2008 USP(G)ET pt. II: counting the days to 2012 primary thread 1

Shakey that's a tricky view b/c it ends up sounding like

lolz yeah the courts had nothing to do with civil rights did they

but as I say, for me it's not a dealbreaker. I'm just pointing out that the position "this is a fucking dealbreaker" is hardly some "O you are hysterical" stuff, and again, since when are we on the left big states-rights fans? A: when it's convenient/when we figure we can trade the votes we'll lose

xpost no, he hasn't.

lol the courts didn't have as much to do with it as fucking LBJ

or Hillary Clinton

this argument came down to the word 'marriage' before and it's religious context

I mean I would hope that it is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that what is needed to ensure the rights of gay couples is a Supreme Court decision recognizing the legitimacy of their claims to equal treatment under the law. The way to get that decision is for a case to work its way through the courts so that a precedent can be established. Then when individual states complain and attempt to avoid compliance, that's when the federal gov't steps in (and lolz sends in the national guard if necessary or whatever)

x-post

if you think LBJ would've had a leg to stand on without Brown vs. the Board of Education you are fucking retarded

good grief. this thread.

No doubt you're right Shakey! The way to not be a huge chickenshit, though, is to say "I think a person has the right to marry whomever he or she loves," not "Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination. I think it is the right balance to strike in this society" (Obama on gay marriage) = where "balance" equals the balance between an individual's right to live as he or she sees fit vs. a Christian's right to impose his/her values on others with the help of the State behind him

dudes though seriously I'm just kinda flappin my fuckin gums here, I'm constitutionally incapable of abandoning an argument, I know this politically is a non-starter, it's just an objection in principle, nothin to see here move on

oh you're talking about school desegregation! but that's nothing like full equality, is it? I am fucking retarded btw

a Christian's right to impose his/her values on others with the help of the State behind him

there is nothing in Obama's statement that implies this viewpoint

oh you're talking about school desegregation! but that's nothing like full equality, is it? I am fucking retarded btw

dude school desegregation provided the legal rationale for full equality. come on this is US civics 101 here

Actually what Obama's doing is more radical than you are giving him credit for. Basically he's saying is fuck the word marriage, let the looneys and the churches keep it and do whatever the hell they want with it. Everyone'll have civil unions and your pastor/congregation can do what they want. Even though I called it "pussy-footing" above, I actually this way of framing the debate is not only pretty clever, but pretty sensible.

also it appropriately respects the proper separation between church and state, distinguishing between the LEGAL rights everyone should have as "married" couples from whatever religious hokum bullshit people hang on the term.

Actually what Obama's doing is more radical than you are giving him credit for. Basically he's saying is fuck the word marriage, let the looneys and the churches keep it and do whatever the hell they want with it.

yeah, I would be quite happy if I believed this, but I don't.

and Shakey let me know when Obama's position actually has something to do with stripping the word marriage of its legal repercussions and leaving it to the same sort of legal status as baptism, confirmation, etc

lol the courts didn't have as much to do with it as fucking LBJ

― it's a great breakup balllad sung by Bill Champlin (Euler), Friday, September 19, 2008 6:45 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

wtf

The way Alex defines Obama's position, Obama's not too different from John Kerry.

part of Obama's slipperiness on the issue is that he hasn't been pinned down on what "marriage" means.

jesus h christ

basically the problem with Obama is that he's a fucking constitutional law professor

hahaha lolz

xp those fucking guys

and Shakey let me know when Obama's position actually has something to do with stripping the word marriage of its legal repercussions

when your legal argument is that "civil unions" should guarantee all the rights traditionally conferred by the state to "marriages" this is essentially the end result. so wtf J0hn.

Look, public opinion's moving in our favor. It's been five years since Lawrence v. Texas. Watch momentum pick up when Californians vote against the ballot initiative in November.

re: public opinion, the fact that it's a public conversation = the battle has already been fought, and the good guys have won, and the rest is just playing out the string (though it may take a while)...

I should keep you guys on retainer as my lawyers.

I will donate 10k to the Obama campaign if he makes "you know, weddings are already pretty gay" the public face of his position on this issue

― J0hn D., Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:16 PM (3 months ago)

and btw we already have a thread for this: Marriage Protection Kit

haha that reminds me some fuckhead came to my in-laws house in San Diego with his pregnant wife and young son in tow, asking if we supported the gay marriage ban initiative on the ballot. My in-law was polite in telling him "no fucking way" but it really got under his skin. Personally I was wondering who was funding the polling and why.

x-post

I am terribly sorry I missed that thread.

then I thought "man, what sort of fucked up family outing is it when you're bringing your at least 6-months preggers wife and your kid walking door-to-door in 95% heat to make sure there's no queers in your neighborhood"

x-post

er 95 DEGREE

that Democrat Party, causin problems agin

"John McCain and I are committed to drawing attention to the dangers posed by Iran's nuclear program," she said, "and we will not waver in our commitment. I will continue to call for sustained action to prevent Iranian president Ahmadinejad from getting these weapons to launch a second Holocaust."

I'm out of the loop. Is this kind of language about Iran within the Overton window in the U.S.?

Just in the last week or so it seems.

from Politico:

“The problem that Sen. McCain has got at this moment is that this is a big government intervention in the financial markets, and guess what? : At the moment, it’s working,” says former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, an Obama supporter. “His fundamental argument all along has been to keep the government out of it. But if the government hadn’t intervened, this thing could easily have spiraled out of control.”

That’s the bad news for McCain. The bad news for Obama: The economic crisis could help propel him to the presidency, but if the federal government spends $1 trillion or even $500 billion bailing out financial companies, it won’t have much left over for the plans he hopes to pursue come January.

Obama’s ambitious domestic agenda, larded with $65 billion-a-year health care reform and $15 billion green jobs program, will almost certainly be cut back in the face of a deficit swollen by hundreds of billions in bailouts. And he will face increased scrutiny over the next 47 days over whether he can accomplish his agenda – along with a major middle-class tax cut – in the current environment.

“President Obama’s going to have to stand before a Democratic Congress and say, ‘Some of the things that you and I as Democrats want to get done, we’re not going to be able to,’” Kerrey said.

Michael Ettlinger, an economist with the left-leaning Center for American Progress, says the downturn is a double-edged sword. It creates a “greater demand for Obama’s program,” but it also means that Obama’s proposals would “have to be delayed or rolled out over a longer period of time.”

same thing that happened to Clinton, too^^

On Thursday, organizers announced that they had withdrawn their invitation for Palin to attend, saying they did not want the event to be overtly political.

uh huh

since when are we on the left big states-rights fans?

since the progressive States started becoming laboratories for progressive policy that moved a lot faster on things like, yes, gay marriage than the big, slow, held-hostage-by-a-few-old-people-in-the-middle-of-nowhere federal government. or were you suggesting that we put shibboleths ahead of reality?

lol biden

or were you suggesting that we put shibboleths ahead of reality?

incomplete interrogatory sentences that sum up all ILX political threads ever, episode I

"Remember, no one decides who they’re going to vote for based on the vice president,” he said. “I mean that literally."

Oh God, what a horrible closing line.

Wait, wasn't it lots of deficit spending and huge government programs that got us out of the great depression? Or has something in the economy/politics changed such that that approach wouldn't work again?

same thing that happened to Clinton, too^^

so basically the cycle is, leave the democrats (who like government and know how to work the levers) to clean up the mess and get the economy back on track, just in time for the next republican administration to come in and skim the cream off the top and spend a gazillion dollars on shiny new weapons and a couple discretionary wars.

there are times when i think my friends who rant about the 2-party system are on solid ground. but then i look around at all the more-than-2-party systems and they look just as fucked. i guess maybe just avoiding the one-party systems is ambitious enough for me.

I've become convinced that you can either have a unicameral legislature and a multiparty system (still gets nothing done) or a bicameral and a 2-party system (u know) - examples of exceptions would be welcome.

citizens of federal democracies would be well advised to look at any period wherein all branches of national government shared the same set of goals and think hard on whether they really believe that progress is served by letting the head of state do as he or she pleases

this latest is hopefully the end of supply-side; that's another nixonland concept that can be given the merciful headshot. For those keeping score, it's 2008, and we are now at Roosevelt 20, Reagan 2.

Left leaning smartypants who are so ready to dismiss stupid bigot Amerikkka might be well served to note the lack of negro water fountains, in re: gay marriage; just because the electorate is a little slower than your brilliant selves doesn't mean they're actually backwards

(bill maher pissed me off tonight, a little)

http://www.mercuras.com/0908/Steal_300_ani.GIF