It's really amazing...

[USAF MD '05]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

how many people have NO idea about what Obama wants to do, on either side of the aisle. Probably 20-30 of my nearest and dearest are convinced that my scheduled deployment in May is going to magically go away when Pres. Obama takes over. They really think he is going to bring us all home. Say what you will about the man. He could sell a icebox to an eskimo. Maybe I'll just stay in and take the MSP...the devil you know, and all that. Steve

 

[notdeadyet]

how many people have NO idea about what Obama wants to do, on either side of the aisle. Probably 20-30 of my nearest and dearest are convinced that my scheduled deployment in May is going to magically go away when Pres. Obama takes over. They really think he is going to bring us all home. Say what you will about the man. He could sell a icebox to an eskimo.

In fairness, given that Obama has never talked about a short-term timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, this may say more about your nearest and dearest than it does of him. Maybe it's a matter of them hearing what they want to hear, in hopes you won't have to deploy?

 

[DrMetal]

agree with the above. . . I doubt we (in the DOD) will see much of a change in the immediate term . . . it'll probably be a good year or two before we see any difference, that is if he's serious about bringing troops home in a 16-24 month window. And I doubt he'll cut defense spending, as some people fear so much. That would be a very unpopular decision given the two wars we're fighting and other threats. Whatever the case . . . he won clean, won fair and square, he's our next CINC . . . let's support him and hope he does a good job in the role.

 

[notdeadyet]

I'm glad we finally have a president elect that people seem to believe in. I remember, in 2004, how both sides were groaning about how miserable their candidates were, and how they were voting for the lesser of two evils.

Couldn't agree more. Nothing worse than voting against the other guy rather than for your candidate.

I'm glad that he's managed to sell himself as someone who promises to be more than just the lesser evil. I sincerely hope he lives up to that promise.

Me too. I don't get nearly the same BS quotient out of him as I have for most other candidates in the past. I'm really rooting for the guy to stay true to his message.

I sort of feel sorry for the guy, though. He's inheriting the country in a worse mess than most any other president elect for the last 30 or 40 years. The economy is in the toilet, we're in huge debt, social programs are slashed, and we're in the middle of some very expensive wars that didn't come with exit strategies.

Obama is going to have to be a superstar to make serious enough progress to get people to elect him for a second term. I'm hoping folks realize that you can't turn a tanker around on a dime and that things take time and the effects won't be readily apparent.

 

[almostfamous]

Couldn't agree more. Nothing worse than voting against the other guy rather than for your candidate.

Me too. I don't get nearly the same BS quotient out of him as I have for most other candidates in the past. I'm really rooting for the guy to stay true to his message.
QUOTE]


please... he's just another chicago politician that is FOS. Just give him time to stay true to those roots.
as far as deployments going away, the only thing I am counting on is my Iraq deployment turning into an Afghanistan deployment.

 

[HackFuJones]

I sort of feel sorry for the guy, though. He's inheriting the country in a worse mess than most any other president elect for the last 30 or 40 years. The economy is in the toilet, we're in huge debt, social programs are slashed, and we're in the middle of some very expensive wars that didn't come with exit strategies.

quote]

I feel sorry for him for the amount of work he has to do , however, he's in a great position to look good because the economy will come back regardless of what he does due to the cyclical nature of economics and he will get all the credit anyway. What he does about the wars and foreign policy issues is the thing we should really judge him on because that is something he can really have a direct impact on if he chooses.

 

[Sarg's kid]

Now, as I watch the news, aren't the Iraqis trying to get us out by 2011? It seems to me that whether or not whoever is in office wants to stay or wants us out, we're probably not going to be there at the end of 4 years anyway. And that's a good thing. We are seeing it through to the end and that is great.

As stated above, in terms of op tempo, the Iraq deployments will likely merely shift to Afghanistan deployments.

"To those -- to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you."

 

[Mirror Form]

In fairness, given that Obama has never talked about a short-term timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, this may say more about your nearest and dearest than it does of him. Maybe it's a matter of them hearing what they want to hear, in hopes you won't have to deploy?

I thought he said something like. . . "we're not going to babysit a civil war."

 

[notdeadyet]

I thought he said something like. . . "we're not going to babysit a civil war."

That's a far cry from a short-term timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.

 

[Founder]

I'm glad we finally have a president elect that people seem to believe in. I remember, in 2004, how both sides were groaning about how miserable their candidates were, and how they were voting for the lesser of two evils. I'm glad that he's managed to sell himself as someone who promises to be more than just the lesser evil. I sincerely hope he lives up to that promise.

I guess that is perhaps one of the positives to come out of this election. Though I have serious doubts about his ability to live up to the hype. Regardless if he does or not, I saw Obama as a bit more of a good speaker and when you looked at his policies (which I don't think many really did) nothing is about "change" at its core.

For disclosure I voted McCain.

In 2004 I voted Bush and did not consider him a "lesser" evil. I firmly believe if you dislike both candidate you can find something you agree with them on and vote based on that issue rather than casting what I'd call a negative vote (against rather than for). It is very easy to find one issue you are for and vote for that rather than against a candidate. Anyway I'm proud of my vote for Bush in 2004 and stand by it though he has been quite disappointing in the last two years.

But anyway back to Obama. I know of some people who voted for him because then their spouses would not deploy. Or so they believe.

 

[BomberDoc]

Prediction: Not much will change with the DoD because there is enormous institutional inertia. Agree that B.O. will likely not cut defense spending. However, priorities (and funding) will shift. Likely this will have no effect on the Medical Corpse because nobody in Washington ever gave a damn about the MC and why should they start now. Likewise, deployments will continue as scheduled for the next several years.

As a side note, I find it interesting that Karzai is trying to bully Obama so early. He will face many such tests early in his presidency. I'm sure that some world leaders hope America elected a *****. He is untested and will have to prove himself. I am indeed afraid that he will be a ***** on the world stage. I hope I am wrong and I wish B.O. the best of luck with foreign policy matters.

For disclosure, I voted for McCain and am saddened by the number of Americans who were dumb enough to get fooled by Obama's empty promises of "Change" and "Hope." These words are meaningless by themselves. I would like to see if he can bring something to back them up and prove me wrong.

Also, this is a great impetus for the Republican party to rebuild and reconnect with its basic platform. I may get politically involved now that I'm out of the military and have rights as a citizen again.

 

[notdeadyet]

He will face many such tests early in his presidency. I'm sure that some world leaders hope America elected a *****. He is untested and will have to prove himself.

Same was said of Bush once upon a time. My only hope is that Obama doesn't feel the need to compensate so much.

For disclosure, I voted for McCain and am saddened by the number of Americans who were dumb enough to get fooled by Obama's empty promises of "Change" and "Hope." These words are meaningless by themselves.

I think about as many Democrats voted for Obama based on "Hope" as Republicans voted for McCain based on the flag. Most folks can look beyond the PR machine and get a feel for the candidate.

I miss the old McCain. When I heard he was running for president, I was delighted, and liked how he ran his last one (until Rove made short work of him). You always had the impression there was a real live person inside the suit.

This campaign was different and McCain seemed to be playing a role he wasn't comfortable in. He ran an incredibly negative, sniping, attack campaign that really didn't fit his personality. His interviews became stilted, forced and produced. The guy was really floundering, which isn't like him.

I think he's probably finished in national politics, but if he ever comes back again, if he runs as John McCain, instead of whatever amalgamation his handlers' focus groups came up with, I'll give the guy another look.

 

[notdeadyet]

I am predicting now that Obama will not be a pushover in world affairs. I think a lot of this perception has less to do with his "inexperience" and a lot more to do with his youth and "boyish" appearance.

Agreed. Lots of Republicans will think any Democratic president is weak just based on his party. That's been the way for as long as I remember.

Ironically, since the rest of the world is so happy to be done with Bush, we may find that Obama will get more cooperation from the world stage and not find himself the guy shouting himself blue all by himself. We made Iraq all by ourself, but I have a hunch that future problems we find ourselves in, we'll get a lot more international cooperation than what we've had lately.

 

[elderjack21]

This campaign was different and McCain seemed to be playing a role he wasn't comfortable in. He ran an incredibly negative, sniping, attack campaign that really didn't fit his personality. His interviews became stilted, forced and produced. The guy was really floundering, which isn't like him.

I think he's probably finished in national politics, but if he ever comes back again, if he runs as John McCain, instead of whatever amalgamation his handlers' focus groups came up with, I'll give the guy another look.

You hit this on this on the head. He was really trying to serve too many masters in the republican party. I almost felt with his speech the other night (which was excellent) that it showed who he really was/is.

Obama has a lot on his plate for sure, hopefully he can deliver on his promises..or at least pull some plans out of his hat.

Given the economy, I wouldn't think it too unlikely for the DoD to take a financial hit in the coming years given the generous spending in the past. Popular or unpopular, when it comes to people losing their jobs and their houses and funding a war in a country no one cares about, I think the choice is clear.

 

[The White Coat Investor]

I like McCain for who he was before he started running for president, and I'm confident that had he been elected he would have reverted to that. Unfortunately, I did not like who Obama was before he started running for president so I hope he does not revert to that (most liberal voting record and all that.)

 

[Founder]

I certainly hope Obama isn't seen as a pushover. That's not good for the US.

I was disappointed by what McCain transformed into during the process. 2000 McCain probably could have won this election. He wouldn't have done stuff like the grandstanding for the Bailout when he "rushed" back to Washington nor pandered to the extreme right-wing and alienate moderates.

If the world is willing to work with Obama because he Is Not Bush then I guess that is a good thing.

 

[notdeadyet]

I almost felt with his speech the other night (which was excellent) that it showed who he really was/is.

Agreed. If his handlers let him run his campaign with as much class as he ran his concession, the man might be president. People like McCain because of who he is. When you make him pretend he's something different, he comes across as a bad actor.

I hope he stays with the Senate. He and his style of politics was a real asset there.

 

[notdeadyet]

However I think the only path to victory for him in this election would have been flying to Afghanistan, capturing Osama personally, and forcing him to buy up all of our bad mortgages.

And he still wouldn't have been able to take California or Massachusetts.

 

[BigNavyPedsGuy]

And he still wouldn't have been able to take California or Massachusetts.

Because California is crazy liberal right . . . that's why they just banned gay marriage.

 

[notdeadyet]

Because California is crazy liberal right . . . that's why they just banned gay marriage.

Very little of California is crazy liberal, only small pockets. But much of California is majority democrat. Getting California's electoral votes to go red would be a pretty big feat right now.

 

[notdeadyet]

And on a side note, it also proves that people lie to pollsters about their true feelings. The polls showed a substantial majority in favor of gay marriage, but the election showed the real truth.

Meh. I don't know about that. Polls ask people how they feel. Election results show how they voted. The disconnect a lot of the time is who actually gets out and votes.

The problem with Prop 8 is that a majority of those who are against gay marriage are vehement (religion will often dothat) and much more likely to go to the polls. Some of those who support gay marriage aren't passionate about the subject.

Prop 8 had more money behind it (much out of state money) than any prop in California history. High budget, constant flooding of the airwaves with bull$hit propoganda of how schools would have lectures on how Dave should marry Bob and other nonsense. They tried to turn it into a children's rights issue, which is always a clever ploy and can sway uninformed or ignorant voters. Clever ploy and it seemed to have worked.

I do find it ironic that the biggest of the bankrollers was the Mormon church. Given LDS history on the subject of marriage, I was half hoping to see adds with the tag line:

"Proposition 8. Because marriage is between a man and a woman. Or women."

 

[Founder]

Prop 8... hm. Anyway, even Obama has said marriage is man and woman if I recall. Lots of people from the religious right to Democrats are against gay marriage.

 

[notdeadyet]

Prop 8... hm. Anyway, even Obama has said marriage is man and woman if I recall.

He did. He immediately followed it with the statement that he would never make laws outlawing it.

I can be against the idea of abortion and still be pro-choice. Having an opinion on a subject and pushing your beliefs are two entirely different things that this country sometimes has problems remembering.

Lots of people from the religious right to Democrats are against gay marriage.

Too true. Though I have to say that I've yet to meet a Prop 8 supporter that wasn't Christian. I find it hard to believe that you get too many people denying rights to another without religion entering into the equation.

the Prop 8 thing was much more a Christian/Morman vs. non than it was Republican vs. Democrat. People didn't vote along party lines on this one. I know quite a few Republicans that were against prop 8 based on the idea that the government shouldn't be in their bedroom.

 

[RugbyJC]

Lots of people from the religious right to Democrats are against gay marriage.

Yeah...lots of people seem to like to tell others what to do. Especially when it has ABSOLUTELY NO effect on their personal well being.

You think Obama can also make all this silly DOD computer training go away?

 

[Jolie South]

Prop 8... hm. Anyway, even Obama has said marriage is man and woman if I recall. Lots of people from the religious right to Democrats are against gay marriage.

i can understand religious opposition to gay marriage, but for gay couples to have no legal rights is ridiculous IMO. the word "marriage" implies some kind of accord with the church. California would have been better off enumerating rights available to couples through some kind of civil status than trying to legalize gay marriage.

i realize it is somewhat an issue of semantics, but i think there would be less opposition if the government went at it from that angle.

 

[notdeadyet]

California would have been better off enumerating rights available to couples through some kind of civil status than trying to legalize gay marriage.

That's the equivalent of telling them they can ride on the bus but have to sit in the back.

 

[Jolie South]

That's the equivalent of telling them they can ride on the bus but have to sit in the back.

I see marriage as a religious issue not a legal one. I failed to express that earlier. The only government role in this whole thing is to make sure that the same tax breaks, insurance stipulations, etc apply equally to every couple. I think we should take the "marriage" terminology out of all our legislation in general whether referring to a heterosexual or homosexual couple. I don't know how we would talk about it or what terminology we should use. I haven't had THAT much time to sit around and plan the policy. I just see it more in terms of legal protections and equality than the whole covenant with God thing.

BTW, according to the church, I'm not even married. I only did the civil thing. 🙂

 

[BigNavyPedsGuy]

Too true. Though I have to say that I've yet to meet a Prop 8 supporter that wasn't Christian. I find it hard to believe that you get too many people denying rights to another without religion entering into the equation.

the Prop 8 thing was much more a Christian/Morman vs. non than it was Republican vs. Democrat. People didn't vote along party lines on this one. I know quite a few Republicans that were against prop 8 based on the idea that the government shouldn't be in their bedroom.

There has to be something besides religion or else you're saying that over half of California is Christian or Mormon. That's a statistic I don't believe.

 

[notdeadyet]

There has to be something besides religion or else you're saying that over half of California is Christian or Mormon. That's a statistic I don't believe.

64% of California is Christian (incl. LDS/Catholics).

 

[notdeadyet]

Poor analogy. The civil rights protestors were trying to get (you guessed it) civil rights. Homosexuals in California were already granted civil rights identical to heterosexual couples. They went to court to over semantics.

No, they went to court for the right to marry. It's only semantics if it's not your rights.

The gay movement in California attempted to use the judiciary to induce social acceptance.

No, they tried to use the judiciary to secure their right to marry. It's not all that confusing. And it wasn't just those gay who supported the proposition. Most civil rights folks were on the same page. Again, excepting those who believe God told them that gays shouldn't marry.

It turns out that just because the judge said you have to feel good about sweaty man sex, it doesn't make families start tuning into Oz.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here, but hey to each their own.

 

[RugbyJC]

On her radio show recently, Dr. Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative.



Dear Dr. Laura:



Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.



I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.



1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?



2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?



3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.



4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?



5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?



6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?



7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?



8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?



9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?



10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two differentcrops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)



I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.



Your adoring fan,



James M. Kauffman, Ed.D.



Professor Emeritus

 

[dwb8p]

On her radio show recently, Dr. Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative.

If by recent, you mean May 2000, then I guess you're right.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

Funny nonetheless

 

[Founder]

He did. He immediately followed it with the statement that he would never make laws outlawing it.

I can be against the idea of abortion and still be pro-choice. Having an opinion on a subject and pushing your beliefs are two entirely different things that this country sometimes has problems remembering.

This is a problem I see with left-leaning politicians. Isn't a liberal supposed to be accepting, what I can do you can do? At least let the other person do what you are allowed to do.

It's a fairly glaring hypocrisy of left-leaning politicians and individuals, in my opinion.

Too true. Though I have to say that I've yet to meet a Prop 8 supporter that wasn't Christian. I find it hard to believe that you get too many people denying rights to another without religion entering into the equation.

the Prop 8 thing was much more a Christian/Morman vs. non than it was Republican vs. Democrat. People didn't vote along party lines on this one. I know quite a few Republicans that were against prop 8 based on the idea that the government shouldn't be in their bedroom.

That may very well be the case. It is difficult to reconcile differences in religion and ideology. Someone like Obama should be accepting for gays to marry yet I am assuming his religion sets him against it. Like Catholics should be against the death penalty but conservative Catholics are generally for it.

I'm not trying to pick on left-leaning individuals. It's just in California, a fairly liberal state in comparison to many others, seemed to contradict its ideology. Kind of like talking out of both sides of your mouth; let's be accepting, but let's segregate them away.

And as for my position, as a conservative and a firm believer in family values I strongly oppose Prop 8. Measures which promote monogamous relationships, from gay marriage or heterosexual marriage should be supported. Loving relationships should be encouraged and it is ridiculous, in my opinion, of the legal differences between couples. It does strike me that the civil rights movement of the 1960s seems to be incomplete if a segment of the population is still discriminated against like this. There is no justification to not afford someone the same legal protections and rights as another based on sexuality.

 

[notdeadyet]

Dupe

 

[notdeadyet]

This is a problem I see with left-leaning politicians. Isn't a liberal supposed to be accepting, what I can do you can do? At least let the other person do what you are allowed to do.

I agree. Which is why I think Obama isn't talking about outlawing gay marriage.

It's a fairly glaring hypocrisy of left-leaning politicians and individuals, in my opinion.

I don't follow you. Where is the hypocrisy that you're referring to? Obama says that he believes in individual freedoms, so even though he may personally feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, he realizes that it's a matter of choice and won't force his opinion on others.

But there's hypocrisy everywhere in politics, I definitely won't argue you that. Hell, in the last 8 years the Republican party has completely done a 180 on everything they have stood for over the years. Reagan would be spinning in his grave over the governmental revocation of freedoms done by the Patriot Act. The Democrats are guilty of some pretty glaring hypocrisies as well. I just don't see them in the case you're talking about

 

[notdeadyet]

It is difficult to reconcile differences in religion and ideology. Someone like Obama should be accepting for gays to marry yet I am assuming his religion sets him against it. Like Catholics should be against the death penalty but conservative Catholics are generally for it.

Very true. But I don't mind what a particular politician's religious beliefs are, so long as they don't let those beliefs curtail individual freedoms. It's why we have the separation of church and state. So Obama may not feel gay marriage is right due to his Christian beliefs, but as long as he doesn't legislate based on the word of God, I'm fine with that.

It's just in California, a fairly liberal state in comparison to many others, seemed to contradict its ideology. Kind of like talking out of both sides of your mouth; let's be accepting, but let's segregate them away.

Folks in other states buy into a stereotype of California that is of our own making. Don't believe the hype. SF and much of the Bay Area is as left-leaning as you'd think. LA has a liberal bent, but a very vocal conservative side as well. Orange County and much of San Diego is further to the right than much of the South.

The rest of the state is pretty much rural and very centrist. Take a look at county-by-county voting results and you'll see that matches up. California as a whole is solidly democrat, but not nearly as liberal as folks make it out to be.

And as for my position, as a conservative and a firm believer in family values I strongly oppose Prop 8. Measures which promote monogamous relationships, from gay marriage or heterosexual marriage should be supported. Loving relationships should be encouraged and it is ridiculous, in my opinion, of the legal differences between couples. It does strike me that the civil rights movement of the 1960s seems to be incomplete if a segment of the population is still discriminated against like this. There is no justification to not afford someone the same legal protections and rights as another based on sexuality.

Nice to hear your stance, Founder. I have to admit, every time I hear someone use the phrase "family values", I get uncomfortable, because it's inevitably followed by why something should be outlawed/is offensive/is a sin/etc. Nice to see family values used in the true sense of the word. Respect.

The issue is far from dead. Just over 40 years ago black folks were being denied their rights and now we have a black president-elect. Folks may deny rights to gays now, but they'll lose ground in the coming years. Little by little this country is going to come to terms with the fact that denying someone their rights is just plain unAmerican.

 

[notdeadyet]

Last I checked, marriage isn't a civil right.

Check google. Depends on your source. Some strict definitions consider it only the rights movement for the blacks in the 60's. Other definitions consider civil rights the class of rights "ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation; etc."

Except, you know, the majority that didn't. But please, don't let a little thing like election results get in the way of your argument.

Oh, Tired, we both know you can read better than that. Don't try so hard to be clever.

Read what you're quoting again. I said "And it wasn't just those gay who supported the proposition. Most civil rights folks were on the same page."

I've yet to meet someone who considers themselves a supporter of civil rights who voted Yes on Prop 8. But the vote wasn't restricted to civil rights folks, obviously. There is a healthy dose of Californians who think that we should be taking away civil rights that have been given, not recognizing more.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion and I wish them the best. But folks like to talk out of both sides of their mouth, particularly when using God or country to justify their need to exclude others from rights they have. "I believe in equality for one and all.... except for gays. And muslims. Blacks are okay... for now." We'll come around as a country. It will just take more time.

 

[notdeadyet]

You think that the 70% of African Americans who voted for prop 8 didn't consider themselves supporters of civil rights?

They voted with their church, not on any civil rights basis. If you look at the major civil rights groups in California, including the African American ones (NAACP, etc.) I've only seen them no on prop 8. There may be exceptions, but I haven't seen any civil rights groups listed with yes votes.

There's a pretty large part of society that considers homosexuals a group of people that prefers a lifestyle, not an immutable genetically determined segment of the population. You don't have a right to a lifestyle choice, society regulates lifestyle choices all the time.

By this same logic, Catholics are part of a lifestyle, as this is not genetically determined. Are we allowed to deny them rights such as marraige as well? Sound silly to me...

Also, again, people with the very reasonable opinion I just gave don't like people calling them hate mongers.

I've never used the term hate monger, Perrotfish. Your words. I'm just saying that folks supporting prop 8 are essentially denying a group of Americans a right based on the fact that they don't approve of a particular lifestyle. Which is pretty much exactly what you described in your paragraph above. So really we're in agreement.

No one wants to be lumped in with the Klan every time they disagree with you.

Sorry if folks feel as if they're being demonized, but if you're go around taking away people's rights, it's probably natural to feel like you're in amongst bad company.

I wouldn't use the Klan as analagous to Prop 8 supporters. That's silly. The Klan in the 60's went out and targeted and murdered people of a different lifestyle and race.

People denying fellow Americans their right to marry are more like the folks that were sitting around town that felt while they've got nothing against The Others per se, they don't think they should be allowed to drink out of white water fountains.

 

[notdeadyet]

But hey, at the end of the day, Proposition 8 passed and so be it. A lot of folks will work to overturn it based on it being unconstitutional (which is what happened last time, though I don't know if the state supreme court will do it with this one).

And my apologies if it sounds as if this one strikes a raw nerve with me. I have a particular pet peeve of people eliminating others' freedoms.

Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.

Don't like NYPD Blue? Don't watch it.

Don't like Bill Maher? Don't listen to him.

Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a homosexual.

But banning of this and banning of that is just so fundamentally unAmerican. We had a bad run of that in the 1950's. My worry is that mentality where the American populace rolls over like sheep to their government and church which is a reaction of fear to 9/11 and has been on the rise ever since. Enough.

To the Prop 8 supporters: congratulations. The millions your churches spent have kept your family safe from that evil, evil scourge of gay marriage that was so very, very dangerous to your community. On to the next boogeyman.

 

[pgg]

Lord, I hope mine does. 7 months in a hardened base seeing sick call is my worst nightmare.

Sick call amongst my Marines dropped off by at least 80% when we deployed. Part of it was the fact that we turfed off about 40 of our sick/lame/lazy before deploying. Part of it was that the Marines would be stuck in the field and would just see their Corpsman for the trivial crap. And I think another part of it was that a lot of the Marines were actually happy to be doing important Marine stuff for a change, and just didn't feel a need to hang out at sick call to avoid scrubbing toilets or going on battalion runs.

Unfortunately, we had a reservist Seabee unit and some Army engineers colocated with us, and they didn't bring their own medical. So I wound up "documenting" all the aches and pains of the 50+ year old crowd who'd been told that they'd be "cut a check" for their disabilities when they got deactivated, and stabbing my fingernails into my palms to dull the pain of the psych visits with crazy Army chicks.

One big reason I asked for Marine infantry was so I wouldn't have to deal with OB/GYN primary care issues, and they foisted off a chunk of the Army on me. Fate is cruel.

 

[pgg]

Agreed. If his handlers let him run his campaign with as much class as he ran his concession, the man might be president.

Speaking of class, his live audience for that speech sure didn't have much. How many times did he have to hold up his hands to quiet down the crowd who booed every time he talked about reconciliation, bipartisanship, and working with the new president because we're ALL Americans?

And on a side note, it also proves that people lie to pollsters about their true feelings. The polls showed a substantial majority in favor of gay marriage, but the election showed the real truth.

It's interesting that we had a Bradley effect for the gay marriage initiative, but not one for the black guy running for office. There might be something to be said about the kind of people who voted for prop 8, when viewed in that light.

You think Obama can also make all this silly DOD computer training go away?

Now that's hope and change I can believe in.

 

[notdeadyet]

Speaking of class, his live audience for that speech sure didn't have much. How many times did he have to hold up his hands to quiet down the crowd who booed every time he talked about reconciliation, bipartisanship, and working with the new president because we're ALL Americans?

Yeah, that was just plain sad. You knew it was going to be ugly when in the days leading up to the elections, McCain had to interrupt his own speeches to talk people down in his audience when they started shouting "Ayers!" and "Muslim" and all sorts of garbage.

That said, I don't think that's so much an indication of McCain as it is of how his campaign was run. You can't run a smear campaign for that long and then during a concession expect people to believe you when you say what a great president you think the other guy will be.

I feel for John McCain. The biggest mistake of his political career was listening to his campaign advisors on this run and let them change into something he isn't.

It's interesting that we had a Bradley effect for the gay marriage initiative, but not one for the black guy running for office. There might be something to be said about the kind of people who voted for prop 8, when viewed in that light.

What do you think it says? Do you think it's a reflection of how far we've come on race but not on homosexuality? Or is it saying something else?

 

[Founder]

I agree. Which is why I think Obama isn't talking about outlawing gay marriage.

I don't follow you. Where is the hypocrisy that you're referring to? Obama says that he believes in individual freedoms, so even though he may personally feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, he realizes that it's a matter of choice and won't force his opinion on others.

If Prop 8 had come up in Illinois would he have voted for it or against it? it is very easy to say what he did when he isn't put up to task for it; he could say what he wanted because he'd never be called on it in the form of a vote. And there is enough opposition in Congress he wont have to, either.

It is very easy to say "I don't believe XXX but think that choice should exist" when you don't have to vote for a measure banning or allowing it.

But there's hypocrisy everywhere in politics, I definitely won't argue you that. Hell, in the last 8 years the Republican party has completely done a 180 on everything they have stood for over the years. Reagan would be spinning in his grave over the governmental revocation of freedoms done by the Patriot Act. The Democrats are guilty of some pretty glaring hypocrisies as well. I just don't see them in the case you're talking about

I was glad when the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, though I was fairly young and not as political, I knew I preferred their ideology. Unfortunately as I became more political in high school and in 2000 to 2006 or so I saw the Republicans becoming more bent on power and going back on a lot of promises. Gone was smaller government and in came big government. The expansion of entitlements and Bush's inability to push forward Social Security reform have really annoyed me.

I'm very conservative so don't get me started on the Democrats. 😉 But my criticism will be directed towards those I supported and those that let me down. While I was intensely disappointed with the GOP I am more concerned with what the DNC will do now with control of government. And if Obama wins in 2012 they'll control the Supreme Court as well.

Very true. But I don't mind what a particular politician's religious beliefs are, so long as they don't let those beliefs curtail individual freedoms. It's why we have the separation of church and state. So Obama may not feel gay marriage is right due to his Christian beliefs, but as long as he doesn't legislate based on the word of God, I'm fine with that.

Part of legislating has to do with morality. We often support laws if we think they are moral or not. I am largely opposed to welfare for financial reasons but also I make a moral jugement that you need to teach a man to fish rather than give him a fish. Work ethic which shapes my view on welfare is a moral jugement, for example.

There is nothing wrong with using religion as a basis for legislation if you can justify that with other, non-religious justifications as well.

Folks in other states buy into a stereotype of California that is of our own making. Don't believe the hype. SF and much of the Bay Area is as left-leaning as you'd think. LA has a liberal bent, but a very vocal conservative side as well. Orange County and much of San Diego is further to the right than much of the South.

Yeah... but when Obama wins CA by like 20 points... 😉

The rest of the state is pretty much rural and very centrist. Take a look at county-by-county voting results and you'll see that matches up. California as a whole is solidly democrat, but not nearly as liberal as folks make it out to be.

Nice to hear your stance, Founder. I have to admit, every time I hear someone use the phrase "family values", I get uncomfortable, because it's inevitably followed by why something should be outlawed/is offensive/is a sin/etc. Nice to see family values used in the true sense of the word. Respect.

Thanks. I think a lot of conservatives would be more open to that view of family values if it was introduced. I've never really heard well-known conservatives speak of family values in the fashion I have.

The issue is far from dead. Just over 40 years ago black folks were being denied their rights and now we have a black president-elect. Folks may deny rights to gays now, but they'll lose ground in the coming years. Little by little this country is going to come to terms with the fact that denying someone their rights is just plain unAmerican.

I'd have to agree in spirit here. Though a lot of people do not equate what some see as a lifestyle choice the same as being born black, which you cannot control.

As for whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice, I don't really think it matters all that much. Not at all, really.

 

[notdeadyet]

If Prop 8 had come up in Illinois would he have voted for it or against it? it is very easy to say what he did when he isn't put up to task for it; he could say what he wanted because he'd never be called on it in the form of a vote. And there is enough opposition in Congress he wont have to, either.

That's a good point. I suppose it is easy for him to say that, because it won't come to the point of Congress during his term. If California can't support gay marriage in popular vote, I find it hard to believe it will happen nationally anytime soon.

It is very easy to say "I don't believe XXX but think that choice should exist" when you don't have to vote for a measure banning or allowing it.

It would be curious to see it come up in Illinois. I'd lose a lot of respect for him if he switched his mind once it came on ballot for him. I suppose he's arguing from a pretty safe place right now.

I'm very conservative so don't get me started on the Democrats. 😉 But my criticism will be directed towards those I supported and those that let me down.

Fair enough. I'd probably have a similar attitude, but as a liberal, I've had so little practice with Democrats in the presidency. I've had eight years of a Democrat president in my life and I'm 36, for God's sake! Clinton I thought did a great job for the country. Carter... well, dammit he was a good man and meant well. Just not a very effectual president. I don't have a lot of Democrat presidents I can stew over.

While I was intensely disappointed with the GOP I am more concerned with what the DNC will do now with control of government. And if Obama wins in 2012 they'll control the Supreme Court as well.

Maybe. 7 of the 9 justices are Republican appointees. I can see them a good few hanging on 8 years. I don't think there's a job on the planet that gives you the life expectancy of a stubborn Supreme Court Justice.

 

[notdeadyet]

Part of legislating has to do with morality. We often support laws if we think they are moral or not. <snip>
There is nothing wrong with using religion as a basis for legislation if you can justify that with other, non-religious justifications as well.

Agreed. It's only natural that your moral beliefs are going to be in part shaped by your religion or your parents religion.

I have no problem with that. I have problem with the fact that the second half of you statement above is a rareity.

If people disapprove of homosexuals, Jews, or Blacks because of their religion (or lackthereof), they are fully entitled to their beliefs. But if they pass legislation based on those beliefs, they better have a better justification than "God told me they're dirty/going to hell/sinful/etc."

For all the Prop 8 supporters, I haven't heard a good justification for why homosexuals should be denied the same privileges and rights as straight folks that wasn't based on God.

Yeah... but when Obama wins CA by like 20 points... 😉

Touche. That was a wide margin even by our standards...

I think a lot of conservatives would be more open to that view of family values if it was introduced. I've never really heard well-known conservatives speak of family values in the fashion I have.

Yeah, it would be refreshing to see "family values" not be a dubious term. It loses some of its credibility when it's followed by banning gays from activities, requiring prayer in school, or pushing some other policy. Particularly when the speaker is later caught soliciting someone in a restroom or being caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Ironically, I hear the phrase "family values" most from politicians. And they tend to be the ones least qualified to talk about them.

I'd have to agree in spirit here. Though a lot of people do not equate what some see as a lifestyle choice the same as being born black, which you cannot control.

I'm not Catholic genetically, it's a choice I made, but that doesn't give anyone the right to deny me the same rights as Protestants. That born vs. chose argument doesn't hold water when you're deciding if someone is entitled to the same rights and privilages as someone else.

 

[pgg]

What do you think it says? Do you think it's a reflection of how far we've come on race but not on homosexuality? Or is it saying something else?

I'm saying that the parallels are close enough that I think that the mindset and bigotry that fueled racism then is essentially the same mindset and bigotry that fuels discrimination against gays now.

Both groups knew their positions were bigoted and indefensible, and something to be embarrassed of in public, so they felt compelled to lie to pollsters. But when no one's looking (in the secret polling booth) their true colors come out.

Yes, I'm calling people who think gayness is "immoral" the moral equivalent of racists.

 

[notdeadyet]

What about other choices that are regulated, but don't hurt anyone else? Off the top of my head: polygamy, drug use (including heroin use, don't just think weed), seatbelt laws, bicycle helmet laws, smoking (not illegal but highly taxed to discourage it), public profanity, public nudity, and engaging in sexual acts in public. Are you against regulating all of those?

The question isn't whether or not these things should be regulated, the question is whether or not they should be regulated for everyone.

If I think drug use should be legal, I wouldn't only make it legal for Blacks.

If I think helmets should be required, I wouldn't make it only apply to women.

If I thought public nudity should be outlawed, I wouldn't restrict the law to Latinos.

And if I think marriage should be legal, I wouldn't restrict it to heterosexuals.

See my point? The issue isn't regulation, the issue is if regulation is applied fairly and equally to all.

I mean, I guess you could argue that those things hurt society because you're offending public sensibilities,

I would consider any argument to make something illegal because it was dangerous to society (though I'd want to look at it very, very closely first), but I wouldn't consider making much illegal just because it is offensive to public sensibilities. I consider much of what comes out of Oral Roberts pretty offensive, but I would never want to outlaw it. That's just silly.

or because they're hurting yourself and when you hurt yourself you hurt society, but you could make those argument about homosexuality as well. Serious question.

How could you make those arguments about homosexuality? How are they hurting themselves? How are they hurting society? I don't see any connection there.

I can see wanting to outlaw heroin because it kills the user and hurts society. I don't see how Bob marrying Bill does either of those things. In fact, it helps the user and helps society.

In seriousness, I think I'm missing the parallel you're making. If you could explain it to me, I might be able to answer your question better.

 

[notdeadyet]

People who consider themselves homosexuals have the exact same rights under the law as non-homosexuals, including in marriage. They can marry one person of the opposite sex.

Ah, I see. You're arguing semantics. It makes sense now.

By your logic, we could make it illegal for Catholics to marry by saying that marriage is between Protestants. It's not discriminatory against Catholics mind you, because they can get married if they follow the rules and marry a Protestant.

This is prejudicial by exclusion. It's not saying Blacks can't use the waterfountains, it's just saying that only whites can. And if they ain't white? Well, tough.

Now what I wrote doesn't make a lot of sense if you consider homosexuality genetic (or at least a permanent, immutable condition), but if you consider it a lifestyle choice it makes perfect sense.

I really don't know why the anti-gay rights folks focus in on this. It really doesn't matter if it's genetic or a choice. Exclusion based on choice or genetics really doesn't matter. Religion is a choice and you can't pass laws excluding folks based on religion either.

Consider this argument:

Now outlawing Jewish folks from getting married doesn't make a lot of sense if you consider Jewish faith genetics (or at least a permanent, imutable condition), but if you consider it a life style choice, restricting their ability to get married makes perfect sense. They can get married if they choose to marry a goy, so they have the same rights as us Protestants.

Enough of the choice vs. genetics argument. Unless you're comfortable applying the same logic to religion as sexuality, it's smoke. Let's call it what it is.

 

[notdeadyet]

I was offended by nothing in the entire debate, from either side, except the fact Cali's Supreme Court started it when they overturned prop 22 (I hate regulating from the bench). But thankfully this is the internet, I'm trying not to study, and might as well play devil's advocate.

Were it not for regulation from the bench, we'd still have segregated schools. People can vote to bring back slavery in California, but it would be overturned by the courts as unconstitutional.

I see no problem with this. Our country would be an ugly and unAmerican place had people been allowed to use mob mentality to force through legislation that directly violates constitutional rights.

 

[notdeadyet]

I agree with that, with all my heart and all my soul, and I think that this election showed that most of the nation agreed.

yeah, a lot of California voted with their soul. I just wish they'd keep their soul off of my state's freedoms.

I also believe, however, that you can make wrong decisions. If you think that homosexuality is a decision and not a way you are born, you can argue that it's the wrong choice. And we regulate poor choices all the time.

Thank you. You're being direct here and not dancing around the issue. You think that gay marriage needs to be regulated because homosexuality is a poor choice.

The burden of proof as to whether or not a choice is a "poor choice" falls on those trying to take away the rights, not those trying to keep them.

I may think country music is a bad choice, but unless I can prove that it is damaging to society, outlawing it outright is just plain unAmerican.

Folks seem to want to circumvent the burden of proof as to whether or not gay marriage is a "bad choice" because, hey, since we're all straight Christians, don't we all just know it's wrong?

I don't buy it. If you want to show me proof of how gay marriage is such a blight on society that it has serious and very damaging consequences that must be avoided by outlawing the ability of a segment of our society to marry, then hab at it.

I find it ironic that we required a lot more proof to take away folks' rights to drive cars without seatbelts then we do to take away people's rights to marry.

It'll just take time. It took a long time convincing folks that black had equal rights as whites back in the day. This one will be a lot quicker.

In short, if you convince me that homosexuality it genetic, you'd convince me that gay marriage is a right.

That's not how the laws supposedly work in this country.

In the past, before we got in the habit of rolling over and giving up rights, we used to fight for them. In the past, if folks wanted to pass laws restricting people's rights, they had to have pretty damning evidence. If you have it, I'm all ears.

But if you don't, let's not pretend that this is anything but legislating against homosexuality because you just don't plain don't like it. And if that's the case, well, that's just too bad. Such is the price of freedom.