Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Welcome to the….
The Fée Verte Absinthe Forum - The Oldest, Largest, Most Authoritative Absinthe Forum. > The Monkey Hole > The Newgate Calendar
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
rjordan
"Yes we can" and they did. Good luck Pres. Obama.
Zenzero
absintheglass-glow2.gif Sincere congrats on this fantastic victory. absintheglass-glow2.gif
dom_lochet
- Hey, the president's a n…
- What did he say?
- He said the president is near!
G&C
I thought that was the sheriff.
Kirk
The vote was a lot closer than I expected, although the electoral college blew it out of the water for us this time.
Absomphe
QUOTE(rjordan @ Nov 5 2008, 04:26 AM) *

"Yes we can"


You go, Barack the Builder! LARS!.gif
Rimbaud
LARS!.gif LARS!.gif LARS!.gif LARS!.gif LARS!.gif LARS!.gif LARS!.gif LARS!.gif
sixela
QUOTE(Kirk @ Nov 5 2008, 04:01 PM) *

The vote was a lot closer than I expected, although the electoral college blew it out of the water for us this time.

That's the sign of a good campaign. I'm sure he could've spent his money differently to get a better margin on the popular vote, but that's not what counts.
Steve
Exactly. Zero commercials and campaign stops here in California because it was never in doubt.

The result:
California statewide: 61.2% Obama, 36.9% McCain
San Francisco: 84.7% Obama, 13.2% McCain
dakini_painter
Yes a wonderful thing.

But don't forget we still have much hard work ahead of us. Barack said as much in his acceptance speech. And just as he will reach across the aisle to bring the change we need, so too for us as Americans we'll need to come together and work together to address the issues facing us all.

I know I'm ready to get to work. Now if our government agencies at the state and federal level will give me the permits and formula and label approvals I need, I'll get to work right away on making absinthe.

Climbing to the top of the mountain is thirsty work, I've heard.
Pataphysician


This is Blackman Time!
sixela
QUOTE(Spoon @ Nov 5 2008, 06:25 PM) *

Exactly. Zero commercials and campaign stops here in California because it was never in doubt.


Yup. And I don't think all the money in the world (from the Obama campaign) could've helped against Prop 8 anyway. Only the passage of time will.

Steve
Ironically part of the reason Prop. 8 passed was precisely because of some of the Obama voters. Many African-Americans and Latinos and others voting for Obama also voted "yes" on 8.

It was a well-funded campaign, mainly by the Mormon church, that sealed the deal. There were lots of TV ads saying that homosexuality would be taught in kindergarten if the gays were allowed to continue to marry.
Donnie Darko
If only two gay people marrying each other really could destroy these phoney homophobic "family values", the world would be a better place. How cool would that be if for every gay person that got married, a Mormon got divorced and stopped breeding and indoctrinating their spawn with their bigoted ideas?
Wild Bill Turkey
I say we strip them of their second "m".
Donnie Darko
Ha! Why stop there? How about proposition 666 that would strip them of the letters O, R, S and N too?
sixela
QUOTE(Spoon @ Nov 5 2008, 11:05 PM) *

It was a well-funded campaign, mainly by the Mormon church, that sealed the deal.

I think that any half-decent campaign would've sealed that deal. Not in the Bay area (and not even the Mormons and their money turned that region), but in the whole of the state of California.

The courts had basically (correctly, in my opinion) reversed something the public voted on a couple of years ago, and Prop 8 simply allowed the public to stick it to the judges.

You could've hoped a smaller portion of Californians would've clung to their prejudices (it takes a few generations to grow a population out of those), but hope is not a strategy.

Oh, by the way, I think it's stupid that constitutional amendments only take 50% of the vote on a single-issue proposition. Here, it takes 66% of the legislature, and the legislature is elected in elections in which it is mandatory to vote.
crosby
What do they do to you if you don't vote? guillotine.gif
Donnie Darko
They don't let you put mayo on your fries.
Doctor Love
QUOTE(sixela @ Nov 5 2008, 03:57 PM) *
The courts had basically (correctly, in my opinion) reversed something the public voted on a couple of years ago, and Prop 8 simply allowed the public to stick it to the judges.

You could've hoped a smaller portion of Californians would've clung to their prejudices (it takes a few generations to grow a population out of those), but hope is not a strategy.


And I think many people saw that proposition as a referendum on SF mayor Gavin Newsome and the CA Supreme Court as much as anything. In this instance I think things would have been better off had the CA Supreme Court not taken that case. Generally speaking California is quite socially progressive, I think eventually there would have been a proposition that would have been acceptable to all parties. Unfortunately the "ram it down their throats" approach just wound up hardening the prejudice and reinforced their notions that this was something being done as a deliberate attack on their values.

QUOTE(sixela @ Nov 5 2008, 03:57 PM) *
Oh, by the way, I think it's stupid that constitutional amendments only take 50% of the vote on a single-issue proposition. Here, it takes 66% of the legislature, and the legislature is elected in elections in which it is mandatory to vote.


This issue is actually up for debate, and a lawsuit has already been filed against Prop 8 for this reason. There are grounds on which substantial changes to the CA Constitution are supposed to take place, and apparently in such a case it is supposed to clear the legislature with a 2/3rds vote. But CA is a wacky state when it comes to this direct democracy stuff, so I don't pretend to understand all the legal minutiae involved.

Steve
QUOTE(sixela @ Nov 5 2008, 03:57 PM) *

I think it's stupid that constitutional amendments only take 50% of the vote on a single-issue proposition.

I agree. I was actually unaware that it was so easy before this.

The appeals are based on the difference between a constitutional "amendment" and a constitutional "revision". The theory is that this is a revision because it repeals equal protection under the law rather than a simple amendment which would add something without changing the basic protections guaranteed under the existing constitution.
sixela
QUOTE(crosby @ Nov 6 2008, 01:18 AM) *

What do they do to you if you don't vote? guillotine.gif

Supposedly, they fine you, but it never happens (even though the obligation to be an election official when they draft you is actually enforced with real fines). But that's OK with me - there are lots of things I believe should be illegal but not prosecuted.

Participation in elections *is* roughly 93-97% of eligible people (elections are always on a Sunday, by the way).

Note that it doesn't say you have cast a *valid* vote. There's even a "blank vote" option on the voting computer screens.
sixela
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 6 2008, 01:42 AM) *

They don't let you put mayo on your fries.

That would be a fate worse than death, and we abolished even the much milder death penalty some time ago. Try again.
Absomphe
QUOTE(Wild Bill Turkey @ Nov 5 2008, 02:32 PM) *

I say we strip them of their second "m".


As it should be.

Just ask the angel Moron i.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(Doctor Love @ Nov 5 2008, 10:31 PM) *

Unfortunately the "ram it down their throats" approach just wound up hardening the prejudice and reinforced their notions that this was something being done as a deliberate attack on their values.


How is voting to allow one group the same rights as another group "ramming it down their throats" or a "deliberate attack on their values"???

What a phony characterization. The characterization is used incessantly by evangelicals and social conservatives because they can't tolerate the mere presence of something which doesn't affect them or their precious "values" in the slightest. They still get to heterosexual marry all they want, regardless of what gay people do. It is absolutely wrong in every instance to use the law to take away rights from one group that another group enjoys. If gays can't marry then I'd like to pass a law saying people with blue eyes can't get married, because that would be every bit as morally justified as being against gay marriage.

I realize you are not supporting the social conservative position, as someone who leans Libertarian I'm assuming you're against all that stuff, but their reasons for the position on Prop 8 just don't make sense and IMO are morally wrong.

The charge of judicial activism common among social conservatives is also utter nonsense in this instance. The law did not expressly define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and the CA Supreme Court accurately interpreted the law, which is their job, not activism. If the law doesn't make such prohibitions on marriage, then it would actually have been activist had the court said gays could NOT marry.

The whole reason Prop 8 came to pass was not a result of ramming it down anyone's throats, it came about because the court accurately interpreted the law, and so social conservatives decided they didn't like the law and wanted to make a new law. THAT is the only activism in this instance. Yay, Obama got elected but gay people in love aren't allowed to have the same things straight people in love are. It's the usual American square dance, two steps forward, one step back.
Doctor Love

QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 6 2008, 06:36 AM) *
How is voting to allow one group the same rights as another group "ramming it down their throats" or a "deliberate attack on their values"???

What a phony characterization. The characterization is used incessantly by evangelicals and social conservatives because they can't tolerate the mere presence of something which doesn't affect them or their precious "values" in the slightest. They still get to heterosexual marry all they want, regardless of what gay people do. It is absolutely wrong in every instance to use the law to take away rights from one group that another group enjoys. If gays can't marry then I'd like to pass a law saying people with blue eyes can't get married, because that would be every bit as morally justified as being against gay marriage.


It's not a phony characterization, it's how they genuinely feel. I don't agree with them, but that is beside the point, they have a vote the same as I do. Thus I think a different path could have been taken other than the courts that would have had a better outcome.

QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 6 2008, 06:36 AM) *
I realize you are not supporting the social conservative position, as someone who leans Libertarian I'm assuming you're against all that stuff, but their reasons for the position on Prop 8 just don't make sense and IMO are morally wrong.


Well if it were up to me the government would not be in the marriage business at all and only have a hand in enforcing legal contracts. The very notion that you would need to ask the government for a "license" to get married is offensive to me, regardless of whether you are gay or hetero.

QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 6 2008, 06:36 AM) *
The charge of judicial activism common among social conservatives is also utter nonsense in this instance. The law did not expressly define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and the CA Supreme Court accurately interpreted the law, which is their job, not activism. If the law doesn't make such prohibitions on marriage, then it would actually have been activist had the court said gays could NOT marry.


Hmm, not sure you're correct here. In 2000, 61% of California voters approved a ballot measure, Proposition 22, that said "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." The CA Supreme Court then overturned that on, from what I recall, equal protection reasons. This was seen by the fervent anti-same sex marriage people as the court imposing its will on the people, and the campaign for Prop 8 began.

QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 6 2008, 06:36 AM) *
The whole reason Prop 8 came to pass was not a result of ramming it down anyone's throats, it came about because the court accurately interpreted the law, and so social conservatives decided they didn't like the law and wanted to make a new law. THAT is the only activism in this instance.


As I said above, Prop 22 was overturned by the court, so the response was to draft a Prop that was an amendment to the Constitution which the Court would have a harder time overturning. From what I understand, the most valid objection to this is the manner in which it was sought, via simple majority in a direct democracy vote.

QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 6 2008, 06:36 AM) *
Yay, Obama got elected but gay people in love aren't allowed to have the same things straight people in love are. It's the usual American square dance, two steps forward, one step back.


Ironically, even Obama declined to support same sex marriage in the general election. Whether that's his belief, or merely a stance that he believes he has to hold to be broadly accepted, I cannot say.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(Doctor Love @ Nov 6 2008, 10:44 AM) *

It's not a phony characterization, it's how they genuinely feel.


It is phony because nothing is being rammed down their throats. Just because they're hypersensitive babies about what other people do doesn't mean that gay marriage was rammed down their throats. Banning gay marriage was rammed down the throat of gays though, because something the courts ruled they could do has been taken away from them. Nothing was taken away from or forced upon any person who was against gay marriage, aside from the stomach turning sight of two people in love having a wedding.

QUOTE
Well if it were up to me the government would not be in the marriage business at all and only have a hand in enforcing legal contracts.


I agree with that. No need to waste government time and money on such things, but since that's the law…

QUOTE
Hmm, not sure you're correct here. In 2000, 61% of California voters approved a ballot measure, Proposition 22, that said "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." The CA Supreme Court then overturned that on, from what I recall, equal protection reasons. This was seen by the fervent anti-same sex marriage people as the court imposing its will on the people, and the campaign for Prop 8 began.


The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law to make sure things are legal and in accordance with the state constitution. Prop 22 was struck down because the court determined it was unconstitutional. All they did was do their job, and social conservatives call that "judicial activism". By those silly standards Brown v. Board of Ed is also "judicial activism" and we might as well go back to segregated schools.

QUOTE
Ironically, even Obama declined to support same sex marriage in the general election. Whether that's his belief, or merely a stance that he believes he has to hold to be broadly accepted, I cannot say.


I think it's his belief, it fits exactly with his religious background, but he wisely doesn't think anyone should pass a law forcing that belief on everyone else. Making laws which deny rights to certain groups of people but not others is ALWAYS a bad idea. I respect Gov. Schwarzenegger for having the same position.
Doctor Love

QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 6 2008, 10:05 AM) *
It is phony because nothing is being rammed down their throats. Just because they're hypersensitive babies about what other people do doesn't mean that gay marriage was rammed down their throats.


But I would not be surprised to hear them say the exact same thing about gay couples. California domestic partnership laws are some of the most progressive in the country, so I think the social conservatives see this as a cultural attack on their beliefs. Again, I'm not saying I agree, but the Gavin Newsome "whether you like it or not" approach I think hurt the cause more than helped it on this.

QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 6 2008, 10:05 AM) *
I agree with that. No need to waste government time and money on such things, but since that's the law…


Since that's the law it should be a point of common cause to change the law overall, instead of divisive arguments that wind up being an expression of peoples' personal opinions or bias on homosexuality, when that subject need not even be the point of debate. I believe a new approach that took California state government out of the business of marriage altogether would not only get rid of the absurd notion of needing a "license" to marry, but would ultimately solve the issue of a violation of equal protection in the area of same-sex couples.

QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 6 2008, 10:05 AM) *
The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law to make sure things are legal and in accordance with the state constitution. Prop 22 was struck down because the court determined it was unconstitutional. All they did was do their job, and social conservatives call that "judicial activism". By those silly standards Brown v. Board of Ed is also "judicial activism" and we might as well go back to segregated schools.


I agree with you on that, in your previous post it had sounded like you thought that Prop 22 was not clear in regards to being a ban on same-sex marriage and that the CA Supremes overturned it on the basis of being vague, when that was not my understanding.

traineraz
QUOTE(Wild Bill Turkey @ Nov 5 2008, 02:32 PM) *

I say we strip them of their second "m".

Why must you hate on Suze Orman? shock.gif
Zenzero
Has the world gone mad? WTF

anatomist
QUOTE(Zenzero @ Nov 7 2008, 06:43 PM) *

Has the world gone mad? WTF


You'll need to follow this two step process:

1) Go to an online dictionary. Look up "squib".

2) Go to the site you sited and theonion.com. Compare and contrast.
absinthist
Oh Snap, oh snap, o tempora o mores! Now tell me Barack's favourite band is RRR sleepy.gif
Shabba53
QUOTE(traineraz @ Nov 7 2008, 07:34 PM) *

Why must you hate on Suze Orman? shock.gif

Probably because she's more of an idiot than that dipxit Jim Kramer.
Zenzero
QUOTE(anatomist @ Nov 8 2008, 10:16 AM) *
QUOTE(Zenzero @ Nov 7 2008, 06:43 PM) *

Has the world gone mad? WTF


You'll need to follow this two step process:

1) Go to an online dictionary. Look up "squib".

2) Go to the site you sited and theonion.com. Compare and contrast.


Ah! I see.

Absinthesizer
The Squib story is a joke, but this Esquire story is not. (Though they don't pretend it's in-depth journalism.)
absinthist
Their logic is not flawed, it sounds very creepy when you know what they were doing back in a day, but when now they do support Obama, maybe there will be a change in the U.S. that would make Europe breath peacefully. It is maybe not about the race or religion, but about ideas Obama has and should offer to make America be portrayed not as a main warmonger of the world, after Putinstan, but a country Americans can love and Europeans can finally respect.
Zenzero
IPB Image
Donnie Darko
Absinthist, their logic is absolutely flawed, and isn't even logic. It's just an attempt to maintain the cognitive dissonance necessary to subscribe to any of their absurd views.

Obama isn't a black racist, nor is he about elevating racial heritage (he refers to himself as a mutt and chastises black men for not raising their own children), and the assertions by the crackpots in the article aren't supported by any honest inquiry. Obama is post-racial, which is why white people feel more comfortable with him. He doesn't act white, he genuinely IS half white. My friend's mother is French and her father is Chinese. What is her race? Beats me. What is her culture? Well, it's French and Chinese and Canadian influenced (she was born in Montreal). Obama is in a similar boat, thereby defying stereotyping.

Race, as it is defined in America, has no biologic basis which allows for any judgment to be passed. All social generalizations made about races are in fact cultural generalizations, and generally ignorant ones at that. While there are miniscule genetic markers which distinguish the races ever so slightly, none of them warrant any of the generalizations made by people about race.
scuto
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 11 2008, 10:15 AM) *
Race, as it is defined in America, has no biologic basis which allows for any judgment to be passed. All social generalizations made about races are in fact cultural generalizations, and generally ignorant ones at that. While there are miniscule genetic markers which distinguish the races ever so slightly, none of them warrant any of the generalizations made by people about race.

Yup. Thanks, one drop rule!
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 6 2008, 07:05 PM) *

QUOTE
Ironically, even Obama declined to support same sex marriage in the general election. Whether that's his belief, or merely a stance that he believes he has to hold to be broadly accepted, I cannot say.


I think it's his belief, it fits exactly with his religious background, but he wisely doesn't think anyone should pass a law forcing that belief on everyone else. Making laws which deny rights to certain groups of people but not others is ALWAYS a bad idea. I respect Gov. Schwarzenegger for having the same position.
Is it his belief, or is he just taking a stance to appeal to his electorate? It may well fit with his religious background, but his stance on abortion certainly doesn't fit with his religious background. Perhaps it is more a case of judging the public mood and setting his beliefs accordingly? Politicians are marketeers who will say or do almost anything in order to get votes, you cannot trust anything that comes out of their mouths any more than you can trust a marketeer trying to get you to buy a product; they will say and do anything (so far as legislation allows them) in order to get you to buy what they are selling. Obama is no different from the rest of the snakes as far as that goes.
sixela
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Nov 20 2008, 06:42 PM) *

Obama is no different from the rest of the snakes as far as that goes.


I see you're trying to dethrone Donnie as king of the cynics.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Nov 20 2008, 12:42 PM) *

his stance on abortion certainly doesn't fit with his religious background.


One can't be religious and pro-choice at the same time? Even if his ex-church was against abortion, that doesn't mean he has to be. As far as I know he always was pro-choice, so that seems to be more of a principled stand than blowing with the political winds.

He's against the concept of gay marriage, possibly because of religious reasons, but doesn't think the law should necessarily reflect his personal opinion on all issues. I personally think a President who isn't bent on turning religious opinion into national law is a good thing.
G&C
Any who would doesn't deserve the position.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 21 2008, 05:40 AM) *

QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Nov 20 2008, 12:42 PM) *

his stance on abortion certainly doesn't fit with his religious background.

One can't be religious and pro-choice at the same time?
Not in the sense of being Christian and being religious, no. To think that one could, shows a failure to recognise the graveness of offence with which Christian Churches regard abortion.
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 21 2008, 05:40 AM) *
Even if his ex-church was against abortion, that doesn't mean he has to be.
Of course not, but it does mean that his views on this are not in line with the teachings of his Church and they certainly don't fit with his religious background. Christian Churches do not have an A La Carte menu where you can choose the bits you like and ditch the other bits.
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Nov 21 2008, 05:40 AM) *
He's against the concept of gay marriage, possibly because of religious reasons,
Possibly, but in scheme of 'hierarchy' of seriousness he's chosen to reject his Church's teaching on an extremely serious matter and accept it on something, still viewed as important, but not nearly as serious.

I think its more a case of Barrack trying to appear to have a 'Christian' aspect to his character, while at the same time trying to appear as a liberal secular bloke. Having his cake and eating it. And so far he seems to have done it rather well.

He's a politician, and they're all (at least the successful ones anyway) snakes. They will do and say whatever they can to whoever they can to gain power, and will do the same to hang onto power once they have it. Obama is no different in this regard.
Kirk
Churches are made up of people and there are many different types. They uphold or marginalize doctrine in any way they wish.
Rimbaud
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Nov 21 2008, 05:13 AM) *

Christian Churches do not have an A La Carte menu where you can choose the bits you like and ditch the other bits.


That's why it's a cult, as all religions are.

"Think as we think. Do as we do. There's a comet coming with a seat just for you!"
Doctor Love

I suppose you can call all religion a cult using the most general definition, but practically speaking the term is used for particular sects considered unorthodox and/or extremist, often times with followers living outside of conventional society, and often under the personal direction of a single leadership figure. These organizations can be particularly dangerous and predatory, and I don't think it does society much good to lump them in with traditional religion simply because you are anti-religion in general.

sixela
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Nov 21 2008, 11:13 AM) *

QUOTE
One can't be religious and pro-choice at the same time?
Not in the sense of being Christian and being religious, no.

Hogwash. There are many Christians here that are pro-choice (though obviously not of the anything-goes variety -- but some do accept that a bunch of cells is not yet a human being, at least not from the moment of conception onwards). They aren't in agreement with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, but it's quite another matter to say they aren't Christian.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(sixela @ Nov 21 2008, 04:06 PM) *

Hogwash. There are many Christians here that are pro-choice (though obviously not of the anything-goes variety -- but some do accept that a bunch of cells is not yet a human being, at least not from the moment of conception onwards). They aren't in agreement with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, but it's quite another matter to say they aren't Christian.

Their views are however out of line with those of the vast majority (if not all) of the Christian Churches. I'm not aware of any Christian Church that believes that, for example, a 10 week old foetus isn't a human being (with a soul). People are free, of course, to call themselves what they like (there's a bloke here in England that calls himself Arthur Pendragon, but the Queen has no intention of abdicating and handing him the crown). Anyway, I have no wish to turn this thread into an 'abortion thread'. We all know (at least most of us anyway) where we stand on that issue. Let's just leave it at that shall we.

My point was simply that Obama is cynically trying to appear as both a Christian and a secular liberal in order to appeal to a large section of both camps. He's done that very well. He's playing a game of 'Big Tent' politics. Blair did the same here in the UK. Obama has a lot of similarities to Blair: slick, immaculately well-presented, charming, intelligent, appeals largely to those outside his 'natural constituency', ideologically very hard to pin down, talks a lot about 'change' without being specific about what the changes will be, etc. etc. Let's hope he doesn't turn out to be the egotistical, vacuous liar that Blair was later found out to be.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Doctor Love @ Nov 21 2008, 03:43 PM) *

These organizations can be particularly dangerous and predatory, and I don't think it does society much good to lump them in with traditional religion simply because you are anti-religion in general.

We said. Nobody forces me to believe anything. If I don't like the 'package' I am free to walk away any time.

I recently had an atheist friend of mine express concern because I hang a small crucifix from my rear view mirror. No doubt she viewed it as a sign of my brainwashing by a dangerous cult. Interestingly enough she doesn't seem to have an issue with pagan pentagrams and the like (I think the 'liberal' social views of Wiccans are less concerning to her, I don't think she's met any Heathens yet). Perhaps a case of "We don't agree with your beliefs therefore you must be brainwashed by a cult".
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.