Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Lynn Dee
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 month ago
in Obama gives uncomfortable, contradictory answer on gay marriage, but also slips and gives his REAL view I think on AMERICAblog
Every time I hear Obama speak on the subject of gay marriage, I say -- to the T.V. or the radio -- "I don't believe you. You know better, Obama. I know you know better."
I know he has a lot on his plate, etc. etc. and perhaps feels he can't take this battle on now. Fine. But jeez, it must stick in his craw to say something as lame as "defining marriage belongs to the states."
Meanwhile, why not put a moratorium on DADT drummings-out of qualified people from the military?
I know he has a lot on his plate, etc. etc. and perhaps feels he can't take this battle on now. Fine. But jeez, it must stick in his craw to say something as lame as "defining marriage belongs to the states."
Meanwhile, why not put a moratorium on DADT drummings-out of qualified people from the military?
- 2 points
- Jump to »
nicho
Maybe we should have left desegregation to the states. Maybe we should have left voting rights to the states. Maybe we should have left women's suffrage to the states.
4 months ago
in Yesterday's Prop 8 oral arguments in California on AMERICAblog
I believe it was the Court (although it may have been Ken Starr) that said something about "all political power" belonging to the people of the state. And it seems to me that word "political" is key. Obviously, fundamental rights should not be subjected to the ebb and flow of political power and should not be submitted to the people for a vote. That's what the whole "tyranny of the majority" concern is all about.
1 reply
Steve_in_CNJ
the whole thing sounded like kindergarten. has 10th grade civics become an elective? how can we be taken seriously as a constitutional democracy?
6 months ago
in Obama to have gay Bishop give invocation at Sunday inaugural vote. Obama official says has nothing to do with Warren controversy. on AMERICAblog
In virtually all of the things you list here, you're talking about going forward, which is exactly where I personally would put the focus now.
As an added point: You're talking about neutralizing Warren, as if that is what I was talking about. It's not. I was talking about the particular instance of neutralizing Warren's appearance at the inauguration.
Beyond that niggling little point, we seem to be in violent agreement.
As an added point: You're talking about neutralizing Warren, as if that is what I was talking about. It's not. I was talking about the particular instance of neutralizing Warren's appearance at the inauguration.
Beyond that niggling little point, we seem to be in violent agreement.
1 reply
Akaison
There is a history and objective way of viewing these things without reference to just one's own personal feelings. This is politics.
6 months ago
in Obama to have gay Bishop give invocation at Sunday inaugural vote. Obama official says has nothing to do with Warren controversy. on AMERICAblog
I don't quite see the comparison. I agree Rick Warren stands for all the wrong things and that should be taken seriously, particularly as he seems to be wading into political water. It is specifically his speaking at the inauguration that, for me, has been neutralized. But, my initial response notwithstanding, I understand that other people feel differently.
show all 3 replies
3 replies
Gridlock
He won't be neutralized until him and his bigot followers are relegated to the dustbin of history along with their ignorant 'beliefs' that would see whole segments of the population in social bondage.
timncguy
well, what will neutralize the situation for me is when Obama comes through on his campaign promises. The promises he made to the LGBT community cost ZERO dollars so will have no effect on the terrible economy. And, I fully expect the congress should be able to accomplish more than one issue at a time. So, what I want is the enactment of hate crimes legislation, the enactment of ENDA , the repeal of DOMA and the repeal of DADT. These shold not be difficult to do when dems control all three branches of goverment. And, as I said, there is no MONEY required to pass these items.
When Obama's ACTIONS match his WORDS, then Warren will be neutralized.
Here's how I want it to go. When they talk about hate crimes legislation and the Warren's of this world object to it as "special" rights. I want the Obama admin to step up and say LOUDLY, we invited you of the religious right to the table, we listened to your position, we decided that you are WRONG on this civil rights issue.
When Obama's ACTIONS match his WORDS, then Warren will be neutralized.
Here's how I want it to go. When they talk about hate crimes legislation and the Warren's of this world object to it as "special" rights. I want the Obama admin to step up and say LOUDLY, we invited you of the religious right to the table, we listened to your position, we decided that you are WRONG on this civil rights issue.
6 months ago
in Obama to have gay Bishop give invocation at Sunday inaugural vote. Obama official says has nothing to do with Warren controversy. on AMERICAblog
You're wrong, timncguy, that's not the reason. But I did appreciate John asking me to explain why I said what I did. For me, the distress I felt when the decision to have Rick Warren speak was first announced has largely dissipated, and having Gene Robinson speak, for me, neutralizes the issue. But, that doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. So basically what happened was I responded with: "Hey, I'm okay with this now; isn't everyone?" And I learned: "Uh, no, Lynn. Not everyone feels the same!"
1 reply
Akaison
Your comment reminds me of the gay people I met who were apathetic about marriage rights. "I don't want marriage, so I don't see why you are making a big deal about this."
Warren is a big deal because abroad he supports a guy who pushed for legislation that is the equivalent of Paragraph 175.
Warren is a big deal because abroad he supports a guy who pushed for legislation that is the equivalent of Paragraph 175.
6 months ago
in Obama to have gay Bishop give invocation at Sunday inaugural vote. Obama official says has nothing to do with Warren controversy. on AMERICAblog
This is just my opinion, of course, but it seems to me Obama has done all he's going to do and can really be expected to do with regard to Rick Warren appear at the inauguration. The original concern was not that Obama was willing to, for example, talk to Rick Warren, but rather the symbolism of his inviting Rick Warren to appear. I think that concern has been neutralized. To me, it is now possible to focus on what Obama should do going forward without feeling like gays as a group have to swallow what was the very understandable feeling they'd been thrown under the bus.
Again, though, this is just my opinion. If the pain is still there, then of course, the matter shouldn't be dropped.
Would it be possible, though, now that the concern has been heard, to use that pain in a different way? I'm not sure what that would be. Perhaps you, or someone else, has some ideas? It seems clear, though, that Rick Warren is not going to be uninvited. I have even kind of enjoyed, over the past several weeks, the discomfort Rick Warren has obviously been feeling over being "caught" trying to have it both ways. I know the resulting dialogue wasn't intended, but I think it's been helpful.
Again, though, this is just my opinion. If the pain is still there, then of course, the matter shouldn't be dropped.
Would it be possible, though, now that the concern has been heard, to use that pain in a different way? I'm not sure what that would be. Perhaps you, or someone else, has some ideas? It seems clear, though, that Rick Warren is not going to be uninvited. I have even kind of enjoyed, over the past several weeks, the discomfort Rick Warren has obviously been feeling over being "caught" trying to have it both ways. I know the resulting dialogue wasn't intended, but I think it's been helpful.
2 replies
willnyc
Lynn Dee, interesting points. The pain of Warren speaking at what was to be a celebration of progressive activism is still VERY MUCH alive. The pain is still there.
This pain has already exhibited itself as energy, as a loud demand that bigots be called out when they hide behind a belief system, and going forward, a demand for equality under the law.
But you've brought up an important point: What's next? Exactly?
This pain has already exhibited itself as energy, as a loud demand that bigots be called out when they hide behind a belief system, and going forward, a demand for equality under the law.
But you've brought up an important point: What's next? Exactly?
Akaison
this goes beyond warren and is about an effort to force obama to live up to his word on rights.
Some of the problem I have with your posts is that are not about politics at all. Which is what we are discussing.
Let me cut and paste something posted on Daily Kos last night:
"And what I learned on working on Nixon and watching him and slow-moing him for hours and hours and hours, is never to 100 percent totally believe the person the politician is when the red light goes on, because he wants to communicate something to us. He wants to communicate power or sensitivity or vulnerability or in Nixon's case, toughness.
Every single politician must stand in the dark a second before the light goes on, and something unconscious changes. So I've learned to watch like a hawk everybody - Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, it doesn't matter - and all of us, too. We all know we do some things slightly different."
This is Frank Langella, who portrays Nixon in Nixon/Frost.
The poiint he is trying to make is that politics is about more than the personality (Obama as Obama). It's about what they are pushing forth. Always. When looking these issues, I really do get the sense reading comments that people seem to not appreciate that it is politics. When you say things like we are in the middle of a sensitivity training session it makes me question do you get it?
Let me allow Kos of Daily Kos to sum up why these things matter- the point of this is to keep pressure on Obama. Politicians only respond when you do that. Not when you try to turn it into a personal relationship.
Some of the problem I have with your posts is that are not about politics at all. Which is what we are discussing.
Let me cut and paste something posted on Daily Kos last night:
"And what I learned on working on Nixon and watching him and slow-moing him for hours and hours and hours, is never to 100 percent totally believe the person the politician is when the red light goes on, because he wants to communicate something to us. He wants to communicate power or sensitivity or vulnerability or in Nixon's case, toughness.
Every single politician must stand in the dark a second before the light goes on, and something unconscious changes. So I've learned to watch like a hawk everybody - Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, it doesn't matter - and all of us, too. We all know we do some things slightly different."
This is Frank Langella, who portrays Nixon in Nixon/Frost.
The poiint he is trying to make is that politics is about more than the personality (Obama as Obama). It's about what they are pushing forth. Always. When looking these issues, I really do get the sense reading comments that people seem to not appreciate that it is politics. When you say things like we are in the middle of a sensitivity training session it makes me question do you get it?
Let me allow Kos of Daily Kos to sum up why these things matter- the point of this is to keep pressure on Obama. Politicians only respond when you do that. Not when you try to turn it into a personal relationship.
6 months ago
in Obama to have gay Bishop give invocation at Sunday inaugural vote. Obama official says has nothing to do with Warren controversy. on AMERICAblog
You know, I think it's time to drop this particular complaint against Obama. Let it go.
2 replies
TheNeedle
Yeah, good luck with that.
John Aravosis
Why?
7 months ago
in Payback is a bitch on AMERICAblog
Reader Shano, is it? Heeeyyy... is he also Shano of Pittsburgh who does audio clips for Steph and the mooks on the radio?!
1 reply
