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

^^^ implicitly suggests that Nader would fall more to the moderately left-wing end of the Dutch political spectre. i'm not even trying to be a jerk or anything, nor am i upset, it's just that you're pretty obviously saying that our lefties aren't as left as yours.

Not being a jerk here either! :) I was in no way trying to make a 'comparison', because between countries they are obviously useless. Yes, Nader would indeed fall into the moderately left-wing here, I agree. But I am in no way making, or want to make, the point that " 'our' lefties are more left as yours". That's ridiculous.

Obama likes civil unions. I don't know if it's for the same reasons that I do; I think everyone who wants 'marriage' in the legal sense should have to get one a la Europe town hall/no religion service. If you wanna do anything 'under God', take it up with your church leaders (and I know 'marriage' is tied up in all sorts of property associations but this IS the 21st century). Keep church and state separate as the Constitution and the Bible clearly demand.

All my friends in London ask me with the trepidation of those who do not realize that they are concern-trolling, 'is America really ready for a black president?' and in each and every case I have to point out most Americans are not as racist as the tornado bait they see bitching on television, but that I can see why anyone in the EU might ask, considering all these countries' stellar records in launching candidates of colour for their own higher offices. That and a side order of 'my Congressman's an African-American Muslim. Suck it.'

"tornado bait"

wow

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-thursday-debate-open/742065/

This last week's SNL debate sketch

I would call that woman from Lakeville 'tornado bait' to her face.

now that's upping the discourse

I know. ILX: where longtime posters come to vent.

I don't see how stating that obama would be considered pretty rightwing in certain european countries could be at all contentious, then I'm not sure what it has to do with anything either.

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-thursday-debate-open/742065/

This last week's SNL debate sketch

― the RHETERIC (kingfish), Sunday, October 12, 2008 1:54 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

pretty good stuff

I don't see how stating that obama would be considered pretty rightwing in certain european countries could be at all contentious, then I'm not sure what it has to do with anything either.

― sonderangerbot, Sunday, October 12, 2008 2:08 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

because its utterly meaningless. "what if this person was working in an entirely different political system in an entirely different context?" as if that wouldn't somehow impact his outlook. his beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, they're a response to the conditions around him

Re the gay marriage thing: Have I got it all wrong if I read it as he wants full equality in the civil sense, but won't force churches etc to accept and implement equal rights in the religious sense (which seems consistent with true church/state separation)?

Skipping past the dumb europe/america debate -

That last sentence though, "and that to impose a top-down revision to the constitution based on electoral politics would ultimately hurt the cause", makes me simply wonder: why? How would that hurt the cause?

On a variety of issues, Americans have historically been more reactionary when things are, or are framed as being, "imposed from above" at the federal level. Typically this has to do with the Supreme Court doing things, since it's rare that Congress can act unilaterally to do anything particularly severe in either direction.

America's state-level governments are much more numerous, developed, and significant than any comparable thing in Europe, and people can be convinced that "state's rights" are being taken away, or simply that a handful of people In Washington - which seems VERY far away from most people's lives, just geographically speaking - are deciding things "for the rest of us."

Not to say that any of that is necessarily fair, or rational, but we've seen it again and again - school desegregation, abortion rights, etc. Some advocates of gay rights may believe that their long-term chances are better with states gradually bringing rights on-line (as happened this week in Connecticut). That's not to say that Brown v. Board of education was a bad ruling, or that nobody would cheer if the US Supreme Court suddenly ruled in favor of gay marriage (it was a big deal when they killed all sodomy legislation a few years ago) - but it would also really harden the resistance of the opposition at a time when it seems like the state-by-state strategy is slowly producing meaningful gains which have - mostly - not been reversed in this decade.

(It is also producing meaningful losses as countless voter referenda and state constitutional amendments have blocked further progress in conservative states - this is where things get very tricky.)

I hope that offers some clarity!

Anatol - I think that's the idea - civil unions as a "marriage in everything but name" to avoid offending churches. This is a curious position for a constitutional law professor to adopt but I think he is trying to be pragmatic. In the long run, only judges will be able to articulate hardline equal-protection standpoints without losing their jobs.

Offers clarity a plenty, Dr. Casino, thanks. If the implementation in state law of gay marriage is ultimately, however slowly, gaining ground, then I can see why forcing it into the law country wise would throw it all back ten years.

it was a big deal when they killed all sodomy legislation a few years ago

Lawrence v. Texas, if that's what you're referring to, did not "kill all sodomy legislation" a few years ago--they merely ruled that Texas's anti-sodomy statutes were unconsitutional.

Yes, Lawrence v. Texas (I didn't want to get into the details for the sake of our foreign friend). It overturns Bowers v. Hardwick and leaves no clear ground AFAICT for any criminalization of homosexual sodomy to remain on the books. For the purposes of this discussion what more do you want it to do?

and by "legislation" here I'm reading your use of that word to mean a law which has been proposed by a legislative body but has not been enacted upon rather than a "statute" which is enacted law. Lawrence wiped clean the sodomy statutes. so to speak.

sorry xpost--i was mainly referring to your use of the word "legislation."

Re: Europe being more leftwing than us -- I'll buy it. As long as Europeans also admit that their rightwingers are much more rightwing than us. We don't have Prime Minister's who express admiration for fascist governments (Berlusconi), nor do we have serious Nazi-sympathetic parties. Part of this is obviously due to the fact we have a two party system (and not parliamentary) but we also don't have the national myths/mysticism that seem to show up in Europe every few years.

(We obviously do have a myth of American exceptionalism, but that's also related to our myth of pluralism and the Great Melting Pot.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/11/politics/fromtheroad/entry4515246.shtml

After Palin finished her remarks this morning, the man holding the stuffed monkey seemed to notice that a video camera was pointed at him, at which point he removed the Obama sticker from the doll’s head and crumpling it up in his hand. He then handed the doll to a young boy who was watching the rally from his father’s shoulders. The boy’s parents later told CBS News that they weren’t acquainted with the man who gave their son the stuffed monkey.

― eman, Sunday, October 12, 2008 2:33 AM (13 hours ago) Bookmark

...

We obviously do have a myth of American exceptionalism

Palin frequently references this approvingly but removes the "myth" part.

xpost god what a gutless fat piece of shit that monkey doll guy is

he looks hilarious
im not hating those crowds are scary

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Rick_Davis_plays_POW_card_to_1012.html

fuck this dude

haha everyone's favorite gutless fat piece of shit was videotaped before the rally proudly holding the monkey doll with obama sticker, calling it "little hussein"

snl thursday thing was on fire

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk4/iemenvr/5993646.jpg

America has a lot of national myths, and its leaders seem much more explicitly in hock to the myth or myths of America than British leaders do. They also say 'God Bless America' and apparently have to be, or appear to be, devoutly religious to achieve high office.

There are reactionaries and progressive in America; there are reactionaries and progressives elsewhere.

Suzy, it sounds like you don't like your friends in London much.

That's why American literature is so awesome.

I like where this thread is going.

Pinefox, America has lots of religion, but outside Mormonism, not a lot of National religious mythology.

I'm not sure what that means. It remains a fact that one must be not merely tacitly or silently religious, but very stridently christian and constantly invoking and celebrating one's faith, to achieve the highest office (maybe not lower offices) in the US. I don't think that this is a good thing. It is not the case in the UK. The situation in other countries, perhaps others can describe, if they care to, though I expect they don't.

bulllllllllllllllshitttttttttttttttttttttt

it's ya boyyyy dan lacey

http://www.faithmouse.com/barack_obama_cartoon.jpg

lol

racist monkey dude looks like that creature they had selling six flags great america

It remains a fact that one must be not merely tacitly or silently religious, but very stridently christian and constantly invoking and celebrating one's faith, to achieve the highest office (maybe not lower offices) in the US.

Paying lip service and showing up at the occasional "prayer breakfast" =/= strident christianity.

obama loves pie

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/12/on-the-trail-obama-finds-nothings-as-easy-aspie/

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/12/on-the-trail-obama-finds-nothings-as-easy-aspie/

I like my friends in London just fine, pinefox. You know that.

Perhaps I'm not explaining well enough, but a friend raised the issue last week and I reminded her that 10 years ago all kinds of pieces ran about David Lammy one day being the first viable black Labour candidate for PM and wondered why he hadn't gone up the chain of command as fast as certain promising American politicians. OTOH Muslim MPs are not a huge news event here and the public is protected from excessive religiosity by a state-sanctioned church symbolically headed by a constitutional monarch.

the public is protected from excessive religiosity by a state-sanctioned church symbolically headed by a constitutional monarch.

Correlation does not imply causation.

caek, that's a great retort but it lacks a substantive explanation. Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

"protection from excessive religiosity" has very little to do with the fact that the Church is formally established or we have a constitutional monarchy. Neither is true of France or many other European countries where politicians' faith is a private matter. We do all use the metric system though, so maybe that's the reason.

I know what that MEANS, but I just don't AGREE. Tch.

nsfw gif

^^post this whenever this thread gets derailed

I am so sick of seeing what some MORAN concocted while thinking about Sarah Palin's cooter.

yes