to the Hague? -------------------- Epsilon
Please get it right. Nobody impeached Clinton over sex. The charges were perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.
You can lie all you like as President. Sometimes it's required and necessary (national security and all). But when you're in front of a Grand Jury and you lie and GET CAUGHT, it's PERJURY. And that's a crime. You can complain all you like about WHY he was in front of a grand jury. Whether it was fair or not. Whether it was petty or not. Arguably, to be fair, the case should never have gone that far or in that direction, and there were worse things the Clintons were accused of that perhaps should've been pursued more. But the FACTS are the FACTS. He was impeached for perjuring himself to a Grand Jury. "Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote)." He was acquitted by the Senate. Frankly I'm fine with that. He was an inconsequential President in an inconsequential time. The historical equivalent of Calvin Coolidge. If being mentioned in the same breath as Andrew Johnson is the most anyone will ever remember him for in the centuries to come, he should consider himself lucky. But I find it annoying that people shorthand the whole thing as "He was impeached over sex." No. One. More. Time. He was impeached for PERJURY. Quote: Logan Darklighter wrote:Ah roll eyes smiley, where are you? Yes he was impeached for perjury. For lying about sex. It was a witchhunt, and when they couldn't get him for any actual crimes, they got him for the horrible crime of lying about sex on the stand. Let me be clear here: Clinton did not lie about national security or politics or the economy or a dozen other things. He lied about having sex with someone and thus committed perjury. Yes, perjury is wrong and yes he should be punished. He was. Meanwhile, George Bush II tortured human beings. But hey, he never lied about it (under oath) so that's a-okay! One of these two men commited a WAR CRIME and yet the one you are harping on is Clinton and a fucking lie about his sex life. Where the HELL was your righteous fuckign indignation when your sitting fucking president was authorizing the torture of innocent fucking humans beings. --------------------- Epsilon
This is about what I'd expect of Obama, given how well his economic and foreign policy work has gone so far. Very hypocritical, and ungrateful to those
who helped him win the election. Epsilon, Fidoohki, both sides have let the stupidities of their elected politicians slide far too much. Those of us who can call our own side to task when they do wrong are that ultimate minority; smart, honest people. I think I should give my position on the issue here, because it highlights the angle I approach this issue from. I am a conservative, in a more classical sense than you typically hear now: I believe that the government should get its nose out of our bedrooms (and houses, and social lives, and a lot of things, both socially and economically), and get back to defense, diplomacy, infrastructure, and the law. From this perspective, both sides are wrong. The right believes that marriage is a religious act. Because of this, they feel that they can force the state to not allow marriage to those who their religion (Protestant Christianity, for the most part) will not marry. The left sees marriage as a function of the government. From there, they assume that it is unfair and unlawful, unconstitutional even, to not allow same-sex marriage. The leadership of the gay community has, in the past, taken an... explicit stance toward raising awareness and acceptance of homosexuality, and there is an element of spite (forcing the religious right to recognize us as being the same as they are) to this proposal. My problem with this is that there are two aspects of marriage. First, there is the official aspect, where couples register with the government, and get various rights, like visitation rights in hospitals, or the ability to file taxes jointly. Then, there is the social aspect- the ability to say that you are married, have the ceremony, wear wedding bands, and have others treat you as a married couple. The left is absolutely right about the first part: it is not right for any couple, regardless of their sexuality, to be denied rights that are given to other couples. This should change. The right, though, is absolutely right that marriage is an aspect of religion, as churches of all faiths have been conducting weddings for millennia. Why, I ask, do they have to share the same name? I propose that the legal aspect of 'marriage' as it stands today be renamed. We can even steal the term "civil union" for that: it's as good as any. Any couple- gay, straight, lesbian- can get a civil union, and all civil unions have the same rights under the law. This is fair and just. 'Marriage' will be a purely religious event, and any couple that can find a church that will marry them can get married. Unlike the religious right, this does not discriminate against non-Christian faiths, nor does it deprive them of the rights the left is trying to take from them. Everybody gets something, no one will be happy, but they can all settle down and learn to live with it- the very definition of a compromise. That is what an honest politician, on any side of the fence, should be promoting. My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours. I've been writing a bit. Quote:Why, I ask, do they have to share the same name? Because separate but equal is not equal. Germany did something like that as a compromise, but because all the other laws used marriage and not civil union they didn't get many of the rights they where supposed to get, they did get all the obligation though. If you changed the name you would need to change it everywhere, such as say at the visitation rules of every hospital. Otherwise you will get petty bureaucrats who hide behind the letter of the law to discriminate against homosexual couples. Also where homosexual marriage is allowed the church is usually not forced to marry the couple. In places like Denmark they might be because the church is funded through taxes, but I am not sure about that one. anyway when the church is paid through taxes it's clearly part of the government and should be treated as such. E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?" B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
I believe I once heard someone on the radio propose a similar arrangement, and part of the point was that it *would* change everywhere. The government
doesn't give out marriages or decide who gets to marry, and nothing the government does is based on marriage. The government only deals in civil unions. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it has any fundamental advantage over, you know, letting same-sex couples get marriage licenses. '.' Also, what do you make of this? -Morgan. Quote: Morganni wrote:Absolutely right about the equality aspect. Thank you for clarifying that. As for the fundamental advantage over same-sex marriage, the whole point is that it wouldn't get the religious right all up in arms about the "perversion of marriage". It would appeal to both sides, and have a greater chance of being made law. As for that, what Obama did helps. A little. I think, though, that the only proper solution is a law that simply makes it so that there is no legal difference between a same-sex couple and a hetero couple. It's a simple way to create absolute legal equality. The homosexual community is in for a long, bumpy ride, though, if it wants to get social equality with heterosexuality. I wish it weren't so, but there are a lot of obstacles in their path, and they can't all be thrown aside at once, like the legal obstacles can. My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours. I've been writing a bit. Quote:The government only deals in civil unions. The problem with that is at that point yo also need to change the insurance contracts for-instance, or what about the employer who gives benefits to a married couple but not a civil union? Sure it's just lawsuit bait to discriminate that way, but requiering a decade or so of lawsuits to fix things is not my idea of an ideal solution. also we are fine with homonyms in plety of other contexts, forinstance a fluke can mean A further example of a homonym which is both a homophone and a homograph is fluke. Fluke can mean: * A fish, and a flatworm. * The end parts of an anchor. * The fins on a whale's tail. * A stroke of luck. so clearly having both the goverment version and the religious version having the same name shouldn't be all that confusing. E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?" B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Yeah, removing the word "marriage" from government rolsl is a lost cause. Ideally the government would not acknowledge the word at all, and instead
use some sort of civil union approach. However it would be a HUGE bureaucratic nightmare. Forget changing the terms in all the insurance contracts, state and federal laws and so on. Imagine the horror of printing off and sending away new Civil Union documentation to every single married person in the States. Now imagine the upraor that would cause. ----------------- Epsilon
I think Bluemage is perfectly on target on what should happen. I agree 100% and have made almost those exact same arguments before. I don't think the
government should be involved at all in defining "marriage". I think civil unions for all in order to have the legal side of things be the same for everyone would be great. And I don't think would be a "lost cause" to get it done that way at all. Keep the existing marriage licenses as they are and "grandfather" them in. Any NEW licenses would be civil union licenses. Documentation has been handled that way in the past for other changes in the laws. That would be the best of all possible solutions, I think. But - the cynic in me has to add - I don't think it's going to happen that way. I don't think either side is in any mood to compromise and they both think they can win. Quote: Logan Darklighter wrote: There'd be an outcry from those people that don't want gays to get married (because it'd "lessen the sacrament of marriage") but think it's okay for them to have civil unions. To them, they (marriage and civil unions) are two separate things, and the civil union is the lesser one. (I don't agree with them, btw. I think it's a good idea.) Bluemage Wrote:As for the fundamental advantage over same-sex marriage, the whole point is that it wouldn't get the religious right all up in arms about the "perversion of marriage" I seriously doubt that the same people wouldn't get in just as much of an uproar over this sort of plan. -Morgan.
Why precisely should homosexuals compromise? They're in the right. They should get completely equal treatment under the law. Nobody is ever going to force
any church to marry gay people (except they all will in thirty years, just like you won't find too many churches refusing to preside over the wedding of a mixed-race couple nowadays), and that's the only way they could ever be anything but in the right (and, of course, none of them have asked for that, not that that keeps certain people from screeching about it). They are also going to "win". That's pretty much never been in doubt, the only thing in flux is how long it will take.
Well that's just it, I worry that the current set of tactics will take them longer to get them their
rights than the compromise method. Understand, I'm with you on the essentials on this. I just fear backlash and resentment could undermine the progress that's been made. I also think that the "civil unions for everybody" approach might help guarantee better rights not just for homosexual couples, but for everyone. If we believe in the separation of church and state, then lets DO exactly that! And not have the government defining "marriage". Wouldn't the precedent set by that kind of approach be applicable to other aspects of the law? The government that governs least governs best, as one of the Founding Fathers put it. And I think there's an opportunity to reduce the governments intrusiveness into our social affairs here that's being missed. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
