Huckabee: ‘It’s ridiculous for people to be upset at Rick Warren.’
By on Dec 20th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Huckabee: ‘It’s ridiculous for people to be upset at Rick Warren.’
Last night on Fox News, Greta Van Susteren asked Mike Huckabee about President-elect Obama’s decision to choose pastor Rick Warren — who has a long record of anti-gay views — to give the invocation at his inauguration. Huckabee — who also has a long record of anti-gay views — came to Warren’s defense:
HUCKABEE: Well it’s ridiculous for people to be upset at Rick Warren. He is one of the most influential spiritual leaders of this generation. I have known Rick for over 30 years. We were actually in seminary together in Fort Worth, Texas, back in the mid-1970s. He is today what he has always been, and that is a humble, gracious, thoughtful, very intellectually capable person.
Watch it:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
He is today what he has always been, and that is a humble, gracious, thoughtful, very intellectually capable person.
He is today what he has always been, and that is a humble, gracious, thoughtful, very intellectually capable bigot.
There Huckabee, I fixed it for you.
I’m sorry Huckabee but I and others will always be upset by bigots like you and Warren to seek to impose your views and beliefs on everyone around you.
December 20th, 2008 at 12:46 pmHuckabee: ‘It’s ridiculous for people to be upset at Rick Warren.’»
– - Huckabee is continuing his assault on civil rights tour that Jon Stewart took him to task for.
December 20th, 2008 at 12:47 pmAnd it’s Warren’s influence that bothers me most. When a bigot is in a position to influence millions with his words, and his words encourage judgement, intolerance, even hatred, he should not be given an international stage.
But I wouldn’t expect Huckleberry the Homophobe to understand. Greta, on the other hand, should be more sympathetic, given her gal crush on Palin.
PEACE
December 20th, 2008 at 12:52 pmit’s christmas cookie baking time!
i vaguely remember hearing of a site/petition that is asking pRick Warren to turn down the offer…
worth a try… if anyone knows of it, post it please…
i’ll check back later…
back to the kitchen!
December 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pmWhy should anyone with half a brain care what an inbred cracker like Huckahomo hater has to say? He’s about as relevant as Dan Quayle these days.
December 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pmWhat is ridiculous is that you thought you were preseidential material and that Darryl’s confused god sort of got confused on the whole issue.
December 20th, 2008 at 12:54 pmBottom line:
Supporting Rick Warren is a huge slap in the face to all in the gay community and those supporting and related to the gay community…. a slap in the face to about 75% of the population?
December 20th, 2008 at 1:04 pmDoes Huck support the assassination of foreign leaders the way Rick Warren does?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/rick-warren-bac.html
December 20th, 2008 at 1:09 pmPost #5 roscoe says, “Why should anyone with half a brain care what an inbred cracker like Huckahomo hater has to say? He’s about as relevant as Dan Quayle these days.”
Sir, I know Dan Quayle, he was a classmate of mine in remedial spelling and Mike Humpabee is no Dan Quayle.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pmWe were actually in seminary together….
…to Repukes, it’s not gay if one of them is wearing womens clothing.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pmSo, one radical cleric defends another…..surprise!
December 20th, 2008 at 1:26 pmPottersville’s annual Christmas spectacular is up and this year it’s an extended Assclowns of the Week: The 12 Assclowns of Christmas Edition. Roasting with the chestnuts: George W. Bush; Dick “Twister” Cheney; Rod Blagojevich; Bernard “Ponzi” Madoff; Senate Republicans; Condoleezza Rice and, believe it or not, President-Elect Barack Obama (over guess who?) and much, much more.
Ho, ho, ho. Enjoy and happy holidays.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pmRick Warren wouldn’t even be the issue if Obama hadn’t made such a sorry choice.
Is it really reaching out to the other side to give a place at the table to the same people who have been feeding at the trough for the last 30 years.
This one is on Obama. Rev. Wright would have been a better choice.
¶ AIO
December 20th, 2008 at 1:32 pmFaux news doesn’t make huck or warren an issue…..We are only discussing them because of their ongoing unrepentant gay bashing….encouraged by faux news.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:39 pmWho cares what Huckleberry thinks.
OT – this is one for the “hmmm…” column:
A top level Republican IT consultant who was set to testify in a case alleging GOP election tampering in Ohio died in a plane crash late Friday night.
Michael Connell — founder of Ohio-based New Media Communications, which created campaign Web sites for George W. Bush and John McCain — died instantly after his single-prop, private aircraft smashed into a vacant home in suburban Lake Township, Ohio.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:41 pmno, what’s ridiculous is asking this non-entity LOSER (what he mustered 5% of the vote in the primary?)his opinion on anything and acting like it matters.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:42 pmI do not understand the outrage here – warren is who is is and has clearly stated this position in the past.
alphainfinityomega is right – this is a poor choice on obama’s part. For some reason, folks at TP post and blog about the endless stream of anti-progressive folks, hypocrites, lying liars, and war ciminals, but give the folks that enable them or look the othera free pass.
The issue is not that huck and warren have repeated what they have been saying for years – that is OLD NEWS.
The issue is why Obama continues to capitulate to unpopular folks. He has a mandate and support from many – he does not need to sell us out time and time again.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pmbozo – even more ridiculous to blog about huck. The real point should be why Obama has chosen such an outspoken anti-gay preacher when his supporters overwhelmingly have more progressive views on this (and most other) issues.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pmMarie – saw that too – much more newsworthy than posting that an outspoken anti-gay preacher says Obama’s choice to give an anti-gay speaker a platform at his inauguration.
For some reason, most of the self-proclaimed “progressive” and “left” websites will not talk about dysfunctional elections or a media network that structurally puts the will of the people behind corporate interests and the military-industrial complex.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pmActually there has been a thread that covers that very issue. This one is about one radical cleric defending another one on faux news……
December 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pmAs repugnant as I find the likes of Warren and Huckabee, this snippet from Thom Hartmann (Air America)is worth a moment.
He was comparing Obama’s selection of Warren to the popular book “three cups of tea” which was about Greg Mortenson building positive relations within communities of Taliban controlled Pakistanis who distrusted us.
Barack Obama has learned that lesson, and is applying it in inviting Rick Warren to perform the invocation for his inauguration. In doing so, he is reaching out a hand to those who today are – out of fear and ignorance – pushing away gays the same way their intellectual ancestors pushed away African Americans when anti-miscegenation laws were supported by most of these same “fundamentalist” Christian churches in the 1950s and 1960s.
Joseph Lowry, who is providing the other bookend to the inauguration with the benediction, is the other side of the balance Obama is bringing to this inauguration. Lowry has said, for example, “The same folks who are against progress for black folks are the folks who are against progress for women and gays and farmers and young people and peace activists. We have to understand it’s one struggle. This is ONE AMERICA, and the sooner we learn that the more effective our world will be.”
December 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pmAnd the more effective we will be at changing the hearts and minds of people like Rich Warren and his followers.
That clinches it Now I am pi$$ed about this Warren selection When Billy Bob Bigot Huckabee comes out in favor of it I know the bigot card has been dealt
December 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pmfred – that isn’t news, happens everyday. Its like “man wakes up, takes a dump and drinks coffee.”
It happens each and every day.
Point is, disproportional posts and bloggin’ about what they same bunch of wingnuts have to say. Very few posts/bloggin’ about how they are enabled, often by democrats and, in this case, Obama.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pmi see your point marie but, such a public endorsement at the inauguration is a huge slap in the face to the GLBT community who supported obama almost to a man. couldn’t he have picked a better time to “embrace” this man>?
December 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pmby “thoughtful,” i’m sure huckabee means = “thinks terrible thoughts”
December 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pmI always associate the word “humble” with the word “MEGACHURCH.”
December 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pmDoes Huck support the assassination of foreign leaders the way Rick Warren does?
only problem is, ahmadinejad isn’t the “leader” of iran. so warren (and hannity) failed on two fronts.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pmthey should allow warren to speak, if and only if, he embraces the gay community.
otherwise, sorry bro.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pmyesterday on randi rhodes, melissa etheridge called in and it was suggested they let melissa and her partner stand on stage with rick warren. fair is fair. afterall, etheridge did more to support the obama campaign than this assclown warren.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pmBesides, if anyone thinks that having warren at the inauguration is somehow going to create a dialog that will change these folk’s minds…
Well, you have a right to dream, but please don’t criticize those of us that don’t live in your fantasyworld.
The only reason faux news is going to be able to “catapult” this type of propaganda by huck is because obama gave warren a massive platform and megaphone.
This is going to create exactly ZERO change and understanding and the mainstream media will just use to to create and echo-chamber of divisiveness.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:02 pmExactly what you would expect Huckabee to say.
Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Jones, David Koresch, Ted Haggard, and Warren Jeffs are also influential preachers you should not listen to—among thousands.
And Mike, I still say you lied about your gastric bypass surgery.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:03 pmNo – this was actually all encouraged by obama when he chose to give an outspoken anti-gay preacher a platform at his inauguration.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pmI get it joe, you hate Obama and democrats….You’ve been really clear on that!
December 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pmRick Warren Is Gay!
It has come to my attention that the man chosen to lead the invocation at the Obama Inauguration is a rabid homosexual.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pmfred – you don’t have a clue
December 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pmObama’s invitation the the bigoted Warren is unconscionable. This must not be tolerated from someone who proposes to be a “diversity” and “change” president.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
December 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pmBut when I was young, we didn’t need clues because we didn’t have fancy internet or keyboard computers. In fact, it was before there were typewriters. It took a lot longer to find information in those days because there were no pictures or video and people read a lot slower in those days.
It didn’t matter if there were any clues anyhow because we were all too busy trying to figure out how people are able to ride upright on 2 wheels. Surely these new-fangled bicycles are from the devil himself.
And speaking of the devil, in my day, it was a good thing to have one foot on the path to hell. If you didn’t want to shovel tons of coal into your furnace to keep warm, you would make a pact with the devil – let him send some of the sulfurous hot flames from below into your basement. Yes, you had to pledge your soul for eternity, but at least it was always toasty at night.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:12 pmWhy do some say we need to hold REPUG politicians and spokespersons accountable for what they say and do.
But even QUESTION what someone with a little d after their name does and it is somehow blaspheme?
Hypocracy, criminality, and cheap political stunts should be fair game no matter what party the perpetrators are. Gratefully, most at this blog do not believe we need to mindlessly follow whatever our “dear leaders” say.
Better exercise free speech and critical thinking while you still can! Even at a site like TP, there are folks that believe we should all goose-step together.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:17 pmI don’t think anyone that dislikes him is swayed by the “he’s never changed!” line of defense lol.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:19 pmIn the interview with NBC’s Ann Curry, Warren was saying in one sentence how opposed he was to gay marriage and in the second sentence how terrible homosexuals were for having more than one partner! Well, stupid, don’t you see how one cures the other?! And that furry stuff around your mouth is so gay!
December 20th, 2008 at 2:20 pm00mpp00 Says…
Yes yes we have heard you. Do you still want me to come visit your site?
December 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pma humble, gracious, thoughtful, bigoted, hateful, very intellectually dishonest person… Not to mention a rapturist.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:30 pmrepublicans hate facts
damn – you are really gonna piss fred off with that one…
December 20th, 2008 at 2:33 pmIt seems to me that Rick Warren, Ken Starr and Mike Huckabee need to just jump out of “teh” closet and get on with their pathetic, sad, fake lives.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pmIt’s not blaspheme. It just seems to be all you and rhf want to talk about on every thread…..how Obama and the dems have betrayed you……it’s a little sad.
I’m leaving you with it now but I can’t just let you spew on every thread without the opposing view being aired.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pmHave a great day.
I want you to go to hell and take all of the psycho obamaheads that f**ked up the primaries with you! It’s nice to see how many of you have lost your minds in recent weeks though with the reality that Obama isn’t the progressive you claimed he was and I spend most of the primaries correcting and getting trashed for…
—
December 20th, 2008 at 2:39 pmHey f uck nut you continue to make false assumptions. Why do you think you are smart enough to know who I did or did not vote for. I just like fucing with with whack jobs like you. Hillary sucks….
Let’s see…the image Ben used here is from Fixed news….so 1 image of Greta, add 1 image of huckelberry, total is still 1 image, add warren, the total image now is still 1 and the riddle is:
If you add ALL the images from Fixed news together over it’s complete span of time that it’s been airing this crap, the influence/importance it has to the human condition is…you guessed WRONG..!!
It’s still ZERO !!!!
December 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pmREAL PROGRESSIVES call out dems when they go astray. We should be a major core constituency, but we need to be respected too. We are willing to have a dialog.
We are aware of how our political system and the mainstream media a structured to limit debate, simplify issues, and misrepresent everything as GOOD/BAD.
We see that real change means working towards free, open, fair, and verifiable elections. This cannot happen without a press that represents more than the same corporate interests that underwrite the repugs and neocons.
We understand that failing to have an enriched dialog means we lose – we just get more of the same.
Perhaps most of all, we know from experience that nothing good happens when no one is held accountable for their political choices.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pmWhy is it “ridiculous” for people to be upset with Warren according to Huckabee? Does everyone in this country have to think like a narrow minded hillbilly from Arkansas?
December 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pmGood GOD ALMIGHTY!! I have had it with scurrilous arguments in defense of the indefensible! Huck’s been on a tear with them lately! NEWS FLASH FOR HUCKLEBERRY: Because he is “one of the most influential spiritual leaders of this generation” does NOT make him RIGHT! Because you know him and attended seminary with him does NOT make him RIGHT! Likewise, regarding your comments on the Daily Show concerning Prop. 8 and its malicious kin throughout the country that “sixty-percent of Americans” voted to limit gay marriage or parenthood: because a majority of Americans vote for something does not, I regret to report, make them RIGHT(see: 2004 U.S. Presidential Election)!
Dear God–save me from your followers!!
December 20th, 2008 at 2:52 pmPerhaps most of all, we know from experience that nothing good happens when no one is held accountable for their political choices.
Is another Joe delivering a another conventional-wisdom harangue?
At some point I hope he realizes it’s just a waste of keystrokes.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:54 pmI’m glad I’m neither “progressive” nor “librul” or, I would have to think another joe is one joe too many.
Though I am endlessly amused at how delusional Psychochristians defend each others hate and bile.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:59 pmI thought Huck was supposed to be the President Elect?
December 20th, 2008 at 3:01 pmOnce again you folks MISS THE POINT entirely!!!
Obama is about to become MY President, not just YOUR President. He will be the President of ALL Americans.
As such, he rightly RESPECTS the view of a large portion of the population that just happens to be CONSERVATIVE.
I actually have more respect for him because he invited Pastor Warren.
December 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pmpete
December 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pmAt the risk of repeating myself, I find it odd that some seeks a president elect who will unite the diversity present in our society yet only if that president elect does it the way they want it done at the very expense of the other ideas which might be held by others in that diverse group which claims to want a uniter and not a divider. It sort of humors me.
cheers-
Hey Tim, you mean Obama is the Uniter? Thought that Bush was supposed to be the Uniter! Guess that’s why I have no respect for Bush.
December 20th, 2008 at 3:06 pmbarfly – nothing “conventional” about the wisdom you profess – in fact, you obviously have not read through this thread (or many others here).
If you think most here accept that we need to question and talk about issues, even when it is Obama or dems, you are just scrollin’ and not readin’.
But I guess it saves you those keystrokes you like to proclaim as “wasted”, right?
December 20th, 2008 at 3:11 pmI actually have more respect for him because he invited Pastor Warren.
And then I will proceed to slander and lie about him and his policies, but this time, it will be with “respect.”
December 20th, 2008 at 3:12 pmAs if Tim somehow gets the point and everyone else is somehow less than Tim. It freaks me out how many people have such false self images…
December 20th, 2008 at 3:12 pmdbadass,
Well, what else would you call it then? I listen to the news, I listen to Obama’s explanation and then I come here and I read all of the posts.
I think I have made a very good observation. People here are missing the point of inviting Pastor Warren.
What else do you call it?
December 20th, 2008 at 3:20 pmdbadass,
Certainly you can observe that one of Obama’s constituencies has a warped sense of what he “owes” them. They have said as much.
Further, some people seem to think that they have the ultimate moral “high ground” on the issue of “gay mariage” when all they really have is a rickety soap box; and not a very tall one either.
December 20th, 2008 at 3:23 pmdbadass,
You see, group politics is the problem here. People get themselves into a group and elevate their common demands into some sort of “civil right” that the majority are violating!
After doing this, they are then justified in their own minds when they just label everyone a “bigot” that doesn’t agree with them!!!
What a FARCE.
December 20th, 2008 at 3:26 pmI’m glad to see our stupid troll is still stupid. The point is that Pastor Warren says things that many, if not most, people find offensive. I understand why Warren was invited and I object. Personally, I’m just disgusted that we give religious wackos, of any stripe, a voice at the inauguration of our President. Separation of church and state, secular nation, and all that jazz. But he could have chosen a less offensive representative.
But what I find most amusing is the Psychochristians on local Reich-radio who are convinced that Warren, by accepting the invite, is “no True Christian(TM)”. I just love fundy fights. In fact, I’m gonna go lurk at my favorite fundy site and bask in the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
December 20th, 2008 at 3:34 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Once again you folks MISS THE POINT entirely!!!
Obama is about to become MY President, not just YOUR President. He will be the President of ALL Americans.
As such, he rightly RESPECTS the view of a large portion of the population that just happens to be CONSERVATIVE.
I actually have more respect for him because he invited Pastor Warren.
*
tim vakalukalick
your party needs you!
*
can you live in
a think tank?
*
good luck.
^
December 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pmTim Vaculik Says:
You see, group politics is the problem here. People get themselves into a group and elevate their common demands into some sort of “civil right” that the majority are violating!
__________
Silly comment, Timmeh. “Some sort of ‘civil right’???
WTF does this mean? Other than nothing.
Sorry, Timmeh, but you need to try harder.
December 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pmBTW, nice gambit on Huck’s part.
Instead of dealing w/ the issue directly, he just dismisses those upset w/ Warren as “ridiculous” and therefore undeserving of credibility.
Don’t let Huck get away w/ it, folks.
December 20th, 2008 at 3:42 pmI grew up in orange county and was dragged out to “That Funky Tent Church” (the pre-megachurch) when I was a minor. With personal experience listening to this wackjob scam artist kook, I say it’s ridiculous for people to NOT be upset. Back then every sermon was filled with equal parts hate and pomp, and Warren was more interested in selling his cassettes than he was in bettering mankind. Other than a change of media, nothing’s changed.
December 20th, 2008 at 3:55 pmpete Says:
But what I find most amusing is the Psychochristians on local Reich-radio who are convinced that Warren, by accepting the invite, is “no True Christian(TM)”. I just love fundy fights. In fact, I’m gonna go lurk at my favorite fundy site and bask in the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Yes, but he has managed to do the same to the Left as well – some say this is statesmanlike, the further extreme says it is ideological treason.
Watching Obama operate is like watching a man juggle 3 dinner plates, a bowling ball, a grape and a running chainsaw. You just think, how long can he keep this up?
His decisions seem to stir internecine warfare among the extremes, and while he has the Right thinking maybe he won’t be so bad he still has the Left thinking he is still their guy.
It is going to be fascinating watching this guy govern; his run-up all by itself has been a tour de force.
December 20th, 2008 at 4:04 pmAfter doing this, they are then justified in their own minds when they just label everyone a “bigot” that doesn’t agree with them!!!
Tim Vaculik
Denying a certain segment of the population a right simply because you don’t believe what they believe is bigotry, tyranny, and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
December 20th, 2008 at 4:09 pmNat et. al.
Irrespective of our dominant culture, which is Judeo-Christian, marriage exists as a SOCIAL INSTITUTION. It is NOT a basic “civil right” as some keep insisting.
Therefore, societies all over the world have always defined it as being between a man and a woman. It is the RIGHT of a society to do so.
I think it’s pretty clear that our society has spoken definitively on this issue.
December 20th, 2008 at 4:21 pmHere’s a valid question:
Who gets to define what constitutes marriage? Is it the courts; is it society; who?
What about the “rights” of people who believe marriage should be between two, three, four, five, etc. consenting adults, hmmmmmm?
December 20th, 2008 at 4:22 pmanother valid question:
If marriage is a “right”, where is it enumerated? Better yet, where are the court precedents showing a long history of upholding this “right”?
December 20th, 2008 at 4:23 pmHe’s a product of the times, Keltoi. When a society is divided, centrists offend both extremes. But I think Obama is up to the challenge. Though it’s going to have ugly moments, his very impressive intellectual capacity is what this country needs. And his relative youth may serve us as well. He doesn’t have 20 years of favors to repay and, at first blush, isn’t beholden to all and sundry.
But it’s going to be tough for many to accept a President who governs “from the center” as they say. It’s such a radical change from the last 8 years that there will be some shocks to get past.
December 20th, 2008 at 4:24 pmI think Obama is like FDR when he first came into office. FDR was a conservative Democrat when he was elected president and he became more and more progressive as time went on. This didn’t happen in a vacuum. The overwhelming majority of the public rejected his early policies and demanded that he go even further. That’s how we got the New Deal and a strong labor movement for decades until the advent of Reagan. If the public doesn’t demand loudly and forcefully that Obama move in a more progressive direction then he’s going to do what he wants to do.
December 20th, 2008 at 4:29 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Irrespective of our dominant culture, which is Judeo-Christian, marriage exists as a SOCIAL INSTITUTION. It is NOT a basic “civil right” as some keep insisting.
____________
Like you just said, Vacuous… it is a SOCIAL INSTITUTION, not a religious one.
Why should religious extremists be allowed to force THEIR values on the rest of us?
Waaaaaaaitin’…
From the Declaration of Indepence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Don’t see anything in there that says, “Oh, you stinkin’ gays… this doesn’t apply to YOU.”
Geez, Timmeh, from the number of apparently repressed, closeted GAYS in the GOOP, you’d think GOOPers would be all for gay rights, or more, basically, HUMAN rights, huh? Don’tcha think?
December 20th, 2008 at 4:33 pmTim Vaculik Says:
What about the “rights” of people who believe marriage should be between two, three, four, five, etc. consenting adults, hmmmmmm?
_____________
Ya mean, like Mormons???
Do you even understand, historically, WHY people marry?
December 20th, 2008 at 4:34 pmIrrespective of our dominant culture, which is Judeo-Christian, marriage exists as a SOCIAL INSTITUTION. It is NOT a basic “civil right” as some keep insisting.
Then all should have it or no one should have it.
It doesn’t matter if you think this is a Judeo-Christian country because the Constitution trumps all that.
Therefore, societies all over the world have always defined it as being between a man and a woman. It is the RIGHT of a society to do so.
It’s bigotry and tyranny do deny someone a right simply because you don’t like them or what they do.
December 20th, 2008 at 4:38 pmA bigot is a bigot. I don’t care if you hide behind a tank (Hitler), or a religion (Warren). You are the butt-end of humanity, you homophobic bastard!
December 20th, 2008 at 4:44 pmMemo to the Huckster: Stop giving Warren a hummer (and I don’t mean the kind you drive)!
December 20th, 2008 at 4:47 pmNat,
That’s not an answer.
December 20th, 2008 at 4:49 pmTim Vaculik Says:
That’s not an answer.
__________
Actually, it is. It’s called ‘equal rights”.
Nothing you’ve said makes any sense.
December 20th, 2008 at 4:52 pmmarriage is a “right”, where is it enumerated? Better yet, where are the court precedents showing a long history of upholding this “right”?
This is why conservative shouldn’t be involved in government or any law institution. The Constitution limits the power of government by stating what it can or can not do; it was never intended to limit the rights of citizens. A good jurist is not looking for a right for you or I, they’re looking to see if this an area where government can involve itself. The Fourteenth Amendment states that the state can not deny equal protection under the law. If the state is denying gays a right or privilege that other citizens get, then it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
December 20th, 2008 at 4:53 pmI guess I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting for anyone here to present a cogent answer or counterpoint to what I have asked.
Frankly, I don’t expect anyone can because all I’ve seen here are intellects limited to the ability to throw out the word “bigot.”
December 20th, 2008 at 4:56 pmThat’s not an answer.
You said for some silly reason that marriage is not a right. If it’s not a right then no one should have it.
December 20th, 2008 at 4:57 pmAnother Joe Says:
I’m not sure where you’ve been, but the two progressive websites I frequent the most detail the abuses and inadequacies of the media quite often. One site has gone to the effort of renaming the “Mainstream Media” to the “Traditional Media,” in order to show clearly that they are not the only ones in the mainstream if “mainstream” is to be defined by the numbers of readers and participants.
And dysfunctional elections (voter supression, for example) are also put in a very bright spotlight as well on my tweo favorite sites, by very bright writers and bloggers who do their research very well.
Where ya been?
December 20th, 2008 at 5:00 pmIf the stupid troll seeks answers, perhaps an intelligible question would help?
December 20th, 2008 at 5:01 pmpete Says:
He’s a product of the times, Keltoi. When a society is divided, centrists offend both extremes. But I think Obama is up to the challenge. Though it’s going to have ugly moments, his very impressive intellectual capacity is what this country needs. And his relative youth may serve us as well. He doesn’t have 20 years of favors to repay and, at first blush, isn’t beholden to all and sundry.
But it’s going to be tough for many to accept a President who governs “from the center” as they say. It’s such a radical change from the last 8 years that there will be some shocks to get past.
I could be wrong, but I think part of his ability to do this is the fact that he is post Baby-Boomer, post Vietnam.
After all the Sturm and Strang of the Vietnam era, when all was said and done each party sent someone to the WH for 8 years that managed not to fight in that war. Both those Presidents were very polarizing.
Both parties put forth decorated veterans of that war to see them defeated but someone who had never served in combat. There is something deep and visceral in play there. I look forward to a future where the Ghost of Vietnam no longer hangs over every damn election we hold.
Iraq and Afghanistan will be around, but those are wars fought by volunteers, not wars avoided by draft dodgers.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:02 pmNat,
The Fourteenth amendment argument is simply not applicable to the institution of marriage. Go do your reading.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:02 pmFrankly, I don’t expect anyone can because all I’ve seen here are intellects limited to the ability to throw out the word “bigot.”
Tim Vaculik
What would you call a person who would deny a right to someone simply because they disagree with them?
The only time we should curtailing or denying a right is if it personally interferes with someone else’s rights.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:03 pmNat Says:
If the public doesn’t demand loudly and forcefully that Obama move in a more progressive direction then he’s going to do what he wants to do.
I think he is going to do what he wants to do regardless…the man does not suffer from a lack of ego.
Fortunately, I think he is in essence an uber-pragmatist. What he wants to do is what will work and make him look good. But drawing a bead on what motivates him is tough; again, it is going to be a fascinating 4 years.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:04 pmThe Fourteenth amendment argument is simply not applicable to the institution of marriage. Go do your reading.
The fourteenth Amendment is applicable to anything. The state can not use its power to say certain segments of a population are denied a right.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:05 pmNat,
You are simply on the wrong track in this debate because you are starting from the premise that marriage is a civil right.
If marriage WAS a civil right, then it would be wrong to deny it to someone just because you disagreed with him or her. Get it?
Try making the case that marriage is a civil right.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:07 pmI’ll be back later this evening to see if there are some answers to my patient inquiry.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:10 pmTim Vaculik Says:
The Fourteenth amendment argument is simply not applicable to the institution of marriage. Go do your reading.
_________
Gee, Timmeh… you haven’t crapped on the Declaration of Independence yet. What’s up w/ that?
It’s not in the 14th Amendment… you ignore the Dec of Ind…
So… just out of curiosity, where is YOUR right to deny others the same RIGHTS you take for granted clearly spelled out?
And if marriage ISN’T a right, then why do you have the RIGHT to deny someone else this same choice???
I know… I know… it makes your head hurt…
December 20th, 2008 at 5:13 pmTim, the way you ignore excellent explanations and project your group-think onto everyone else in every thread you have ever appeared is absolutely stunning!!!
Nat at #86, 4:53pm gave you a cogent answer three minutes before you said no one here could.
What you and Warren want is a violation of the XIV Amendment, unconstitutional, and unAmerican!
December 20th, 2008 at 5:13 pmYou are simply on the wrong track in this debate because you are starting from the premise that marriage is a civil right.
I’m starting from the premise that anything you and I do is a right. I have a right to walk down the street until it is taking away; I have a right to chew gum until it is taken away; I have a right to sh!t in a toilet until it’s taken away. Everything we do is a right. Now if a law is passed that says gays can’t walked down a street then that is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because of the singling out of that particular group.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:14 pmTim, how exactly are you harmed by gays marrying? Really? How, exactly? You are just dying to feel superior to others because of an inferiority complex? Unsure of your own sexual orientation?
December 20th, 2008 at 5:18 pmWhere ya been?
The usual “supeblogs”
You know who they are – “advertise liberally” crowd. An no – they don’t cover these issues and will actually flame and ban you.
You can tell me about how great the blogs you go to are, but you can’t say who they are?
LOL
Yeah right – see ya at atrios then…
December 20th, 2008 at 5:19 pmNat Says:
I’m starting from the premise that anything you and I do is a right. I have a right to walk down the street until it is taking away; I have a right to chew gum until it is taken away; I have a right to sh!t in a toilet until it’s taken away. Everything we do is a right. Now if a law is passed that says gays can’t walked down a street then that is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because of the singling out of that particular group.
__________
BTW, Nat… Vacuous needs to do some reading.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/jan/31/00013/
“First, the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to marry. Although it does not mention this right explicitly, the Fourteenth Amendment does prohibit states from abridging “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” or denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court has long understood this broad language to protect any right that is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
Sheesh, Timmeh… even the American Conservative understands this…
December 20th, 2008 at 5:20 pmAnd don’t even get us started on kos – many blog here cuz they got banned there.
Never for being abusive though, for not towing the official line and questioning the legitimacy of chimpy’s 2004 stolen election.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:22 pmscrew Huckleberry and his morbidly obese, animal torturing son.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:25 pmVolunteers or no, Keltoi, those who have fought in the Mideast are victims of a disastrous policy. They, the rest of our nation, and the world at large, will be paying a heavy price long after I slip this mortal coil.
As for the “draft dodgers”, most of the prominent people who avoided service seem to be those who helped enact that disastrous policy. Deferments and volunteering for “safe” duty seems to be a common trait among the most aggressive chickenhawks.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:28 pm“any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,”
-The Republic of Stupidity
Rational people will say this applies to anything that makes a person content (as long as doesn’t interfere with someone else’s life, liberty and property) but conservatives are not rational people.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:32 pmThe Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration Let us hope that he is well applauded at the end of his speech. Let us also hope that the audience finds reason to use their cellphones as loud as possible during Rick Warren’s empty spiel.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:32 pmpete Says:
Volunteers or no, Keltoi, those who have fought in the Mideast are victims of a disastrous policy. They, the rest of our nation, and the world at large, will be paying a heavy price long after I slip this mortal coil.
Perhaps. Stick around in that coil of yours.
But on a less controversial note, I look forward to the vets of the ME wars to step into national leadership. It is already happening, but I think it will accelerate as time passes and they come of age. And this time, it won’t be “why didn’t you go when you were called?” it will be “You went when you didn’t have to.” Psychologically huge.
As for the “draft dodgers”, most of the prominent people who avoided service seem to be those who helped enact that disastrous policy. Deferments and volunteering for “safe” duty seems to be a common trait among the most aggressive chickenhawks.
I try to resist this line of thought…the President is the President, whether he has served or no. Obama is going to utilize the military as is his constitutional right, even though he never came anywhere close to service. That doesn’t make him a chickenhawk, IMO.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:37 pmNat Says:
“… any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… ,”
-The Republic of Stupidity
Rational people will say this applies to anything that makes a person content (as long as doesn’t interfere with someone else’s life, liberty and property) but conservatives are not rational people.
____________
Heh… thught it was a good ide to re-post that phrase again…
Dunno, Nat… seems clear enough to me, ‘n you, dunnit?
Timmeh???
Again, considering how many closeted, and not-so-closeted, gays there are in the GOOP… the concept of the Log Cabin Republicans mystifies me…
December 20th, 2008 at 5:41 pmNat Says:
I’m starting from the premise that anything you and I do is a right. I have a right to walk down the street until it is taking away; I have a right to chew gum until it is taken away; I have a right to sh!t in a toilet until it’s taken away. Everything we do is a right. Now if a law is passed that says gays can’t walked down a street then that is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because of the singling out of that particular group.
I think the problem here is what constitutes a right under the Constitution and what is a right under British Common Law.
The right to marry, have kids, walk down the street, shiite in the toilet, eat, etc are all assumed under common law. They are in fact not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. (As a legal document, the Dec of Ind is irrelevant, BTW)The problem vis gay marriage is that during the time period c. 1000 – 1680 AD when Common Law was evolving, no one ever contemplated that gay marriage would ever be an issue. Marriage was assumed to be between a man and a woman.
As to the 14th Amendment, it is not as black and white as you would wish it. It was passed in I believe 1870. It has seen many evolutions of its applications, largely through judicial interpretation and expansion of its scope. But women didn’t get to magically vote in 1870 – it took 50 years of ferment and an additional amendment to make that happen. Ditto equal opportunity.
So while you can argue the 14th Amendment protects the right of gays to marry, you should also, IMO, acknowledge that the course of social history and jurisprudence does not make your case a slam dunk.
I could care less about gay marriage, BTW, I can’t see how it hurts me. But I am not ready to call any who oppose it bigots. Fortunately for Progressives, history is moving in your direction. Prop 8 and the Warren invocation are temporary setbacks.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:47 pmKeltoi at Night Says:
I try to resist this line of thought…the President is the President, whether he has served or no. Obama is going to utilize the military as is his constitutional right, even though he never came anywhere close to service. That doesn’t make him a chickenhawk, IMO.
__________
there is definitely a time and a place for military action. The phrase “chickenhawk” is usually reserved for those who are feverishly, enthusiastically in favor of military action, kinda like belligerent GOOPers leading up to the attack on Iraq.
Perhaps you missed the video footage of Botch walking down a corridor, the day bombs started dropping. As he was notified of this, he broke into a little skip step, pumped his fist in the air, and said, “Yes!!!”
This was not a sporting event. People were dying because of his delusional decision-making. Where was the gravity? He was CELEBRATING.
THAT… is a chickenhawk. Going to war is a F-in ‘ SERIOUS decision, not something done w/ a smirk on your face.
But hey, what do you expect from someone who LIKED blowing up frogs w/ fire crackers, or mocked a woman on death row pleading for her life?
December 20th, 2008 at 5:47 pmThat about covers it TRoS. But I’m reminded of a quote:
“When soldiers play politics, or politicians play soldier, people die needlessly“.
It’s from a British WW2 pilot but I can’t recall who.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:56 pmO/t …. no not really !!!!!!
December 20th, 2008 at 5:57 pmZeitgeist the movie , it’s fantastic and takes on religion , the federal reserve and 911 !!! If U haven’t seen it you are in for a treat !!!! A MUST SEE !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzciu8HvfwA
The Republic of Stupidity Says:
Perhaps you missed the video footage of Botch walking down a corridor, the day bombs started dropping. As he was notified of this, he broke into a little skip step, pumped his fist in the air, and said, “Yes!!!”
I did indeed miss that. I guess his happiness that Youtube wasn’t around for his campaigns was misplaced, eh?
When I think of Bush I just shake my head.
December 20th, 2008 at 6:00 pmO no! Huckabee. Imagine him as President? A guy who believes Adam and Eve rode to church on Sunday on the backs of dinosaurs….?
====
December 20th, 2008 at 6:07 pmKeltoi at Night Says
When I think of Bush I just shake my head.
That’s a line of thought I try to avoid. It makes me grit my teeth and shake with rage.
December 20th, 2008 at 6:09 pmWhen asked to explain the fossils of dinosaurs an evangelical who maintained the world was no older than 12,000 years replied,” they were put their by god to test our faith “.
December 20th, 2008 at 6:28 pmfrom Zeitgeist
pete Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi at Night Says
When I think of Bush I just shake my head.
That’s a line of thought I try to avoid. It makes me grit my teeth and shake with rage.
I avoid Bush-Hitler comparisons like the plague, I feel it is blasphemy to the victims of the Holocaust and WWII, but there is this quote about Hitler from Albert Speer that rattled out of my head. It seems weirdly appropriate.
Speer said of Hitler: “He was a solitary creature, who came from nothing and went in to nothing, known only to himself.”
That is Bush to me.
December 20th, 2008 at 6:34 pmfreeman Says:
When asked to explain the fossils of dinosaurs an evangelical who maintained the world was no older than 12,000 years replied,” they were put their by god to test our faith “.
– from Zeitgeist
__________
Boy, THAT evangelical sure got it wrong, huh?
We ALL know the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark!
http://www.creationtips.com/dinosark.html
“We don’t know how many species of dinosaur God sent to Noah to take on the Ark. If the largest types were included, they were probably taken when they were still youngish but able to breed. Many animals can mate long before they are fully grown.”
Well… that settles that, huh?
You CAN’T make this stuff up… seriously… you CAN’T…
December 20th, 2008 at 6:36 pmWow. Keltoi, that is an intriguing comment about Bush and Hitler. Presented intelligently and personally, and with relevance.
This is the kind of comment that makes me appreciate your presence here (my occasional complaints notwithstanding).
Keep up the good work.
December 20th, 2008 at 6:56 pm“I think the problem here is what constitutes a right under the Constitution and what is a right under British Common Law.”
-Keltoi at Night
It has nothing to do with that. The Constitution is not a document that limits the rights (rights being anything that’s not illegal) of citizens; it limits the power of government. Blacks did not enjoy the protection of the Constitution from the government because they were considered 3/5 of a human being, let alone a citizen. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments remedy this. Now, the Fourteenth Amendment states that the state can not deprive any citizen of life, liberty and property nor deny them equal protection of the law. When the state says a certain segment of the citizenry can not get married or do whatever makes them content, the state is denying them liberty. And because heterosexuals are afforded the right of marriage while gays are singled out, it also violates equal protection.
December 20th, 2008 at 7:01 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
——————————————————————————–
Wow. Keltoi, that is an intriguing comment about Bush and Hitler. Presented intelligently and personally, and with relevance.
This is the kind of comment that makes me appreciate your presence here (my occasional complaints notwithstanding).
Keep up the good work.
Thanks Ralph. Fred thinks someone spiked your cud, but you can’t win em all.
December 20th, 2008 at 7:03 pmNat Says:
Now, the Fourteenth Amendment states that the state can not deprive any citizen of life, liberty and property nor deny them equal protection of the law. When the state says a certain segment of the citizenry can not get married or do whatever makes them content, the state is denying them liberty. And because heterosexuals are afforded the right of marriage while gays are singled out, it also violates equal protection.
You are a dedicated Progressive, I would expect you to see it that way and you are of course entitled to your view.
All I am saying is it is possible to have another view and not be a bigot. You simply interpret the 14th A differently or more narrowly.
After all, there is this Black Harvard Law school Professor I know of who taught Constitutional Law for a few years and who opposes gay marriage. I suspect he has forgotten more about the Constitution than you and I will ever know. He also came out against Prop 8, which seems like a contradiction, but it is hard to tell where the politician and the professor intersect, exactly.
He is the same guy who invited Warrren, BTW.
December 20th, 2008 at 7:10 pmCompany time. Good discussion, Ralph, sorry I missed you.
December 20th, 2008 at 7:11 pmSorry I got distracted, Keltoi. I too avoid direct comparisons of Hitler and the Chimperror, for similar reasons. However, I think it’s fair to say they are both small men who unleashed large amounts of chaos. It’s just a matter of degree.
December 20th, 2008 at 7:23 pmAll I am saying is it is possible to have another view and not be a bigot. You simply interpret the 14th A differently or more narrowly.
-Keltoi at Night
What does “life, liberty and property” mean to you. What does “equal protection” mean to you?
Anyone who denies a right to someone on the basis that they don’t like that person or what they do is a bigot. I can understand someone being against it because their religious mythology dictates it but I don’t understand why someone would want to legislates it. If you’re against marriage for gays don’t get married to someone of the same sex. They shouldn’t be forcing their beliefs on anyone else.
December 20th, 2008 at 7:23 pmHuckabee – the male bimbo. Smiling, happy, with no understanding whatsoever of the real world.
December 20th, 2008 at 7:33 pmWhat on earth is so wrong with allowing two people who are committed to one another the right to their property, the ability to make life and death decisions and the right to have and raise children together?
So fine, my husband absolutely adores our geriatric dog. Should I be threatened? As far as I’m conerned, this issue is absolutely mute. Adult HUMANS should be allowed the same rights of all adult humans.
December 20th, 2008 at 7:52 pmtim valbucalick
if you want to marry
kelotoi then god bless
ya’ go ahead.
*
you two kids deserve
each other.
^
December 20th, 2008 at 8:10 pmThe issue is not Rick Warren; in effect the issue is that the gay community is realizing that President Elect Obama and Black Americans are not a friends of the gay community. It is political suicide for the gay community to ignore the inherent Christian Black homophobia that is pervasive in the voting Black community. Their vote was instrumental in this current’s President win back in 2000, their vote was intrumental in the California Proposition win this last election. Obama and indeed Black religious leaders like Al Sharpton are not apologetic about their views, further they have embraced the likes of White Conservative religious figures such as hate speech gay racist Rick Warren. The gay community must realize that the gay vote must no longer casually be afforded to any Black candidate at any level; be it school board, local, state or federal. Black American’s political gain is a nail in the coffin on the political interests of the gay community. Black America represented with the voice of this President Elect and in the voice of its religious leaders, have found no ill in the rhetoric that Rick Warren speaks, to them gay racist extreme statements are merely differences that warrent no rebuke. The gay community has acknowledged within its ranks that White conservative politicians and religious leaders work vigorously against their interests. The gay commuity must realize that on political issues that impact its community; the voting block that is the Black American community is no different than than the White Christian conservative political block when it comes to gay political interests.
December 20th, 2008 at 8:54 pmThe appropriate responds to the Rick Warren selection, is for the gay community to wake up to the inherent Black Christian homophobic nature of this voting block and fight them politically with the same vigor afforded the White Christian homophobic gay racist speaking and condoning Huckabee like community.
Demonizing people is not spiritual, it is judgemental.
December 20th, 2008 at 9:57 pmAn oxymoron here? About the last thing I see Warren being is intellectually capable. He believes in Intelligent Design, right? Objects to advancements in life saving science such as stem cell research?
He seems to be a person who is intellectually fearful, but the faithful will lap it up, and bow to their superior intellect.
At any rate it is disappointing that Obama did not pick someone with a more universal outlook. Warren has little respect for not only gays, but those of other or no religion. We will be there, and our backs will be turned when he is speaking.
December 20th, 2008 at 11:27 pmInformed rational people of all races support Gay rights.
December 20th, 2008 at 11:46 pm______
Shinning Light Says:
We will be there, and our backs will be turned when he is speaking.
December 20th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
______
That’s fine. He won’t be speaking to you anyway. ;)
December 21st, 2008 at 2:13 am______
jb Says:
Informed rational people of all races support Gay rights.
December 20th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
______
Obama is not uninformed or irrational. ;)
December 21st, 2008 at 2:15 amObama is not uninformed or irrational. ;)
Thankful you dodged that President McCain bullet?
December 21st, 2008 at 2:44 am______
barfly Says:
——————————————————————————–
Obama is not uninformed or irrational. ;)
Thankful you dodged that President McCain bullet?
December 21st, 2008 at 2:44 am
______
Yeah, I dodged it by voting for Obama. How about you? ;)
December 21st, 2008 at 2:48 am______
republicans hate facts Says:
Compared to YOU or PALIN or McCAIN or ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN – NOPE!!! ROTFL!! But YOU set a PRETTY LOW BAR! ROTFL!!! ;)
December 21st, 2008 at 2:56 am
______
Well dang, bud. You let the psycho personality take over again. Stop rolling around on the floor, and get a grip. ;)
December 21st, 2008 at 3:01 am______
republicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
upright left Says:
That’s fine. He won’t be speaking to you anyway. ;)
Like ANYONE cares WHAT YOU THINK? ROTFL!!! That’s as RIDICULOUS as YOU HAVING VOTED FOR McCAIN/CaribouBarbie!! That just says DUMB in EVERY LANGUAGE!! ROTFL!! ;)
December 21st, 2008 at 2:57 am
______
That’s three straight posts without a single tard. Now you’re just slacking, bud. ;)
December 21st, 2008 at 3:03 am______
republicans hate facts Says:
TARD! ROTFL!! TARD… ROTFL! tarded, ROTFL!
December 21st, 2008 at 3:06 am
______
Now that’s more like it, bud. All’s right with the world. Merry Christmas. Oh and, once again, sorry about that whole Hillary thing. Better luck next time. ;)
December 21st, 2008 at 3:09 amThree for one on that last post. You are always good for a few laughs, bud. You take care, now, and have a blessed day. ;)
December 21st, 2008 at 3:29 amExcuse me HUCK,
Its rediculous what the right wing (your party affiliate) has done to this country. Its economy, divisiveness, freaky foriegn policy, The law, IE the Justice Dept.
Just for starters Mikey, why don’t you pony up some of your cash to make amends ????
December 21st, 2008 at 3:36 amI’m beginning to worry about the sanity of Republicans.
These people don’t take humiliation very well. This last defeat seems to have caused them to snap. Why else would they be talking so crazy?
I mean…even more than usual.
Suddenly, every quote from the Right comes straight out of Bizarro World. Bush will be popular in 30 years; invading Iraq was a peachy thing to do; torture was the only moral thing to do; Obama is a Marxist Muslim who was born on the moon, etc.
The Right apparently still think they can project their own reality. How can we snap them out of this–harsh language, electroshock, waterboarding?
Mr. Logan discusses The Current Problem:
December 21st, 2008 at 6:19 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i_vquVDPgU
There was never any other purpose for ‘marriage’ other than to ensure the ‘proper’ dispersal of the inherited power and wealth of elites. It has ALWAYS been an economic arrangement among the powerful, and irrelevant to the rest.
500 years ago, the ancestors of these poor, pious proles copulated in the corn cribs without benefit of churchly benediction, and dropped their squalling get in the furrows as they weeded the crops.
When the artisan classes began to create the middle-class, and accumulate wealth to be inherited, too, then “marriage” moved down a class or two. By around the 18th Century, it was common enough that peasants began ape their betters and wed, too, even if they never would have inheritable wealth…
December 21st, 2008 at 7:22 amWhen Huckabee says “it’s ridiculous for people to be upset at Rick Warren” I assume he’s referring to all of the conservative evangelicals who are apparently unhappy with Warren for accepting Obama’s invitation? We don’t hear much about it, but the Christian right’s reaction has been as negative as the progressive Left’s …. Here’s a sampling ….
December 21st, 2008 at 10:52 ami’ve been thinking more about this, and why it so upsets me…
i may be mistaken, but i don’t recall that this announcement came from Obama himself… at least that’s not how i first heard it…
i think that if he had made a special announcement about it – something like, ‘i have made a decision about something that i’m aware could be controversial and i want to explain why i have decided the way i have…’ – maybe, MAYBE, that decision would have been better received… it kinda felt like an underhanded move, a bit too much of that ego determining such…
besides being a mistake in the WHO, it was a mistake in the HOW.
a little too much authoritarian determination there… i wouldn’t have liked it any better, but at least wouldn’t feel like i’ve been blindsided…
just my own feelings…
December 21st, 2008 at 11:27 amWhen Commited Gay couples are denied the same rights and constitutional protections that heterosexual married couples enjoy….that’s Discrimination.
Legislation or a Supreme Court Ruling to Guarantee equal status to Civil Unions, including Social Security and Tax advantages, with Marriage …should be the goal here.
I think Obama could have made a better choice for the Invocation…but the Invocation is a symbolic gesture. If Rick Warren can help Obama get Full Civil Rights for Gay couples…even if it is Not Called Marriage….then Obama will have once again demonstated his Political Savy.
December 21st, 2008 at 11:41 amdonna brazil, on abc, agrees with me…
she called it a “heads up”… if he had done that, it would’ve gone over much better…
December 21st, 2008 at 11:47 amWhat’s ridiculous is for anyone to think Christianity is a religion of love. It is a cult of Hate.
December 21st, 2008 at 11:48 amgood one, badger…
i understand all that… and it’s true…
but he really f’d up the announcement of it, that’s for sure…
December 21st, 2008 at 11:49 amFred Says:
Actually there has been a thread that covers that very issue. This one is about one radical cleric defending another one on faux news……
Yes, and Freddie The Freeloader, like other Obama-trons, will defend their Left-Leaning Neocon Savior no matter what he does, such as being against gay marriage, voting for the extortion bailout, renewing the Patriot Act, Accelerating the “War on Terror”, Telecom immunity, filling foreign policy posts with War Mongers, and putting Ponzi-ists in charge on finances.
Comparing Bush to Obama is like comparing Pat Robertson to Rick Warren. Arsenic or Cyanide?
December 21st, 2008 at 11:57 amanother thought:
’cause if obama allows investigations, indictments and convictions of all the criminality, war and otherwise, of bushco, then he can have pRick warren say all the prayers he wants, whenever he wants.
i’ll take that exchange anytime.
December 21st, 2008 at 12:00 pmKaty,
YES. These investigations, indictments and convictions would come from Obama’s Justice Dept.
I’m pretty sure BushCo is Worried about it. That’s why They have got Karl Rove Spearheading the effort to derail Eric Holder… Obama’s nominee for Attorney General.
And…
Perspective is required…We’re Talking About Saying A Prayer.
No one even knows what Rick Warren will Say.
December 21st, 2008 at 12:22 pm#135 – To upright left-
;-P You are surely correct – We’re not part of his choir! LOL! And decisions like this just serve to polarize. In addition, the ear plugs will be inserted.
If he had chosen someone like Dr. Karen Anderson or the departed William Sloan Coffin, Jr. he wouldn’t find himself in this mess – if he even considers it a mess. Myself I was hoping for a Humanistic Rabbi or Rev William Schultz, formerly head of Amnesty International.
Our light shines from a BFZ. – Shining Light
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 amAh Huckleberry Finn…STFU…right…Warren a good man…
HAPPY CHANUKKAH…YOU JEWS ARE GOING TO HELL.
As Mahathma Ghandi said, “I like your Jesus Christ, I don’t like your Christians, they are so unlike your Jesus Christ.”
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:30 amHuck? You can kiss my fat asss.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 amWhen you strip away all the glittery tinsel of religion from the institution of marriage, all you have left is a LEGAL CONTRACT dealing with the disposition of money and property.
To deny gay people the right to enter into such a legal contract…? That’s blatantly unconstitutional on its face, and bigotry is the only explanation for that denial.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 amPersonally, I’m just disgusted Bedava mp3 indirthat we give sohbetreligious wackos, of any stripe, a voice at the inauguration of our Presidentit was common enough that cetpeasants began ape their betters and wed, too, even if they never would have inheritable wealth
February 28th, 2009 at 10:59 am