LawTalkers
Page 7 of 126 « First 56 7 891757107 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about! (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=824)

Penske_Account 01-20-2009 02:40 PM
Aretha Franklin......
 
rocked the house! Yes?

Penske_Account 01-20-2009 02:43 PM
Rick Warren......
 
much ado about nuthing?

Unless you are an atheist, but that type of invocation is exclusionary to atheists, regardless of who gives it. Also, the Jesus stuff, but given that Obama is a christian, that too is probably going to be a part of any invocation.

ThurgreedMarshall 01-20-2009 03:00 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 378286)
much ado about nuthing?

Unless you are an atheist, but that type of invocation is exclusionary to atheists, regardless of who gives it. Also, the Jesus stuff, but given that Obama is a christian, that too is probably going to be a part of any invocation.
Were people worked up over what he would say or rather just upset that he would be given such a prominent role given his stance on gays and gay marriage?

TM

Penske_Account 01-20-2009 03:09 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 378293)
Were people worked up over what he would say or rather just upset that he would be given such a prominent role given his stance on gays and gay marriage?

TM
Probably the latter, but many religious personalities offend some group or other with some point of their doctrine or other, most of it is exclusionary by definition. I just found interesting that after the hub bub, his speech was about the same as I would expect from most religious personalities. Also, isn't Obama's current position on "gay marriage" essentially the same result as Warren's, i.e. he's against it?

sgtclub 01-20-2009 03:10 PM
Re: A New Era
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 378280)
Well, actually, his diaries and historical records indicated Reagan had a lot to do with his addresses, writing many in full. Don't know the extent to which he authored his inaugural, but based on what I've read, he had been writing a portion of them since his days as Governor of California, so I'm not sure the "difference" noted is worth noting.

But moving past that, I think Obama's measured but forceful tone of today was better than anything he did on the campaign trail. This wasn't a speech of promise, this was a speech with a decided, "and now here's what we're going to do" tone to it. I particularly liked the nod to "non-believers" in his list of peoples comprising this country. Where Bush sleazily spoke in code to the Right to duck the ire of moderates, Obama put himself firmly in the camp of tolerance for all views.

I also liked the olive branch to the Muslim World. Mutual respect is all we can hope to achieve in that relationship at the moment, and I think he framed that perfectly.
I liked the non-believers nod as well.

Replaced_Texan 01-20-2009 03:10 PM
Re: A New Era
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 378245)
Me too. And on this historic day of change and positivity, I reach my hand out to Sebby and DK in a gesture of solidarity and affection. And I pledge to try to be a nicer Thurgreed for the indefinite future (I said, "PLEDGE," people). I am in a ridiculously good mood even though I was unable to make it to Washington today and, although I will most likely not be around most of the day, I wanted to share my good feelings with the politics board.

TM
A friend of mine had an inaguration party this morning, so I spent most of the morning with good friends, lots of food, and good cheer. The office seems pretty upbeat right now, though people are a little loathe to share political views.

I look forward to getting the call that I need to amend the stem cell policy in the next few days.

Replaced_Texan 01-20-2009 03:23 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 378286)
much ado about nuthing?

Unless you are an atheist, but that type of invocation is exclusionary to atheists, regardless of who gives it. Also, the Jesus stuff, but given that Obama is a christian, that too is probably going to be a part of any invocation.
I thought it was quite beautiful, and until Lowery did the benediction, I though it couldn't really be topped for all it covered. I understand why Rick Warren has such a following if he speaks like that on a regular basis.

Lowery, though, rocked.

Gattigap 01-20-2009 03:26 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 378299)

Lowery, though, rocked.

Oh, yeah. May the yellow be mellow.

Fugee 01-20-2009 03:36 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gattigap (Post 378300)
Oh, yeah. May the yellow be mellow.
That part was good, but Lowrey used part of one of my favorite verses (Micah 6:8) so I really liked that.

Penske_Account 01-20-2009 03:37 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 378299)
I thought it was quite beautiful, and until Lowery did the benediction, I though it couldn't really be topped for all it covered. I understand why Rick Warren has such a following if he speaks like that on a regular basis.

Lowery, though, rocked.
I need to access the video. I missed Lowery, although from interviews I have seen I imagine he is quite inspirational.

ThurgreedMarshall 01-20-2009 03:38 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 378295)
Probably the latter, but many religious personalities offend some group or other with some point of their doctrine or other, most of it is exclusionary by definition. I just found interesting that after the hub bub, his speech was about the same as I would expect from most religious personalities. Also, isn't Obama's current position on "gay marriage" essentially the same result as Warren's, i.e. he's against it?
I believe he's against it, but isn't his stance more of the "I oppose gay marriage and so does my church, but I believe it's between people and their church/faith and do not support state or federal constitutional amendments banning it?" I also don't think he equates gay relationships with incest.

TM

Fugee 01-20-2009 03:52 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 378302)
I need to access the video. I missed Lowery, although from interviews I have seen I imagine he is quite inspirational.
Here's the transcript http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwald...on-benedi.html.

This is the end with the mellow yellow:

Quote:
Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around -- (laughter) -- when yellow will be mellow -- (laughter) -- when the red man can get ahead, man -- (laughter) -- and when white will embrace what is right.

Let all those who do justice and love mercy say amen.

AUDIENCE: Amen!

REV. LOWERY: Say amen --

AUDIENCE: Amen!

REV. LOWERY: -- and amen.

AUDIENCE: Amen! (Cheers, applause.)

Hank Chinaski 01-20-2009 04:08 PM
Re: Aretha Franklin......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 378285)
rocked the house! Yes?
she seems to have lost a ton. I only saw her briefly. has she slimmed down?



PS Teddy is in the hospital for seizures.

Hank Chinaski 01-20-2009 04:10 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
and by the way, I think Biden would be horrible as S. of State. He's too loose a cannon. What was Obama thinking.

Penske_Account 01-20-2009 04:11 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 378303)
I believe he's against it, but isn't his stance more of the "I oppose gay marriage and so does my church, but I believe it's between people and their church/faith and do not support state or federal constitutional amendments banning it?"

TM
I'm honestly not sure, but the question raised in my mind is, if he says he's against it (and at the same time, as I understand it, he says he is for civil unions), how does he feel about the Defense of Marriage Act? My imperfect understanding is that his position puts him in a place where he wouldn't be doing anything in furtherance of seeking a change in that, which law will likely affect gay marriages' status for the foreseeable future, but I may be missing the nuances of his thoughts, i.e. maybe he's personallly against it, but would seek to change the law as set forth in the DoMA.....? (although I do understand that he is against a federal constitutuional amendment related to marriage and its defintion).


Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 378303)
I also don't think he equates gay relationships with incest.

TM
I would agree that you are correct here, although, and I don't follow Warren that closely, but, isn't what Warren said sort of the typical way out there rhetorical hypo, that we all learned the art of in law school, to make some point that is arguably not really congruent with the hypo? To take what I think he is saying, if you have a cultural norm that shapes a law or set of laws, i.e. cultural norm being marriage is between a man and woman, and then you have laws that confer rights and benefits to married people, and then based on a changing cultural norm you change the law, i.e. we recognize that love and partnerships and commitments based on the same can be had between people of the same gender as well as a man and woman and thus we want to change the laws to confer the rights and benefits of marriage on same gender couples, then where does the "slippery slope" take us.....and then he took that and compared it to incest laws, right?

Keeping in mind I am down with gay marriage, and while I udnerstand what Warren is saying can be offensive to some, I'm also not sure as part of discussion of changing laws its so off (the sex/marriage with animals rhetoric is though), for example, I have friends who are in a poly relationship. Two women, one man. One of the woman is married to the man. the other "joined" their marriage over a decade ago via their own commitment ceremony. They live, relatively openly, as a fully married threesome or triad or whatever the term of art may be, sleep in the same bed (as far as I am aware, which is not first hand)they raise kids together as two moms and one dad, run a business together, own property jointly. I know that they would like to be "married"-so does the slippery slope extend there? Is it offensive to ask the question or have the conversation?

Gattigap 01-20-2009 04:13 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 378308)
and by the way, I think Biden would be horrible as S. of State. He's too loose a cannon. What was Obama thinking.
Given that we're discussing a nomination that Obama never made, it's unlikely that we'll ever know.

Replaced_Texan 01-20-2009 04:17 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 378308)
and by the way, I think Biden would be horrible as S. of State. He's too loose a cannon. What was Obama thinking.
I don't think Obama was thinking anything of the sort. It probably was something like Biden got word that he had an unspecified spot high up in the administration, and the Biden family got together to talk about which postition they wanted to push for.

Adder 01-20-2009 04:20 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 378312)
I don't think Obama was thinking anything of the sort. It probably was something like Biden got word that he had an unspecified spot high up in the administration, and the Biden family got together to talk about which postition they wanted to push for.

Someone today (I think on MSNBC) that Obama offered Biden the choice of SofS or VP.

Penske_Account 01-20-2009 04:22 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 378313)
Someone today (I think on MSNBC) that Obama offered Biden the choice of SofS or VP.
Isn't it extrapolated from the Jill Biden interview with OPrah?

Gattigap 01-20-2009 04:27 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
I invite folks to read Ana Marie Cox's Twitter feed for today. Sounds like she braved the Mall, and while her day has had its high points, she appears to be leaving her final words via Twitter.

Quote:
Museum of Natural History looks like a refugee camp. It sort of is. Am trapped here until after 5. Phone dying. Help.

Adder 01-20-2009 04:35 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 378314)
Isn't it extrapolated from the Jill Biden interview with OPrah?
Yeah. That's right. I forgot the source.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 01-20-2009 04:51 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 378314)
Isn't it extrapolated from the Jill Biden interview with OPrah?
I don't think extrapolation was necessary, given that she said Obama offered him Sec. State or VP, and Jill said VP was better since Joe wouldn't be traveling so much.

Perhaps Bill put in a call and told Barack that if he wasn't going to pick Hillary for veep, he had to find a way to get her out of the house as much as possible. The die was cast.

ThurgreedMarshall 01-20-2009 05:33 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 378310)
maybe he's personallly against it, but would seek to change the law as set forth in the DoMA.....?
Dunno.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 378310)
but, isn't what Warren said sort of the typical way out there rhetorical hypo, that we all learned the art of in law school, to make some point that is arguably not really congruent with the hypo? To take what I think he is saying, if you have a cultural norm that shapes a law or set of laws, i.e. cultural norm being marriage is between a man and woman, and then you have laws that confer rights and benefits to married people, and then based on a changing cultural norm you change the law, i.e. we recognize that love and partnerships and commitments based on the same can be had between people of the same gender as well as a man and woman and thus we want to change the laws to confer the rights and benefits of marriage on same gender couples, then where does the "slippery slope" take us.....and then he took that and compared it to incest laws, right?
Not exactly. He has said that he thinks gay marriage is "equivalent" to incest, multiple partner marriages and grown men marrying children. You give him the benefit of saying, if we take this step in redefining marriage to allow same sex marriage under our definition, we are on the slippery slope to these other things, when what he is actually saying is, these other things are the same as same sex marriage. And since each of those other things are objectively negative (incest, because of fucking up our gene pool (among other things), multiple partner marriages, which are usually mysogynistic and adult-child relationships, because of consent and abuse issues), saying they are the same is fundamentally different than your argument, no?

TM

dtb 01-20-2009 05:35 PM
Re: A New Era
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 378248)
The country's emerging from a bleak era, with a uniquely inspiring individual at the helm. Whether you agree with all of his platforms or not, this will be the first time in eight years where the decisions will be made by someone considering differing viewpoints and crafting thoughtful policy, rather than doing what his gut, or God, tells him, and lying about the reasons later. .... And now, at this time, after the last eight years of something quite different, that warrants rejoicing.

Hear, hear.

I loved this - thanks.

dtb 01-20-2009 05:39 PM
Re: A New Era
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 378250)
2.

And the overwhelming historic nature of a Black man taking the oath cannot, simply cannot, be overstated.

God Bless America.
Indeed. And only 40 years after the Voting Rights Act. It has made me believe in the fundamental goodness of people, and in the desire of most people to want to do the right and fair thing.

I really try hard not to over-pat our country on the back for this, because it doesn't mean that horrible racial injustices don't continue to exist (duh), but damn. I'm so proud and relieved that this country isn't made up of as many people who would refuse to vote for a person because he is black as I feared.

Penske_Account 01-20-2009 05:58 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 378324)
Dunno.

Not exactly. He has said that he thinks gay marriage is "equivalent" to incest, multiple partner marriages and grown men marrying children. You give him the benefit of saying, if we take this step in redefining marriage to allow same sex marriage under our definition, we are on the slippery slope to these other things, when what he is actually saying is, these other things are the same as same sex marriage. And since each of those other things are objectively negative (incest, because of fucking up our gene pool (among other things), multiple partner marriages, which are usually mysogynistic and adult-child relationships, because of consent and abuse issues), saying they are the same is fundamentally different than your argument, no?

TM
Yes, I think so.

Penske_Account 01-20-2009 06:01 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 378318)
I don't think extrapolation was necessary, given that she said Obama offered him Sec. State or VP, and Jill said VP was better since Joe wouldn't be traveling so much.

Perhaps Bill put in a call and told Barack that if he wasn't going to pick Hillary for veep, he had to find a way to get her out of the house as much as possible. The die was cast.
Is Jill Biden too old for Clinton? She looks like she could be his type......his other other type.....no offence.

Hank Chinaski 01-20-2009 06:03 PM
Re: A New Era
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtb (Post 378326)
Indeed. And only 40 years after the Voting Rights Act. It has made me believe in the fundamental goodness of people, and in the desire of most people to want to do the right and fair thing.

I really try hard not to over-pat our country on the back for this, because it doesn't mean that horrible racial injustices don't continue to exist (duh), but damn. I'm so proud and relieved that this country isn't made up of as many people who would refuse to vote for a person because he is black as I feared.
I'm still shocked that parts of my state that voted 66% against AA two years ago voted overwhelmingly for the man. But if you really want to see how much race impacted the election, I'd look to the Dem primary. Not a convo for today, perhaps in a month or so.

I think in the general election white people in droves realized that regardless of their racial biases perceived competence had to win out.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-20-2009 07:12 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 378312)
I don't think Obama was thinking anything of the sort. It probably was something like Biden got word that he had an unspecified spot high up in the administration, and the Biden family got together to talk about which postition they wanted to push for.
And then, just like her husband, Jill ran her mouth off before thinking on national television.

I thought it was charming. They're clearly true soul mates.

I figured Hillary would be a bit insulted, but then I figured, she and Bill probably just laughed. ""it's the Bidens. They say all kinds of crazy shit."

LessinSF 01-20-2009 07:24 PM
It's Official
 
America is now officially better. You know, healing and reconciling and shit. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/a_nat...econciliation/

Sidd Finch 01-20-2009 07:28 PM
Re: A New Era
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 378330)
I'm still shocked that parts of my state that voted 66% against AA two years ago voted overwhelmingly for the man. But if you really want to see how much race impacted the election, I'd look to the Dem primary. Not a convo for today, perhaps in a month or so.

I think in the general election white people in droves realized that regardless of their racial biases perceived competence had to win out.
What Dem primary?

Tyrone Slothrop 01-20-2009 09:30 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 378286)
much ado about nuthing?

Unless you are an atheist, but that type of invocation is exclusionary to atheists, regardless of who gives it. Also, the Jesus stuff, but given that Obama is a christian, that too is probably going to be a part of any invocation.
He was painful to listen to, but the benediction was fantastic.

eta: stp

I was on the Mall today, and it was tremendous. What I've seen on TV just doesn't capture the feeling of being in such a massive, positive crowd. Words fail.

Adder 01-20-2009 09:39 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 378337)
He was painful to listen to, but the benediction was fantastic.

eta: stp

I was on the Mall today, and it was tremendous. What I've seen on TV just doesn't capture the feeling of being in such a massive, positive crowd. Words fail.
I only wandered a bit around the outskirts of the parade area, but even felt great, even though I mostly interacted with people who couldn't get too close to anything. Much different crowd than 2000, needless too say. And much more representative of the city.

Hank Chinaski 01-20-2009 10:58 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 378338)
I only wandered a bit around the outskirts of the parade area, but even felt great, even though I mostly interacted with people who couldn't get too close to anything. Much different crowd than 2000, needless too say. And much more representative of the city.
how many people were there? I've not seen anything close.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-20-2009 11:07 PM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 378339)
how many people were there? I've not seen anything close.
Close to 2 million people. Unreal.

soup sandwich 01-21-2009 08:06 AM
Re: A New Era
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 378330)
I'm still shocked that parts of my state that voted 66% against AA two years ago voted overwhelmingly for the man.
Many folks who are against AA are also racists who would not ever vote for a black man. But don't the majority of people who are anti-AA believe that race shouldn't be a factor at all in hiring/admittance decisions?

Hank Chinaski 01-21-2009 08:22 AM
Re: A New Era
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by soup sandwich (Post 378346)
Many folks who are against AA are also racists who would not ever vote for a black man. But don't the majority of people who are anti-AA believe that race shouldn't be a factor at all in hiring/admittance decisions?
I expect the majority would say that, but I wondered if they actually felt that way (and it is a naive view to say 'it shouldn't be a factor' when it impacts on those black kids pretty hard, but whatever). Plus, at least where I grew up, I know the "majority" are racist, so it was cool to see that it has become secondary to actual substance.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-21-2009 09:39 AM
Re: A New Era
 
Much is made of the first African American President.

Any other Presidents who were children of an immigrant? Is he the first first-generation American elected President?

Never mind. Jefferson's mom was a Brit and Andrew Jackson's parents both came over from Scotland. All hail Google!

sgtclub 01-21-2009 11:25 AM
Re: Rick Warren......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 378337)
He was painful to listen to, but the benediction was fantastic.

eta: stp

I was on the Mall today, and it was tremendous. What I've seen on TV just doesn't capture the feeling of being in such a massive, positive crowd. Words fail.

Yes, I awoke yesterday morning in a terrible mood, but by about 9:03 Pacific, I could feel the change.

Sidd Finch 01-21-2009 11:34 AM
Re: A New Era
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 378350)
Much is made of the first African American President.

Any other Presidents who were children of an immigrant? Is he the first first-generation American elected President?

Never mind. Jefferson's mom was a Brit and Andrew Jackson's parents both came over from Scotland. All hail Google!
That makes Obama the first first-generation President in a very long time. I hadn't realized that.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:11 PM.
Page 7 of 126 « First 56 7 891757107 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com