FOT Forum
FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: erika on November 05, 2008, 12:09:29 AM
-
(http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/110408_presidentobama.jpg)
-
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!
It feels like being ten pounds lighter. Like ten pounds of shame have been lifted off each of our shoulders.
-
It feels great to no longer feel like an ideological outsider in my own country.
Fuck you Bush.
-
PROUD MOMENTS.
-
Sometimes you feel like you love everyone in the world. For me, tonight was one of those times.
I LOVE YOU GUYS!!! WE DID IT!!! GOOD GUYS WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I just got back from an impromptu parade we had at Rutgers. It was fucking awesome.
-
I'm going to DC on Inauguration Day.
;D
-
I'm just so proud.
-
It feels like I'm on drugs, but I'm not!
(to be honest, I was pretty drunk)
-
I teared up during Obama's acceptance speech. So great.
Also, Mcain was a gracious loser. I thought his concession speech was really good.
;D
-
McCain was a class act.
I'm drunk!!
And very happy Obama won.
-
I am very, very relieved. And very, very happy. And very, very grateful. And very, very scared.
-
McCain was a class act.
You could sense that the McCain crowd was seething with hate - at first I thought against Obama, but then it felt like they were soooo pissed at McCain. I think McCain will more or less be kicked out of the party after this.
Anyway: YAY FOR AMERICA! YOU DID IT!
-
A good day to be American! Congratulations!
-
Phillies won, Obama won, an awesome Batman sequel came out, Chinese Democracy is coming out, companies were forced to give away free tacos, free coffee and free Dr. Pepper, holograms arrived and are poised to take over the world...2008 feels like The Year The Future Finally Arrived.
And we still have December ahead of us where they could close things out the only way that makes sense, with the announcement that jetpack technology has been perfected. Now is the time.
-
And we still have December ahead of us where they could close things out the only way that makes sense, with the announcement that jetpack technology has been perfected. Now is the time.
YES WE CAN!!!
I still want my hover board though.
-
Remember this?
(http://blogs.indiewire.com/eug/archives/images/mirror.jpg)
I've had a printout of this on my wall since 2004. I wish the Mirror would print a companion piece to tack up alongside it.
-
looking at some (most) of the comments on the local news sites, it appears not everyone is overjoyed that the best candidate won. it's almost as if people have gotten creepier/more irrational/more racist overnight. people were literally saying that this is one of the worst days in american history. really? i don't doubt that president obama (feels good saying that) will try his best to reach out to those folks in the hopes of bringing everyone into the fold, but it seems like you can never satisfy some people. they were either entirely apathetic and/or happy to wallow in the fear and misery of the last eight years - and all too willing to vote in another 4 years of that nonsense - so i don't know what anyone can do to get them to take the blinders off and see that this is a good thing - for everyone. people have to come together, in some respect, if this change thing is going to work.
-
looking at some (most) of the comments on the local news sites, it appears not everyone is overjoyed that the best candidate won. it's almost as if people have gotten creepier/more irrational/more racist overnight. people were literally saying that this is one of the worst days in american history. really? i don't doubt that president obama (feels good saying that) will try his best to reach out to those folks in the hopes of bringing everyone into the fold, but it seems like you can never satisfy some people. they were either entirely apathetic and/or happy to wallow in the fear and misery of the last eight years - and all too willing to vote in another 4 years of that nonsense - so i don't know what anyone can do to get them to take the blinders off and see that this is a good thing - for everyone. people have to come together, in some respect, if this change thing is going to work.
I say the heck with them
let them be marginalized, I don't feel the need to reach out to crazy irrational people. Sensible people I can form a consensus with--the rest F 'em.
-
What's worse is that I have so many friends who don't want anything to do with a candidate if he's not a third party. Someone actually told me there wasn't much difference between McCain and Obama. They said they just "couldn't be happy that Obama was winning" even though they consider themselves liberals. Because he's too corrupt.
I'm all about third parties but that's just not how the country works right now. And to let your disappointment in that fact blur your vision so much that you say there is no major difference between McCain and Obama is a real shame.
I can't wait to see this man inaugurated... for the first time in my lifetime an election has warmed my heart. All we have right now is hope and even if everything doesn't work out 100% the way we want it to (it never does) we at least have a respectable man for president. I feel like he's one of us, not some elitist pig who went to Harvard because his daddy had friends in high places.
-
I'm so happy. There were fireworks in my neighborhood moments after the Best Show ended/the election was called, and everyone seems especially nice today. People are actually smiling. On the street. In New York. What a day!
-
There are people in this town who try to put me down - they say I don't give a damn...
...But the people in this town who try to put me down are the people in this town who could never understand a black man!
-
i don't doubt that president obama (feels good saying that) will try his best to reach out to those folks in the hopes of bringing everyone into the fold, but it seems like you can never satisfy some people. they were either entirely apathetic and/or happy to wallow in the fear and misery of the last eight years - and all too willing to vote in another 4 years of that nonsense - so i don't know what anyone can do to get them to take the blinders off and see that this is a good thing - for everyone. people have to come together, in some respect, if this change thing is going to work.
Well, we'll just have to persuade them by helping to make sure the good things come true. My sister and I are already composing a list of things we might be able to do to make things better. A lot of our ideas have to do with local matters, but she also had the idea of trying to start a movement among people who don't really need a tax cut (and a lot of people--even middle-class people--don't) to decline it--much the way one can refuse WFMU swag when making a pledge during the marathon. Why should Obama have to do all the work? Why can't we help as well? After all, "ask not what your country can do for you" and all that.
How's that for fucking hope?
-
Sarah I just heard your call from last night and it felt so good to hear you echo the feeling that for the first time in your life you had hope for an election. Great call. Great feeling.
-
Not just for an election, ma'am. For a country.
-
Well, we'll just have to persuade them by helping to make sure the good things come true. My sister and I are already composing a list of things we might be able to do to make things better. A lot of our ideas have to do with local matters, but she also had the idea of trying to start a movement among people who don't really need a tax cut (and a lot of people--even middle-class people--don't) to decline it--much the way one can refuse WFMU swag when making a pledge during the marathon. Why should Obama have to do all the work? Why can't we help as well? After all, "ask not what your country can do for you" and all that.
How's that for fucking hope?
i like it.
-
What's worse is that I have so many friends who don't want anything to do with a candidate if he's not a third party. Someone actually told me there wasn't much difference between McCain and Obama. They said they just "couldn't be happy that Obama was winning" even though they consider themselves liberals. Because he's too corrupt.
I'm all about third parties but that's just not how the country works right now. And to let your disappointment in that fact blur your vision so much that you say there is no major difference between McCain and Obama is a real shame.
I can't wait to see this man inaugurated... for the first time in my lifetime an election has warmed my heart. All we have right now is hope and even if everything doesn't work out 100% the way we want it to (it never does) we at least have a respectable man for president. I feel like he's one of us, not some elitist pig who went to Harvard because his daddy had friends in high places.
I'm one of those people who will remain eternally skeptical of Democrats AND Republicans, but that's no reason not to be happy that the more qualified candidate won the election. John McCain was a good guy who got twisted around by his party and couldn't handle it, while Obama remained cool and collected throughout. And when I heard Obama announced as president (by Jon Stewart!) and saw the tears in Stephen Colbert's eyes, and in the eyes of everyone else around me, I couldn't help but feel good. What our country did last night was remarkable, and Obama ran a remarkable campaign, and I believe that he will be much needed medicine for our ailing country. He inspires people, and if people feel inspired by their president, our country will be a better place. I'm also relieved that Sarah Palin is out the door. At least, I hope she is.
-
What's worse is that I have so many friends who don't want anything to do with a candidate if he's not a third party. Someone actually told me there wasn't much difference between McCain and Obama. They said they just "couldn't be happy that Obama was winning" even though they consider themselves liberals. Because he's too corrupt.
Those people are simply a different type of sheep. Still sheep though.
Anyway, I've been there and I'm sure many others have too. Yeah, I voted for Nader in 2000. Problem is, you can't have it all at once. You need to take steps. Obama is the step. If they can't see that, then they're only setting themselves up for unending disappointment.
-
What's worse is that I have so many friends who don't want anything to do with a candidate if he's not a third party. Someone actually told me there wasn't much difference between McCain and Obama. They said they just "couldn't be happy that Obama was winning" even though they consider themselves liberals. Because he's too corrupt.
Those people are simply a different type of sheep. Still sheep though.
Anyway, I've been there and I'm sure many others have too. Yeah, I voted for Nader in 2000. Problem is, you can't have it all at once. You need to take steps. Obama is the step. If they can't see that, then they're only setting themselves up for unending disappointment.
Third parties can't work with first past the post elections. I think I learned that on the first day of political science 101.
-
Some people find fruitless causes romantic. I'm definitely guilty of it too. But a part of it has to do with age as well, I think. As I age, I find myself becoming increasingly interested in what is actually plausible.
-
I forget the name of the law (my memory is saying The Brewer & Shipley act, but that can't be right), but some time in the first half of the 20th century - maybe right after WW2? The Democrats and Republicans passed a law that basically makes third parties completely untenable. The emergence of the Republicans in the 19th century demonstrates that it is possible for a new party to emerge and take the place of a dying party - for a brief time I thought this might happen with the Greens and the Democrats, but the current legal framework makes this impossible.
Boo on Prop. 8. I hope all those nice gay couples come back east to Jersey and Massachusetts and prop up the economy and go to plays and cultural events and generally make things look nicer.
-
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/599/slide_599_12428_large.jpg)
-
I forget the name of the law (my memory is saying The Brewer & Shipley act, but that can't be right), but some time in the first half of the 20th century - maybe right after WW2? The Democrats and Republicans passed a law that basically makes third parties completely untenable. The emergence of the Republicans in the 19th century demonstrates that it is possible for a new party to emerge and take the place of a dying party - for a brief time I thought this might happen with the Greens and the Democrats, but the current legal framework makes this impossible.
As far as I know it's mostly state laws that stand in the way of third party ballot access. Either way there are definitely dumb laws that make it hard for a new party to get traction, but essentially every country that has a plurality voting systems ends up with a two party system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_Law
It's actually Duverger's tendency. Some say that the groups that would have seats in the legislature under a proportional system have to be appeased by the major parties, but that doesn't ever seem to really happen.
Arrow's Theorem shows that there's no such thing as a perfect voting system. But preferential voting or proportional representation would definitely be closer. On the other hand, stability can be a good thing, too, as long as you've stabilized on something good. I'm not sure we should emulate the Italian model of government.
-
Boo on Prop. 8. I hope all those nice gay couples come back east to Jersey and Massachusetts and prop up the economy and go to plays and cultural events and generally make things look nicer.
Seroisly. WTF California!?! I am from that state and thought FOR SURE this would be defeated. What a disappointment. All my friends in CA are just a surprised...
BOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
-
Is there a demographic chart that shows how California might have voted on that issue?
-
here's how it broke down regionally:
(http://i37.tinypic.com/2923er6.jpg)
-
I read that about 70% of African Americans and 2/3 of Hispanics voted for the amendment, so increased turnout for Obama probably killed it.
Many traditional Democratic constituencies are socially conservative in a lot of ways-- not just minorities but unions, etc.
-
It's amazing to me that Prop 8 even won in LA county. I'm wondering, did Gavin Newsom's statements to the effect of "Gay marriage is reality now, get used to it" result in kind of a we'll-show-them mentality among voters? Or is this just good old fashioned backlash? Either way, pretty childish, if you ask me.
I agree with your statement about traditional Democratic constituencies, yesno, but I hate to jump to the conclusion that we should blame the minorities for Prop 8 passing. Especially when there's that swath of counties all the way up the Central Valley where it won. I know there are lots of Latino voters there, but still.
I don't want to forget to mention how happy I am too. Even though Obama is walking into a hell of a tough situation.
-
I read that about 70% of African Americans and 2/3 of Hispanics voted for the amendment, so increased turnout for Obama probably killed it.
That's what I figured but I don't know if I'll ever understand why that is.
-
I was going to post about all of the joyous voice mails I got at 11:01 from family and friends but all this Prop 8 shit is bringing me down. Isn't it the joy thread??
-
Can someone please explain to me how banning gay marriage is constitutional? By defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, an definition inherent to some religions, aren't we going against our freedom of religion? I'm not just asking rhetorically; I really want to know if these same-sex marriage bans actually violate my rights.
Sorry to continue to bring down the joy thread.
-
I just want to say again the LDS morons and the Catholic church sponsored/funded those bills
they get sensitive when you call them on their hocus pocus bullshit and their child raping but have no problems interfering in the private lives of Americans.
In a way it's good, maybe progressives will start taking a harder stance.
-
Can someone please explain to me how banning gay marriage is constitutional? By defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, an definition inherent to some religions, aren't we going against our freedom of religion? I'm not just asking rhetorically; I really want to know if these same-sex marriage bans actually violate my rights.
Sorry to continue to bring down the joy thread.
It would take forever, but laws governing behavior usually aren't seen to violate the first amendment even if they happen to interfere with someone's religious beliefs (peyote) or enshrine someone else's obviously religiously-inspired belief (sunday blue laws).
I'd follow the ACLU lawsuit which raises the most plausible claim, that the amendment violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. But that'll lose, too.
-
i didnt get drunk and i didnt eat pizza, but listening to obama's speech gave me goosebumps.
one thing that brought me down was mccain's concession speech. nothing to do with mccain, but more or less his supporters here in phoenix. all he had to do was say, "barack obama, " and everyone BOO'd their little lungs out. juvenile, classless nonsense in my opinion- what sore losers.
-
i didnt get drunk and i didnt eat pizza, but listening to obama's speech gave me goosebumps.
one thing that brought me down was mccain's concession speech. nothing to do with mccain, but more or less his supporters here in phoenix. all he had to do was say, "barack obama, " and everyone BOO'd their little lungs out. juvenile, classless nonsense in my opinion- what sore losers.
In all fairness, that almost always happens at concession speeches.
-
i didnt get drunk and i didnt eat pizza, but listening to obama's speech gave me goosebumps.
one thing that brought me down was mccain's concession speech. nothing to do with mccain, but more or less his supporters here in phoenix. all he had to do was say, "barack obama, " and everyone BOO'd their little lungs out. juvenile, classless nonsense in my opinion- what sore losers.
In all fairness, that almost always happens at concession speeches.
this is true, but it seemed pointless to use past elections. however, it is safe to say that almost always this happens at debate rallys and concession speeches.
-
This thread needs more joy because it's the joy thread!
This brings me joy:
(http://i37.tinypic.com/v7fgbl.jpg)
-
they get sensitive when you call them on their hocus pocus bullshit and their child raping
You are being a prick.
And I'm not just saying that because I'm a child rapist.
In my opinion, the word "marriage" and the concept of "marriage" should not be anywhere on lawbooks because it's a violation of the separation of church and state. Civil Unions between any two parties, regardless of sex or sexuality, with all the benefits of what we now call marriage, should be put into effect, and the word marriage should be left out of all federal and state legal language. It's a religious ceremony.
Edit: I'm not actually a child rapist.
-
In my opinion, the word "marriage" and the concept of "marriage" should not be anywhere on lawbooks because it's a violation of the separation of church and state. Civil Unions between any two parties, regardless of sex or sexuality, with all the benefits of what we now call marriage, should be put into effect, and the word marriage should be left out of all federal and state legal language. It's a religious ceremony.
I could get behind that. Unfortunately, it seems we're pretty far away from it.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage):
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg)
██ Same-sex marriages
██ Unions granting rights similar to marriage
██ Unions granting limited/enumerated rights
██ Foreign same-sex marriages recognized
██ Statute bans same-sex marriage
██ Constitution bans same-sex marriage
██ Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions
What bothers me even more than same-sex marriage bans, though, is gay or single parent adoption bans. With the number of kids in foster care and the number of parents who can't have kids (but want them), it's absurd to prevent any good and willing parent from adopting.
-
In my opinion, the word "marriage" and the concept of "marriage" should not be anywhere on lawbooks because it's a violation of the separation of church and state. Civil Unions between any two parties, regardless of sex or sexuality, with all the benefits of what we now call marriage, should be put into effect, and the word marriage should be left out of all federal and state legal language. It's a religious ceremony.
I could get behind that. Unfortunately, it seems we're pretty far away from it.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage):
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg)
██ Same-sex marriages
██ Unions granting rights similar to marriage
██ Unions granting limited/enumerated rights
██ Foreign same-sex marriages recognized
██ Statute bans same-sex marriage
██ Constitution bans same-sex marriage
██ Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions
What bothers me even more than same-sex marriage bans, though, is gay or single parent adoption bans. With the number of kids in foster care and the number of parents who can't have kids (but want them), it's absurd to prevent any good and willing parent from adopting.
that's the truth.
-
This thread needs more joy because it's the joy thread!
This brings me joy:
(http://i37.tinypic.com/v7fgbl.jpg)
I've heard conflicting reports about voter turnout, but that is really awesome. It brings me joy.
-
That's really something since I've heard that the African-American turnout was only up 2 percentage points.
-
Edit: I'm not actually a child rapist.
I was this close to unfriend you.
-
This thread needs more joy because it's the joy thread!
This brings me joy:
(http://i37.tinypic.com/v7fgbl.jpg)
Not to rain on your parade, I know it's a record turnout and it's awesome, and I know that the voter registration process keeps your numbers relatively low, but a turnout of "only" 66% would probably constitute a total political crisis over here. We usually end up around 85-90%, and when it's "down" to 80% people are up in arms about how it's the end of our democracy and so on.
What is the real idea/purpose of having to register to vote?
-
At least the US is headed in the right direction. I think 66% is still too low, but I never bemoaned that this rate of election participation is a crisis for democracy because it's been the case for so long here. It seems that people take it for granted that lots of Americans don't participate, and that's unfortunate.
-
What is the real idea/purpose of having to register to vote?
voter fraud, multiple votes being cast, statistics, etc.
-
I've always suspected that the electoral college sort of caps voter participation. I mean, it can be really hard to convince someone to go vote when they live in a state that's "already decided" for the Presidential race.
-
Now that a few more hours have passed, all the doomsayers are coming out to warn that Obama is either going to destroy the country or at least not live up to all his promises. The first option deserves no attention: at the least, Obama is no more likely to destroy the country than McCain would have been. The second, though, inspires me to step on my soapbox.
First of all, even if Obama does no more than behave like a moderate Democrat (and I don't believe he will limit himself to this), the improvement over Bush will still be massive. And even if it takes time for anything measurably good to come from his administration, this surely should not be a cause for disillusion. One of the things that has moved me about this business is that I got the feeling millions and millions of people around the country finally believed that not only things would improve but they could contribute to those improvements. Regardless of the extent to which Obama lives up to his promise, we can live up to ours. We can change our behavior to make not just our own lives but the lives of everyone else, in this country and in the world, better.
Rachel Maddow last night asked people to post on her Website their wish lists of what they would like Barack Obama to do. Me, I'd rather see a wish list that itemized what we can do.
Note: Apparently, my relief over the election has made me even more verbose than usual. Apologies.
Another note: I've long thought the electoral college should be abolished.
-
I've always suspected that the electoral college sort of caps voter participation. I mean, it can be really hard to convince someone to go vote when they live in a state that's "already decided" for the Presidential race.
Another note: I've long thought the electoral college should be abolished.
i second both of these comments- the electoral college is a seriosuly outdated system that needs to disappear.
-
The only problem I have with a pure popular vote is that nobody ever looks like a real winner because most of the time it will be decided by 1 or 2 points. I'd be for a runoff vote though.
-
Not to rain on your parade, I know it's a record turnout and it's awesome, and I know that the voter registration process keeps your numbers relatively low, but a turnout of "only" 66% would probably constitute a total political crisis over here.
What is the real idea/purpose of having to register to vote?
One thing about comparing the US to European countries is that you have to remember how huge we are. Comparing the US to Sweden or France gives misleading results, since the US is a lot more diverse economically. I read that the turnout in California, for instance, was around 80%. It makes a lot more sense to compare individual areas or states of the US to individual European nations, or to compare the US to Europe as a whole, including the poorer nations. Or some subset of the EU that has about 300 million people. Sorry, that's just a gripe of mine. The GDP per capita of Mississippi is closer to that of Estonia than that of Connecticut. There's tons of ways all of Europe beats the US (and vice versa) but it's better to keep things clear.
The voter participation figures are weird because no one can keep straight whether they're talking about percentage of eligible voters or percentage of registered voters. Neither can I. My 80% number might be garbage.
Voter registration is nuts because it's usually handled by the counties, which are pretty much the most useless and amateur hour level of government. Since there's no central list of citizens anywhere, there's no real way to easily make sure that people aren't registered to vote in multiple places.
For some reason people here think that having a national ID card is some evil plot. I'm a civil libertarian and all, but every year you have people who make a stink about their constitutional right to vote and fly in a plane without showing ID. I think that's about the most pointless crusade ever.
-
In my opinion, the word "marriage" and the concept of "marriage" should not be anywhere on lawbooks because it's a violation of the separation of church and state. Civil Unions between any two parties, regardless of sex or sexuality, with all the benefits of what we now call marriage, should be put into effect, and the word marriage should be left out of all federal and state legal language. It's a religious ceremony.
I think yours is basically an unbeatable argument. Without saying which way I voted, in defense of the mormon church and many other more mainstream religions in California, i want to provide some perspective on what is a very complicated issue for mormon people i.e. how nutty was the Mormon Church's position?
First, please do not think the horrible human history of sexism and racism (including what some would argue existed in the Church) and its parallels with this issue are lost on LDS people. And of course, there are some startling ironies with the fact that the Church would have greatly benefited from a looser definition of marriage back in the day. Church members have discussed this ad nauseam: separate but equal, church and state, polygamy, 1978 etc etc.
As I think someone was trying to link from wikipedia, there are many (otherwise?) progressive, European countries where they've gone through the hassle of defining things separately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage) including France and Germany. And the Church's belief on the issue is the position held by the overwhelming majority of countries of the developed and lesser developed world.
Even the few countries that have legalized SSM have only done so recently. Maybe the Mormon Church is overly influenced by old leaders, its members too zealous about following its leaders, and history will prove it all wrong. But even if The Church completely reversed its position tomorrow and used its small influence to legalized SSM in California and Utah, it would not leave the Church far behind even the most liberal countries in the world.
And even though it's very likely Obama said marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman because it was politically expedient (though of course he opposed the prop 8 amendment) , he still said it, and his nuanced view was not met with the same vitriol as for people who only had a slightly different opinion from Obama (i.e. the yes on 8 people)
So rather than pick on the easy mormon target (which is only 2% of California's population anyway) and create a straw man (blaming it all on the weird, hate-filled religion) I'm hoping people will look at the issue well beyond the Mormons.
For the official response:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes#continued (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes#continued)
I shan't respond to "Trembling Eagle" - either anything he's written or will write.
Finally, since this is the Joy thread, even if you think I'm insane for being an apologist here, you've got to admit that there are a million things to be happy about with regards to Obama winning and that this surely is not as big a deal as either side are making it - relative to all of the other wars and acute injustices in this world that Obama will help lead us towards repairing.
-
Thanks for clearing that up, y/n.
-
The true reason why our voter turnouts are not as high as some European nations is that we are a nation that still openly embraces voter suppression.
One thing that Obama effectively did this year was mobilize a record number of partisan volunteers stationed at polling places to protect the vote. Obama didn't just win by being a nice guy, he soundly beat the GOP in the ground game. He beat the GOP in virtually every way there is to be beaten.
I wonder if Guliani is still mocking his community organizing experience now??
-
Thanks for clearing that up, y/n.
I imagine voting in Swedelandia is a more organized.
The true reason why our voter turnouts are not as high as some European nations is that we are a nation that still openly embraces voter suppression.
True, but our fucked up and insanely complicated system makes a lot of kinds of voter suppression possible. Voter caging, etc.
-
Yep. Systematic disenfranchisement. And low voter turnouts, according to conventional wisdom at least, benefit those already in power, so there's no inclination to improve it.
Part of the significance of the Obama election is that it helps assure the African American population that they're included in the process. African Americans historically have had lower voter turn out not because they're lazy, but because there is a deep pessimism in their community about whether their ballots even get counted.
-
So rather than pick on the easy mormon target (which is only 2% of California's population anyway) and create a straw man (blaming it all on the weird, hate-filled religion) I'm hoping people will look at the issue well beyond the Mormons.
Oh sure TE's being a prick about it, but pointing out that LDS church pumped millions in to the Yes on 8 campaign is perfectly valid because that was exactly what happened.
I respect other people's beliefs, and know that polygamy and child-marriage have long been outlawed by the LDS church (cheap shot, TE), but clearly this is the case of a church pumping tons of money into an ad campaign for a law which has no direct effect on 99% of its members. The fact that mormons are so sparse in California makes this behavior less defensible, not more.
But yes I don't blame just the LDS church - I blame any number of intolerant institutions who don't believe in equal rights or the separation of church and state.
But I still like you, JP!
-
Why don't you just blame the majority of registered voters, who voted Yes on Prop 8, and get on with life.
-
Not too verbose, Sarah. And no need to apologize for a well-thought-out post. People with shorter attention spans have the choice of not reading.
The more I think about the gay marriage and adoption propositions, the more I feel like this is only going to take us to another level of culture-war that we really, badly need to leave behind. That's too bad. I see a lot of gay people feeling really pissed, and I don't blame them (I'm one of them), but when an electorate votes to overturn a right that was instated previously, initiated by the courts, that's taking things to another whole level. As happy as I am about Obama being elected, I'm extremely pissed about being picked on *yet again* and being forced into fighting more cultural battles at a time when our country can ill afford that. Thank you for reading this and humoring me.
You're really right, JP, there's a lot more to be thankful about this election than not. I promise you I do feel that way. Really happy about it!
-
JP: Are you a mormon or are you just defending them?
-
Sorry, Trinsky, just got my dander up, that Trembling Eagle.
-
You're right, JJ. People still think for themselves, after all.
Blaming the church is tantamount to calling the voters zombies, when really they're just human beings who this time got it wrong wrong wrong.
C'est Levert.
-
A good piece on this from The Nation's James Kim:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/106178/why_the_prop_8_gay_marriage_ban_won/
-
Instead of the Catholic and LDS church using their money to feed the hungry or aid the weak
as Jesus preached they used it to influence a political decision.
I guess you guys don't see the immoral and unethical aspect of this....that's subjective
but more than that I think it's illegal. Why are these institutions allowed to keep their tax free status?
-
I want to stay away from this shit, but I read that the LDS church didn't use any of its own money (it was all individuals), and I really can't object to individuals or churches exercising their free speech rights. Nonprofits aren't supposed to endorse candidates, but they're allowed to express opinions on legislation and issues.
Also, I think that all nonprofits, even political ones, should be tax free, or none of them should be. There are too many fake "nonpartisan" 501(c)(3)s out there.
-
I know a little something about the bible, you know what Jesus said about gays?
Nothing.
ughh
*edit*
I don't like having to be diplomatic about this
but whatever, it's nobody's fault but the voters.
-
http://www.slideflickr.com/slide/HvSk82iH
neato.
-
Damn straight, TE. But the Nation article was interesting -- it stated that the Yes on 8 campaign just plain outmanuevered the No on 8 campaign, reaching out to minority media more extensively and early. I'd add that a lot of that probably had to do with funding, but not entirely so. If it's really a matter of getting the message out in media and face-to-face, so be it.
-
I propose this thread be merged with the Sour Grapes thread.
-
(http://images.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/11/07/fourth_republic/story.jpg)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/11/07/fourth_republic/
-
http://www.slideflickr.com/slide/HvSk82iH
neato.
Yes! That's what I want to see in a Joy thread.
-
Exactly.
-
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
-
I looked for an updated "sorry everybody" site on Wednesday to no avail. Glad to see that it has since appeared.
-
A clearly laid out agenda of fixing things over here.
http://www.change.gov/
(http://www.change.gov/)
I'm starting to feel a little better about things. I can't wait for Bush to be outta there.
Like Letterman said, "Obama was elected president of the United States. Would anyone mind if he started early?"
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/changeisgood.jpg)
-
I was *just* thinking about that. Particularly with his press meeting coming up shortly.
Bush has practically been AWOL for months now, at least from the public eye. Foreign leaders are all but addressing Obama directly instead of Bush at this point.
He's basically President already.
Our current lame duck President is going out with like the biggest whimper ever (which is fine by me).
-
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/changeisgood.jpg)
Man, Carter just looks delighted to be President there.
I'm tempted to start a "Rate The Presidents Based Purely On Their Presidential Portrait" thread if there's any interest. Andrew Jackson never gets enough credit for his trailblazing tenure as our first Vampire-American President.
-
Our current lame duck President is going out with like the biggest whimper ever (which is fine by me).
I'm still waiting for somebody to dis him in public. That'll be the cherry.
-
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/changeisgood.jpg)
Man, Carter just looks delighted to be President there.
I'm tempted to start a "Rate The Presidents Based Purely On Their Presidential Portrait" thread if there's any interest. Andrew Jackson never gets enough credit for his trailblazing tenure as our first Vampire-American President.
Who is the better president with a big beard? I'm tempted to say Hayes. He looks more stoic.
-
I know a little something about the bible, you know what Jesus said about gays?
Nothing.
Both sides rationalize when it comes to this. While Jesus never said being gay is a sin, it's very blatant in the Old Testament that it is... and then you get in to the whole debate of what we should take literally in those books. Some things are obviously meant for their time but there are a lot of things that definitely carried over after Jesus was born. So, the argument can't be made that just because it's in the old law it needs to be discredited.
Jesus' teaching showed compassion and love and he never forced his teaching on anybody else or became angered by sin unless people were using God for self profit. But, then you have the Apostle Paul who's writings and teachings were at times forceful, dictating right and wrong. You also have accounts of God striking down entire cities for immorality. There's rationalization on both sides. IMO, the teachings of Jesus should be held above all but there is definitely material in the Bible that backs a yes vote on Prop 8 and a lot of pastors are preaching that all across the country.
-
I know a little something about the bible, you know what Jesus said about gays?
Nothing.
Both sides rationalize when it comes to this. While Jesus never said being gay is a sin, it's very blatant in the Old Testament that it is... and then you get in to the whole debate of what we should take literally in those books. Some things are obviously meant for their time but there are a lot of things that definitely carried over after Jesus was born. So, the argument can't be made that just because it's in the old law it needs to be discredited.
Jesus' teaching showed compassion and love and he never forced his teaching on anybody else or became angered by sin unless people were using God for self profit. But, then you have the Apostle Paul who's writings and teachings were at times forceful, dictating right and wrong. You also have accounts of God striking down entire cities for immorality. There's rationalization on both sides. IMO, the teachings of Jesus should be held above all but there is definitely material in the Bible that backs a yes vote on Prop 8 and a lot of pastors are preaching that all across the country.
I'm not extraordinarily well-versed in the Old Testament, but doesn't the Bible also classify lots of other things besides homosexuality as "abominations", like rare meat, shellfish, shaving, wearing blended fabrics, and charging and paying interest? It seems like selective quoting to me.
It doesn't seem fair that the Bible, which is so self-contradictory, has and is still being used as a basis for laws in this country. I'll never get it. Separation of Church and State is complete and total bullshit at this point.
-
I know a little something about the bible, you know what Jesus said about gays?
Nothing.
Both sides rationalize when it comes to this. While Jesus never said being gay is a sin, it's very blatant in the Old Testament that it is... and then you get in to the whole debate of what we should take literally in those books. Some things are obviously meant for their time but there are a lot of things that definitely carried over after Jesus was born. So, the argument can't be made that just because it's in the old law it needs to be discredited.
Jesus' teaching showed compassion and love and he never forced his teaching on anybody else or became angered by sin unless people were using God for self profit. But, then you have the Apostle Paul who's writings and teachings were at times forceful, dictating right and wrong. You also have accounts of God striking down entire cities for immorality. There's rationalization on both sides. IMO, the teachings of Jesus should be held above all but there is definitely material in the Bible that backs a yes vote on Prop 8 and a lot of pastors are preaching that all across the country.
I'm not extraordinarily well-versed in the Old Testament, but doesn't the Bible also classify lots of other things besides homosexuality as "abominations", like rare meat, shellfish, shaving, wearing blended fabrics, and charging and paying interest? It seems like selective quoting to me.
It doesn't seem fair that the Bible, which is so self-contradictory, has and is still being used as a basis for laws in this country. I'll never get it. Separation of Church and State is complete and total bullshit at this point.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Friday afternoon time killer.
-
I know a little something about the bible, you know what Jesus said about gays?
Nothing.
Both sides rationalize when it comes to this. While Jesus never said being gay is a sin, it's very blatant in the Old Testament that it is... and then you get in to the whole debate of what we should take literally in those books. Some things are obviously meant for their time but there are a lot of things that definitely carried over after Jesus was born. So, the argument can't be made that just because it's in the old law it needs to be discredited.
Jesus' teaching showed compassion and love and he never forced his teaching on anybody else or became angered by sin unless people were using God for self profit. But, then you have the Apostle Paul who's writings and teachings were at times forceful, dictating right and wrong. You also have accounts of God striking down entire cities for immorality. There's rationalization on both sides. IMO, the teachings of Jesus should be held above all but there is definitely material in the Bible that backs a yes vote on Prop 8 and a lot of pastors are preaching that all across the country.
I'm not extraordinarily well-versed in the Old Testament, but doesn't the Bible also classify lots of other things besides homosexuality as "abominations", like rare meat, shellfish, shaving, wearing blended fabrics, and charging and paying interest? It seems like selective quoting to me.
It doesn't seem fair that the Bible, which is so self-contradictory, has and is still being used as a basis for laws in this country. I'll never get it. Separation of Church and State is complete and total bullshit at this point.
Yes, but there are a lot of other Old Testament laws, especially the ten commandments which are still revered to this day. What I'm saying is that both arguments are weak, both ignore certain parts of the Old Testament.
Religion will always be a part of law because most people's moral code come from religious teachings. Would there be a moral code if an idea of gods never existed or would we have figured out right and wrong for ourselves? If there weren't religions would we be in the same place when it comes to gay marriage? A lot of people who aren't religious look at a gay couple and see something inherently wrong.
-
Wow, The friends of tom forum really is dead.
-
Ugh then why are you still here?
In the meantime, http://blog.wired.com/geekdad/2008/11/5-signs-preside.html (5 Signs President-Elect Obama Is a Geek)
-
Wow, The friends of tom forum really is dead.
Wow.
Holy Cow.
Jeez.
OMFG.
Oh Man!!
-
Ugh then why are you still here?
There are a couple of people on here (who post rarely these days) that I like to read. You and John Junk aren't among them.
Also, Tom's great and The Best Show brings it every time.
-
I know a little something about the bible, you know what Jesus said about gays?
Nothing.
Both sides rationalize when it comes to this. While Jesus never said being gay is a sin, it's very blatant in the Old Testament that it is... and then you get in to the whole debate of what we should take literally in those books. Some things are obviously meant for their time but there are a lot of things that definitely carried over after Jesus was born. So, the argument can't be made that just because it's in the old law it needs to be discredited.
Jesus' teaching showed compassion and love and he never forced his teaching on anybody else or became angered by sin unless people were using God for self profit. But, then you have the Apostle Paul who's writings and teachings were at times forceful, dictating right and wrong. You also have accounts of God striking down entire cities for immorality. There's rationalization on both sides. IMO, the teachings of Jesus should be held above all but there is definitely material in the Bible that backs a yes vote on Prop 8 and a lot of pastors are preaching that all across the country.
I'm not extraordinarily well-versed in the Old Testament, but doesn't the Bible also classify lots of other things besides homosexuality as "abominations", like rare meat, shellfish, shaving, wearing blended fabrics, and charging and paying interest? It seems like selective quoting to me.
It doesn't seem fair that the Bible, which is so self-contradictory, has and is still being used as a basis for laws in this country. I'll never get it. Separation of Church and State is complete and total bullshit at this point.
Yes, but there are a lot of other Old Testament laws, especially the ten commandments which are still revered to this day. What I'm saying is that both arguments are weak, both ignore certain parts of the Old Testament.
Religion will always be a part of law because most people's moral code come from religious teachings. Would there be a moral code if an idea of gods never existed or would we have figured out right and wrong for ourselves? If there weren't religions would we be in the same place when it comes to gay marriage? A lot of people who aren't religious look at a gay couple and see something inherently wrong.
We can question what the world would be like without religion, but it's there and it has a profound influence on many people's lives.
Most anti-gay arguments that I've heard invoke God or "family values" (a code word for God) in some way. And whether you're religious or not, there is absolutely no excuse for denying a loving couple the right to get married if they choose. None.
But let's just agree to disagree and move on, Gilly. This is supposed to be the Joy thread, after all.
-
OK. I was never really disagreeing with you or Trembling Eagle.
-
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z265/leftymon67/joy_division.jpg)
-
...and John Junk aren't among them.
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z265/leftymon67/joy_division.jpg)
How aren't that among them? You don't know what good posters are if you think JJ isn't a funny one.
Junk, Erica, just say the word and I will go apehouse on this guy for you. Artists unite for creative dominion!
-
I don't know what apehouse is, but I'll go there. For all of you.
Oh and Gilly, I didn't mean we disagreed about gay marriage. Just the idea that most people would still see it as wrong if religion somehow didn't exist.
-
I don't know what apehouse is, but I'll go there. For all of you.
It's an amalgam of apeshit and shithouse. aka = the most you can go.
-
...and John Junk aren't among them.
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z265/leftymon67/joy_division.jpg)
How aren't that among them? You don't know what good posters are if you think JJ isn't a funny one.
Junk, Erica, just say the word and I will go apehouse on this guy for you. Artists unite for creative dominion!
Joe SixPack, you were one of the people I enjoyed, but now you're off the list too. By the way, what are you gonna do? Photoshop me to death, oh great artiste?
-
These people are supposed to be followers of Jesus yet nowhere in his ministry on earth is he recorded as saying ANYTHING about homosexuality.
The most clear prohibition against homosexuality in KJV is in Leviticus where the punishment for laying down with a man like a woman is death (Lev 20:13), also the punishment for children talking back to their parents is death (Lev but also more clearly Deut 21:18), also it mentions you go to hell for wearing an undergarment made of two types of fabric (check ur skivvies for that cotton-poly blend!)
Eh, just read all of Leviticus it's funny.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=KJV&x=77&y=3&b=Lev&c=20&v=14#comm/9
As long as Christians are using the bible as their reference for these laws and values why not be completely up front about it? Say you want to kill gays, disobedient children and wizards (Lev 20:7).
I'm ignorant about the LDS texts though perhaps a central part of Jesus mission in the Americas was to teach the Apaches not to have butt sex.
-
religion religion religion religion religion
joy?
[youtube]wzyT9-9lUyE[/youtube]
(Or just silliness)
-
religion religion religion religion religion
joy?
Joy Magazine in the UK has both (http://www.newlifepublishing.co.uk/joy/index.html)
-
Joe SixPack, you were one of the people I enjoyed, but now you're off the list too. By the way, what are you gonna do? Photoshop me to death, oh great artiste?
I take it back, you DO know what good posters are. Tell me what I have to do to make it back on your list. I'm serious, I'll do pretty much anything. Please.
-
Thanks for backing me up, Joe Sixpack. But I agree with your ultimate decision to try and get back on Anonymous 43's good side. Seriously, this guy is like the final word on quality message board posters. It's gonna take me years to get out from under the blow this thread does to my message board posting reputation.
-
Joe SixPack, you were one of the people I enjoyed, but now you're off the list too. By the way, what are you gonna do? Photoshop me to death, oh great artiste?
I take it back, you DO know what good posters are. Tell me what I have to do to make it back on your list. I'm serious, I'll do pretty much anything. Please.
I guess you weren't asking me, but I think the first thing you could do is put sparklers back in your picture. Maybe a twinkling statue of liberty crown is also an improvement. As far as your posts go, try saying more things about Yetta. Yetta is always a fascinating subject. Then I'm sure you will be on everyone's list.
-
You getting Yetta all riled up was one of my favorite parts of Tuesday night's show. Also, I think Harvey is a great dog name. I picture him being kind of scruffy.
-
You getting Yetta all riled up was one of my favorite parts of Tuesday night's show. Also, I think Harvey is a great dog name. I picture him being kind of scruffy.
Thanks, erika. Harvey is named after the movie Harvey. He's the naughtiest dog ever, but very charming.
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e218/eymanjr/dogs/Dapper%20Harvey/HarveySchnarf.jpg)
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e218/eymanjr/dogs/000_0035.jpg)
I like scruffy dogs best, but I'm allergic to dogs and scruffy dogs make allergies.
-
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e218/eymanjr/dogs/Dapper%20Harvey/HarveySchnarf.jpg)
I immediately thought of this
(http://www.fumettomania2000.com/Donal%20Duck%20.jpg)
-
The only problem I have with a pure popular vote is that nobody ever looks like a real winner because most of the time it will be decided by 1 or 2 points. I'd be for a runoff vote though.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/11/07/us/politics/1107-nat-webELECT.gif)
-
You getting Yetta all riled up was one of my favorite parts of Tuesday night's show. Also, I think Harvey is a great dog name. I picture him being kind of scruffy.
Thanks, erika. Harvey is named after the movie Harvey. He's the naughtiest dog ever, but very charming.
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e218/eymanjr/dogs/Dapper%20Harvey/HarveySchnarf.jpg)
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e218/eymanjr/dogs/000_0035.jpg)
I like scruffy dogs best, but I'm allergic to dogs and scruffy dogs make allergies.
Awww....two curly cuties. That's insanely adorable.
-
I will never, ever, ever, understand Reagan's success. Never, ever, ever.
I will also never understand how Bush could claim that his so-called victory in 2004 gave him a mandate.
Yes, I'm an innocent in many ways.
-
I will also never understand how Bush could claim that his so-called victory in 2004 gave him a mandate.
He was a world class A-hole.
What I'm joyful about is that I can start using the word "was" alongside W and his administration.
It's a little early yet for past-tense usage, but I'm going to start doing it anyway. Hey George: You ain't a has-been if you never was.
-
I will also never understand how Bush could claim that his so-called victory in 2004 gave him a mandate.
He was a world class A-hole.
What I'm joyful about is that I can start using the word "was" alongside W and his administration.
It's a little early yet for past-tense usage, but I'm going to start doing it anyway. Hey George: You ain't a has-been if you never was.
I'm curious to see what he does with himself after this. I certainly can't see him going the Carter route trying to make people forget his legacy and he's certainly not going to be as media friendly as Clinton. I'm guessing lots of ranch work? or does he even need to do that anymore to keep up appearances?
-
I never thought of Carter as trying to make people forget what you call his legacy. He was an inept president, but he was always considered to be a good man, and after he lost in 1980, he just kept on being the good man he always was.
Nixon, on the other hand . . .
-
Maybe he'll be like L.B.J. and just drink on a ranch until he's dead.
-
I will also never understand how Bush could claim that his so-called victory in 2004 gave him a mandate.
Yes, I'm an innocent in many ways.
That was B.S., Bush really didn't have a mandate to speak of after the 2004 election. He won in what was practically a squeaker. You need a much bigger margin for a mandate.
That doesn't make you an innocent, it just makes you a skeptic.
What Junk said is just what I was thinking, but more colorfully stated.
-
I'm talking "innocent" the way the boy who pointed out the emperor was wearing no clothes was innocent. Things like the adoration of Reagan, past, present, and future, and the widespread acceptance of Bush's "mandate"--which is still termed such today, by some, at least--make me shake my head in confusion.
-
Bush: "I've earned political capital and I intend to spend it" after barely winning an election is still one of the creepiest things ever said by a US President.
-
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e218/eymanjr/dogs/Dapper%20Harvey/HarveySchnarf.jpg)
I immediately thought of this
(http://www.fumettomania2000.com/Donal%20Duck%20.jpg)
That's so funny. When I was four years old, I wanted to be Donald Duck.
-
Innocence in that sense is actually quite wise.
-
Joe SixPack, you were one of the people I enjoyed, but now you're off the list too. By the way, what are you gonna do? Photoshop me to death, oh great artiste?
I take it back, you DO know what good posters are. Tell me what I have to do to make it back on your list. I'm serious, I'll do pretty much anything. Please.
Joe Sixpack, you could stop listening to that emo music for starters and quit trying to look scene. And don't even think about keeping the black toe polish - we'll know.
John Junk, your task is to go one better than APMike, west coast style. That's right, a zucchini flower fritter tattoo on each calf. Dude, calf tats are soooo sick, waaaaay!
-
(http://content.archives.newyorker.com/djvu/Conde%20Nast/New%20Yorker/2008_11_10/webimages/page0000001_4.jpg)
-
(http://content.archives.newyorker.com/djvu/Conde%20Nast/New%20Yorker/2008_11_10/webimages/page0000001_4.jpg)
The New Yorker. Fair and Balanced.
-
Gotta love the cover though.