|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 14, 2004 13:49:46 GMT -5
"Obama is favored to win in November, becoming only the third African American to be elected to the Senate since the 19th century."
heh, if i remember correctly, there were two black senators around the time of the civil war, for geezy bob's sakes. you'd think we would've had more than just 3 since the 1800s...
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 14, 2004 13:51:49 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]...You are a child of the Universe. No less the the trees and the stars, you have a right to be here...[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 14, 2004 14:22:06 GMT -5
lol
This Just In:
"D.C.: Senate scuttles constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, handing defeat to Pres. Bush."
~News Update/Verizon Wireless
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 14, 2004 14:23:41 GMT -5
This Just In: " D.C.: Senate scuttles constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, handing defeat to Pres. Bush." ~ News Update/Verizon Wireless Wow ... that's one that no one saw coming. What a shock. The president must be shocked and befuddled.  |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 14, 2004 14:30:36 GMT -5
Befuddled, sure. Amazing how One Little Victory against Bush like that, (despite it not applying to my own interests), can lift my spirits so.  |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 14, 2004 14:35:26 GMT -5
Befuddled, sure. Amazing how One Little Victory against Bush like that, (despite it not applying to my own interests), can lift my spirits so. Woud you be equally lifted if the NY Yankees beat my neighbor's little league team? It's not really news that it didn't pass, since it wasn't expected to. And it's really not a defeat for Bush, since he called for the vote, but never expected it to pass. The votes were not there. It was merely one of those political dances that both parties have to dance in election years. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 14, 2004 14:45:41 GMT -5
[glow=pink,2,300]Woud you be equally lifted if the NY Yankees beat my neighbor's little league team?[/glow]
Maybe if they beat em up. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 14, 2004 15:50:43 GMT -5
I am, of course, pleased that the Marriage Amendment didn't pass the Senate. However, no issue has so effectively highlighted the sheer unmitigated fucking wimpiness of Democrats as this one. If I read one more Democrat explaining that they voted against the Amendment because it was merely "political" or "divisive" I'm going to stick my head in an oven. How about addressing the bloody substance of the amendment, instead of talking completely around it about the political motivations of those who support it?
How about, for once, growing some fucking balls and just coming right out and saying that they oppose the amendment because it's UNJUST?? I have yet to hear a single person
make a case against the amendment based on actual gay rights, fairness, and equality, instead of some bloody structural/political argument about the appropriate use of the constitutional amendment policy. Yeah yeah yeah, that's all well and good, but fuck me, there's a real issue here involving real flesh and blood people as well, and no one will touch it with a fucking ten foot pole!! I understand they're in a tight political spot what with most of the country opposed to gay marriage, but just once I'd like to see a Democrat make a bold statement about the real issue—JUSTICE FOR GAYS—not the fucking political strategies of the Bush Administration.
This is why Kerry looks like a fucking halfwit moron on this issue even though Bush lost today. Because he talks himself in circles trying to avoid actually saying a damn thing about gay marriage itself. He can't articulate worth a damn why he opposes the substance of the amendment, because he's so fucking scared of seeming like he's not really against gay marriage. At least the Republicans who support this bigoted piece of crap amendment have a principled, coherent position: they oppose gay marriage, they believe traditional marriage is the bedrock of American society and needs to be protected. The Democrats are the ones who look like bumbling, two-faced, hypocritical jackasses. The whole thing is just mortifying to watch.
What does Barney Frank have to say about all this, anyway?
M
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 14, 2004 15:57:44 GMT -5
*snort*
people sure can be vicious about politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jul 14, 2004 16:35:15 GMT -5
You say?
Oh, and don't forget to include religion there, eh?
~
I mean, as long as we're both thinkin' deep thoughts here...
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 14, 2004 17:58:25 GMT -5
I thought about Barney Frank, too, Mary... I find myself in a really yucky position on this. Like the Republicans, I oppose gay "marriage" for a few of the reasons they cite. I also oppose idiotic amendments to the Constitution, like this one. I don't feel it's unjust to limit marriage as an institution reserved for one man and one woman, for a plethora of reasons that I have stated before at the defuncto RS boards (and I suspect the CEers here remember it) on the state level. I don't think it is even remotely associated with "justice for gays." Not even slightly. But I don't feel the amendment is unjust, just stupid. Like an amendment against flag burning. I don't feel that is too much at odds with my Libertarian ideals. I simply feel that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, and the birds and the bees are the birds and the bees. A bird can't be a bee and a bee can't be a bird. Simple, really. But I can relate to your frustration, Mary; that the supposedly "liberal" party won't get behind one of their "constituencies" on an ideological basis on this issue. Perhaps it's a very unpopular issue for a good reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Jul 14, 2004 23:00:40 GMT -5
I don't see why they can get the same benefits or whatever as married couples, be able to adopt, with just a different word then marriage, perhaps "Fruity Gaylaws."
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jul 14, 2004 23:06:43 GMT -5
But this much I can say with confidence... no-one should slag off F9/11 (or Moore personally on the basis of this release) without having watched the fucking film. Well it's interesting because, I don't know why no one seems to mention this but, Moore never actually shows all seven (or so? I'm just gonna go with seven) minutes of footage of Bush after Card told him the nation was under attack. He actually only shows about 30 or so seconds of it, editing it along with a clock in the lower part of the screen to scoot the movie along. You know, one frame it's "9:45:30 am" and then a few frames later it's "9:47:20 am" or what not... But he never shows all seven minutes of footage. Why not? I mean...so far I have not heard any disputes about that one incident. Out of all the claims of inaccuracy in F9/11, this hasn't been on of the central claims. Despite the editing, no one seems to be saying it's a trick. I feel safe then, without having read any definitive account on the subject recently, saying that, yes, it did in fact take GWB 7 minutes to physically respond to 9/11. But more to the point, it's a very important part in the movie because it really cuts to the heart of what Bush's re-election campaign is based on: Bush is decisive. Kerry is wishy-washy. How decisive are you when it takes you seven minutes of dull cow-eyed staring (I'm sorry, but his eyes WERE of the dull cow variety, this much is not debatable if you've actually seen the footage) to finally figure out that, well, maybe I should get up and do something?I, like Thorn, have been very cautious with this scenario. I wasn't there, I didn't know exactly what happened (until this movie, supposedly), I didn't know what GWB was thinking, let alone what he looked like, so for the longest time I gave him the benefit of the doubt. He didn't want to frighten the children. Kind of a lame excuse, but it's better that wetting his pants and screaming, so OK. But it never really occurred to me just how really crucial those 7 minutes were. How long did the passengers of flight 93 take before they decided to "roll"? Had nuclear missiles been launched at America from Cuba 40 years ago, how would you feel imagining that JFK waited 7 minutes before responding? How do we know that in those 7 minutes, GWB couldn't have gotten debriefed as quick as humanly possible and perhaps given the order (instead of Cheney *gah!*) to shoot down the other two hijacked planes? The original plan of Al Queda involved more than the four plans they ended up using. What if there were half a dozen more hijacked planes, and in those 7 minutes, orders could have been given to shoot down at least half of them, if not all? A lot can happen in 7 minutes in a crisis like that. It would have been better to see the President composed during the footage, but he appeared to have his thoughts (understandably) elsewhere. But he just *sat* there. If Moore's goal is in fact what he's stated it is before, to help defeat Bush come November, then why oh why oh why did he not show all seven minutes, all 420 seconds, of the staring...staring...staring...staring... Can you imagine a more provocative and important scene in "documentary" or even just flat out political history? I'd imagine that if Moore had shown the seven minutes in their entirety, with no extra soundtrack, half the people who saw the movie in the theaters would literally be shouting at the screen: "DO SOMETHING ALREADY!" Especially if Moore prefaced the scene by inviting the audience to "think back to the moment you found out about the attack. Revisit those feelings, and then watch how our leader, the man who might very well be in charge should we be attacked again, responded...and then ask yourself if you would wait as long as he does to do something about the worst attack this nation has ever encountered." Brutal stuff it would be. But he didn't fuckin' do it. He just did a few quick cuts and moved onto the Saudi connection. Which is an irrelevant aspect of the whole scenario to begin with. Just so he could move on and hear the lovely sound of his voice again, riding around in that ice cream truck... Christ, that man's a complete charlatan. I can't imagine what I'd think of him if we didn't at least share the same common goal... |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 14, 2004 23:26:40 GMT -5
Perhaps it's a very unpopular issue for a good reason. Heya strat, I know we've talked about gay marriage before and just fundamentally disagree with each other, so there's no sense in dredging all that up again - neither one of us are ever going to change the other one's mind! But I did just want to observe, regarding this point, that I really believe that gay marriage is nowhere near as unpopular as people think. The reason for this is because of the HUGE difference between younger and older people on the issue. I realize statistics can be problematic and manipulated and such, but I've read a ton about this in preparation for my con law class and absolutey without fail every sngle poll I've ever seen, the percentage of support for gay marriage steadily climbs as the age range of the respondents declines. Without fail. In the under 35 age range, support for gay marriage hovers close to 50%, often creeping past 50%, in virtually every poll I've ever come across. That says everything to me. In a few generations, I believe those who oppose gay marriage will be in the minority. I really do think opposition to gay marriage just appears, statistically speaking, to be on the losing side of history. Politicians today still have to account for the older generations, but what happens when the 20-35 year olds all have grown-up children, and they've imparted their values to those children, and the opponents of gay marriage are getting older and older? Then who do the politicians serve? Who do they obey? I don't know when it's going to happen, but I believe gay marriage is inevitable. M |
|
|
|
Post by kats on Jul 15, 2004 4:18:38 GMT -5
It wasn't passed? Oh, thank God. Maybe Howard will now drop off it and forget about it. Particularly when 75+% of the country want gay marriage legalized.
What's quite possibly worse than all of this is that fact that gay people aren't financially secure as a straight couple. A couple can be together for longer than a straight couple, contribute more to society, but then as soon as one of the pair dies...the money is shipped off to the family. Same with house/land/assets being split. I've seen it happen way too many times around me to think that anything about the current situation is just and fair. See, we had the situation of Howard proclaiming that he wants to ban gay marriage and stop gay parents from adopting, and stop marriage from overseas being reocognised in this country as a legal union. But then he threw in some token changes to superannuation laws to prove it wasn't about being narrow minded.
Meh. This has instilled faith in me.
|
|
