|
Post by Karen on Nov 6, 2008 9:56:25 GMT -5
I see we have a new member who joined today callng himself "barry." I'll bet it is Barak! He heard about us, and had to come check us out. Cabinet posts, here we come!! Oh, no doubt! I love this place.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 6, 2008 10:05:35 GMT -5
I'm at a loss to explain why a state that is pretty much completely "blue" (see results for the presidential election) and socially progressive in so many ways would vote to ban gay marriage. What is up with that? Why does anyone care who gets married, unless they think it effects something economically? That's pretty specious from, say my standpoint. Maybe not an employer that pays for health insurance but hey, they can change that option for everyone if it's a money thing. Make co-pays bigger, whatever. I don't get it. I would rather see unions of all kinds (between humans until such time as other humanoid life forms are found, I do have my limits) legalized and "legitimized" in the eyes of society than make a group of people feel they have to deny their chose family arrangement. That has all kinds of bad potential. What am I missing? Two things, IMO: First, the bigotry against homosexuality goes deeper even than racism, it seems. It's thought by many, still, that you can't help but be a different color, but you could stop being gay if you really wanted to. Further, at least openly, people here don't think of persons of a different race as inherently inferior, but the vast majority of straights still feel like there's something "wrong" with gays. So the prejudice exists even in otherwise liberal, progressive people. But then I wonder - why does anyone care? How does it affect you whether the guys next door get married? In this case, they opposition LIED. They made their entire campaign about "your children". As in, if gay marriage stays legal, they're gonna teach homosexual marriage to your children in school. I kid you not. The Mormon Church pumped HUGE amounts of money into the "Yes" fund, and they just bombarded us with lies about children. People fell for it, and then suddenly it DOES affect you. Third, it's hypothesized that Barack Obama's candidacy indirectly hurt us - he brought out the black and Latino votes in record numbers, and they tend to vote against gay rights initiatives due to traditional value structures. Also, remember that this is actually progress, for us. The citizens of CA have never voted to approve gay marriage. The first "ban it" bill passed by a 20-point margin. Then the State Supreme Court deemed it Unconstitutional. This initiative passed by only 4 points. We're getting there, just slowly. We'll have to repeal a Constitutional amendment now, but we can do that. Hell, we used to have Prohibition in this country....
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 6, 2008 10:16:17 GMT -5
I hear Rush Limbaugh has been in rare form with his post-election bashing. He poo-poos the notion that it was a landslide victory or that it was a record turnout - but in the next breath he says - 'in any case, *they* stole the election with early voting...blah blah..... I guess early voting was ok when the Republicans benefited from it. Electing Obama was a 'mandate' from the American people. FINALLY - the majority said, enough is enough! It's amusing to see the Republican biased news channels scramble for something positive to say about their party. I think they are in shock myself. Oh - and on election night there was talk about how much of a difference the late counting of the overseas military might effect the outcome (this was when they had hope that it might be close in some of the key states). One old guy said that traditionally, the overseas voting is Republican. I was all - 'you got to be kidding!' What he hell has he been listening to the past year? Actually, in the primary, Ron Paul got the nod from a huge segment of our military. (And you don't need to tell me how curious it is for people to jump from Ron Paul to Obama..because I did it.) Anyway, our serviceman jumped from backing Bush to Ron Paul to being overwhelmingly in support of Obama. Doonesbury hit the nail on the head in many areas with this cartoon.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 6, 2008 10:24:54 GMT -5
I'm at a loss to explain why a state that is pretty much completely "blue" (see results for the presidential election) and socially progressive in so many ways would vote to ban gay marriage. What is up with that? Why does anyone care who gets married, unless they think it effects something economically? That's pretty specious from, say my standpoint. Maybe not an employer that pays for health insurance but hey, they can change that option for everyone if it's a money thing. Make co-pays bigger, whatever. I don't get it. I would rather see unions of all kinds (between humans until such time as other humanoid life forms are found, I do have my limits) legalized and "legitimized" in the eyes of society than make a group of people feel they have to deny their chose family arrangement. That has all kinds of bad potential. What am I missing? Two things, IMO: First, the bigotry against homosexuality goes deeper even than racism, it seems. It's thought by many, still, that you can't help but be a different color, but you could stop being gay if you really wanted to. Further, at least openly, people here don't think of persons of a different race as inherently inferior, but the vast majority of straights still feel like there's something "wrong" with gays. So the prejudice exists even in otherwise liberal, progressive people. But then I wonder - why does anyone care? How does it affect you whether the guys next door get married? In this case, they opposition LIED. They made their entire campaign about "your children". As in, if gay marriage stays legal, they're gonna teach homosexual marriage to your children in school. I kid you not. The Mormon Church pumped HUGE amounts of money into the "Yes" fund, and they just bombarded us with lies about children. People fell for it, and then suddenly it DOES affect you.Third, it's hypothesized that Barack Obama's candidacy indirectly hurt us - he brought out the black and Latino votes in record numbers, and they tend to vote against gay rights initiatives due to traditional value structures. Also, remember that this is actually progress, for us. The citizens of CA have never voted to approve gay marriage. The first "ban it" bill passed by a 20-point margin. Then the State Supreme Court deemed it Unconstitutional. This initiative passed by only 4 points. We're getting there, just slowly. We'll have to repeal a Constitutional amendment now, but we can do that. Hell, we used to have Prohibition in this country.... Yep. It's all about fear. I hear that from some of my educated co-workers. I think some of them are so homophobic as to be bordering on lunacy. I mean - if they would just relax and accept their occasional thoughts of being with a member of the opposite sex, they could move on and realize that they are just being human - and being curious about that aspect of human sexuality is normal and doesn't make you deviant...or, gasp! gay!. The way I look at it is that if you believe in God, and God obviously made everything, and one of the things he made is homosexuals - then who are we to judge and keep down one of God's creations? I mean, we used to be ashamed of, hide or kill our Down's syndrome babies. Nowadays, that kind of thing would be condemned by most.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Nov 6, 2008 10:34:17 GMT -5
For the record: Sarah Palin does not represent my conservative viewpoint. Part of letting people be who they are with respect of sexual orientation or reproductive rights goes along with keeping the government out of my personal business and that extends to having smaller government. I don't expect the government to take care of me and don't want it interfering with what I do in my home. Jefferson said it best when he said "A government big enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take everything you have," or words to that effect. Ms. Palin and her ilk are not on that particular page. I want religion out of my politics and my government. (Not a huge fan of organized religion anyway, though I think the Buddhists may have it goin' on.) This continual need to bring religious beliefs into the secular sphere offends me no end and only encourages the excessive opposition to "true" conservative values, none of which include the government telling me what I can do with my body or my life choices. IMO, obviously, others' mileage may vary.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Nov 6, 2008 10:37:51 GMT -5
Also for the record: I have nothing good to say about the Republican party at the moment. I believe they have failed dismally in their so-called conservatism. How conservative can say, Senator Stevens be when all he gave a damn about is his ability to bring home earmarks to Alaska; earmarks that cost the American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars? How conservative can he be when he engages in criminal behavior to the detriment of the people he represents and the integrity of the Federal government?
On another note, I find it curious how so many politicians go into public office not personally wealthy, but leave or end up being very, very wealthy. All this on less than $200,000.00 annual salaries.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 6, 2008 10:47:27 GMT -5
For the record: Sarah Palin does not represent my conservative viewpoint. Part of letting people be who they are with respect of sexual orientation or reproductive rights goes along with keeping the government out of my personal business and that extends to having smaller government. I don't expect the government to take care of me and don't want it interfering with what I do in my home. Jefferson said it best when he said "A government big enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take everything you have," or words to that effect. Ms. Palin and her ilk are not on that particular page. I want religion out of my politics and my government. (Not a huge fan of organized religion anyway, though I think the Buddhists may have it goin' on.) This continual need to bring religious beliefs into the secular sphere offends me no end and only encourages the excessive opposition to "true" conservative values, none of which include the government telling me what I can do with my body or my life choices. IMO, obviously, others' mileage may vary. Well, as I keep saying to folks in these parts: The current Republican party isn't conservative. They sold conservatism down the river with Ronald Reagan, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 6, 2008 11:12:47 GMT -5
For the record: Sarah Palin does not represent my conservative viewpoint. Part of letting people be who they are with respect of sexual orientation or reproductive rights goes along with keeping the government out of my personal business and that extends to having smaller government. I don't expect the government to take care of me and don't want it interfering with what I do in my home. Jefferson said it best when he said "A government big enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take everything you have," or words to that effect. Ms. Palin and her ilk are not on that particular page. I want religion out of my politics and my government. (Not a huge fan of organized religion anyway, though I think the Buddhists may have it goin' on.) This continual need to bring religious beliefs into the secular sphere offends me no end and only encourages the excessive opposition to "true" conservative values, none of which include the government telling me what I can do with my body or my life choices. IMO, obviously, others' mileage may vary. I edited my previous post as I didn't mean to sound like Sarah Palin = all Republicans. Or that people who think that way about gay marriage rights are all bad. IMO - two people who are committed to a living together relationship should get the same economic tax breaks as a married couple. Whether or not they are gay or straight. And to go one step further - I would deep six the entire Federal tax system altogether. Sales tax on the state level is the way to go. That would take care of the huge lobby power structure and the kickbacks that the politicians get from it. But as long as the politicians are in charge, we'll never ever see it.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 6, 2008 11:16:20 GMT -5
I hear Rush Limbaugh has been in rare form with his post-election bashing. He poo-poos the notion that it was a landslide victory or that it was a record turnout - but in the next breath he says - 'in any case, *they* stole the election with early voting...blah blah..... I guess early voting was ok when the Republicans benefited from it. Electing Obama was a 'mandate' from the American people. FINALLY - the majority said, enough is enough! It's amusing to see the Republican biased news channels scramble for something positive to say about their party. I think they are in shock myself. Oh - and on election night there was talk about how much of a difference the late counting of the overseas military might effect the outcome (this was when they had hope that it might be close in some of the key states). One old guy said that traditionally, the overseas voting is Republican. I was all - 'you got to be kidding!' What he hell has he been listening to the past year? Actually, in the primary, Ron Paul got the nod from a huge segment of our military. (And you don't need to tell me how curious it is for people to jump from Ron Paul to Obama..because I did it.) Anyway, our serviceman jumped from backing Bush to Ron Paul to being overwhelmingly in support of Obama. Doonesbury hit the nail on the head in many areas with this cartoon. I remember during the Republican primary debates McCain and Paul arguing about the support they received from the active military. I've been wondering since then who actually deployed soldiers and veterans supported more. I've also been curious about who Paul supporters shifted their support to after he dropped out of the race. If anyone has any stats, I'd be interested in seeing them. I didn't watch Fox News on election night of course, but some one at Salon.com did. Very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Nov 6, 2008 12:59:21 GMT -5
<snip> Oh - and on election night there was talk about how much of a difference the late counting of the overseas military might effect the outcome (this was when they had hope that it might be close in some of the key states). One old guy said that traditionally, the overseas voting is Republican. I was all - 'you got to be kidding!' What he hell has he been listening to the past year? Actually, in the primary, Ron Paul got the nod from a huge segment of our military. (And you don't need to tell me how curious it is for people to jump from Ron Paul to Obama..because I did it.) <snip> I made the jump from Ron Paul to Obama as well, and I understand how people can look at us (Karen and I and others that voted that way) a little funny. For me, it was the concept that Ron Paul has it mostly right. I don't agree with him one hundred percent but I appreciate his integrity, honesty and commitment. I applauded his stance on Iraq. With him out of hte picture what was I left with as viable choices? Well, McCain believes we should be in Iraq and seems all willing to run into Iran and thinks spending the billions and billions we are on funding this war is just hunky dory. Add to that his support of giving all sorts of breaks to the rich and the corps while the common people are losing their homes and their jobs in record amounts, there was no way I was supporting him. That left me with Obama or Clinton. There the decison was fairly easy: I don't trust Hillary Clinton. More to the point, I don't trust her backers. It's old school Washington insiders. I am not a Democrat (or a Republican) and I don't look back on the Bill Clinton years so dreamily like so many died-in-the wool Dems do. She owes too many folks favors for me to believe that any policies that come from her won't be riddled with backroom deals and pork even if I believe her intentions are good. I didn't like her version of universal health insurance. And, I doubted her full commitment to our orderly withdrawal from Iraq. That being said, I would have voted for her over John McCain. So, that left me Obama. He is charismatic. He is extremely intelligent. He seemed level-headed. He wanted us out of Iraq and was opposed to us going there in the first place and made an upfront proposal on a timeplan to getting us out that made sense to "me." He is an "outsider". I appreciated how he handled the financial crisis last month. The real thing that sold me on him, tho'... and I didn't realize it until I was watching him give his acceptance speech: His speech to the American public when the Rev. Wright stuff came up last spring. That was one of the best speeches I have ever heard a modern politician give and I believed him. It was gutsy. It was personal. I felt it came from his heart. I trusted him. I feel comfortable having him as what I think of the postion being: this country's number one ambassador. The face of our nation. I am sure I will disagree with his positions from time to time over the next 4 years. I quivered quite a bit about his flip on the FISA bill this summer. But in the end, I still trust him to make his own decisions and to make as few concessions as possible against the American public. In the end, we have to go on a mixture of hope and faith and past history in picking our leaders. His was the best ratio of candidates running for me. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Nov 6, 2008 13:04:35 GMT -5
Also for the record: I have nothing good to say about the Republican party at the moment. I believe they have failed dismally in their so-called conservatism. How conservative can say, Senator Stevens be when all he gave a damn about is his ability to bring home earmarks to Alaska; earmarks that cost the American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars? How conservative can he be when he engages in criminal behavior to the detriment of the people he represents and the integrity of the Federal government? On another note, I find it curious how so many politicians go into public office not personally wealthy, but leave or end up being very, very wealthy. All this on less than $200,000.00 annual salaries. Which is a point for Joe Biden. The man has been a senator for over 30 years and his personal net worth is something like 150-250K? A good portion of that being his returns from his autobiography a couple years back. The man has less personal holdings than some blue color workers of his age that I know. He's the real deal. He obviously isn't in it for the bucks. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Nov 6, 2008 13:20:03 GMT -5
Also for the record: I have nothing good to say about the Republican party at the moment. I believe they have failed dismally in their so-called conservatism. How conservative can say, Senator Stevens be when all he gave a damn about is his ability to bring home earmarks to Alaska; earmarks that cost the American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars? How conservative can he be when he engages in criminal behavior to the detriment of the people he represents and the integrity of the Federal government? On another note, I find it curious how so many politicians go into public office not personally wealthy, but leave or end up being very, very wealthy. All this on less than $200,000.00 annual salaries. Which is a point for Joe Biden. The man has been a senator for over 30 years and his personal net worth is something like 150-250K? A good portion of that being his returns from his autobiography a couple years back. The man has less personal holdings than some blue color workers of his age that I know. He's the real deal. He obviously isn't in it for the bucks. Vlad He's one of the few, that's for sure and I do admire that he puts his mouth where is money is, or isn't for that matter. I think he's too left of center for my tastes, but I won't deny he's a very, very smart man. See this for additional information. These are the people who say they know how the average American lives?
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Nov 6, 2008 13:22:11 GMT -5
I'm with Karen. I would love to see the Federal tax system overhauled. Won't happen as long as Congress can garner favor and votes with "tax advantages" to those they need. Again, the regular people get hosed. Maybe I need to move to an island somewhere and live off of coconuts or something.
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Nov 6, 2008 13:29:06 GMT -5
I'm at a loss to explain why a state that is pretty much completely "blue" (see results for the presidential election) and socially progressive in so many ways would vote to ban gay marriage. What is up with that? Why does anyone care who gets married, unless they think it effects something economically? That's pretty specious from, say my standpoint. Maybe not an employer that pays for health insurance but hey, they can change that option for everyone if it's a money thing. Make co-pays bigger, whatever. I don't get it. I would rather see unions of all kinds (between humans until such time as other humanoid life forms are found, I do have my limits) legalized and "legitimized" in the eyes of society than make a group of people feel they have to deny their chose family arrangement. That has all kinds of bad potential. What am I missing? This country has a homophobia to be sure. One larger than the diminishing bigotry. Me, I am not homophobic so I don't completely get it. On the other hand, I am not gay and don't currently have anyone near to me in my life that is, so it's not a topic that I think about much. But, back in my young underage days I used to frequent a gay bar with a pal of mine because they never carded us. I used to get hit on a lot and it never bothered me. My feeling was "Hey, at least someone found me "attractive." When I married my first wife in 1991, there was a gay male couple in attendance that were friends of my ex and myself; she even lived with them before she and I moved in together. They actually purchased that old bar I used to go to and I spent many an evening in there socializing with them. I think, however, that Onjel hit a nail on the head with the portion I redded above. The common person doesn't have that many "gay" friends and therefore it's not much of an issue to them one way or the other. They can be uncomfortable thinking about gay marriage because they were frequently taught that being gay is abnormal or wrong and definitely something they don't want their kids dealing with. It's irrational, but it's there. Then, add to it "My insurance premiums or co-pays will go up? Screw that!" A split vote (which is was it was) over an entire state, even California, doesn't surprise me at all. I have sympathy for the gay couples out there that this affects and I think eventually it will shift the 5 points needed in their favor. I know that I personally would vote positively for gay marriage, but at the same time, I am hardly going to be the one leading the crusade. My thought is: you already have my vote, go convince someone else. Much the same way I feel about decriminalization of marijuana, assisted suicide, pro-choice and so many other topics. When asked my opinions, I give them straightly, even trying to paint them in the most favorable way to convince my audience where I think they could be receptive, but I am not going to pick up a placard and march. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 6, 2008 13:35:45 GMT -5
I wish I had time to get into this discussion. Maybe later. But for those of you who don't get Newsweek in print there is an depth look at what went on behind the scenes in both campaigns here: www.newsweek.com/id/167582
|
|