This is the transcript (incase it isn't to obvious, I'm random):
Not to get too involved in the pissing match between DCM and Fred, but both of your initial arguments are flawed.
DCM assumes that because Obama has a paster, who has almost nothing to do with the way Obama will run his white house, is an example of how Obama will run his white house. He also assumes because Obama has no openly gay member of cabinet (i believe that is what he said) that it means he is against gay rights. He expresses that his actions speak louder than words.
Truth be told, neither the pastor or his cabinet choices are a reflection of what he intends to do about gay issues. Until he actually does something with gay issues in office, then you can say
whether he's all talk or not. (P.S. He wouldn't have gotten elected if he ran on a pro-gay marriage platform. look at California for evidence)
And Fred, you're just being pissy, and arrogant, and changing your argument all over the place. A phd and being a lawyer doesn't make you smart, it makes you a hard worker, there is a difference. Unfortunately your argument is lacking in basic substance.
DCM in FL
thanx for the comment.
your assumptions on what I believe are offbase, but your ending part where you say:
"Truth be told, neither the pastor or his cabinet choices are a reflection of what he intends to do about gay issues. Until he actually does something with gay issues in office, then you can say
whether he's all talk or not. (P.S. He wouldn't have gotten elected if he ran on a pro-gay marriage platform. look at California for evidence)"
those I am in agreement with you, and that is the crux of the dilemma now
waiting for actions that speak louder than words & symbolic gestures...
as for your comment on FRED's 'arguments', well I could not agree more...
I am only defending myself from repeated needless personal attacks from you know who [starts with an F]
January 19, 2009 8:02 PM
You have fred...I've read your argument..you're changing it subtly as you go along. It's quite good actually, becuase to someone who just glances doesn't see it.
I agree with your original point, defending Obama on gay issues. but you've gone about it all wrong. Obama has done nothing at all as president to disenfranchise gays. The only thing that comes close are the bitchie whiners about Warren. He gives an open prayer. just that...a prayer. He isn't going to attack the gays on stage, and if he does, he'll be totally screwed. That aside, Warren isn't apart of Obama's cabinet, so i can't even come close to saying Obama shares his views. So why are we acting like Warren is an embodiment of Obama?
Well, i apologize if i read into what you said wrong, I may have transposed what you said, with others on this commenting board who have expressed that in more certain terms about Warren being a reflection of Obama.
I have taken the stance that I shall not judge Obama on who he has picked, (mainly because I'm young and inexperienced) but i will wait to see what he does when he becomes president. I voted for him because I believed him to be smart and capable, and able to do things I could not. And if he is a disappointment to me, I will say so instead of defending him. But...I shall watch first, to see what he does.
But that's just me.
And I would agree with you about Fred, but you're acting much like him too. No offense intended
DCM in FL said...
because Obama had a choice of THOUSANDS of deserving clerics for this most symbolic appointment to give the one & only Inaugural Invocation
think Billy Graham - by his being chosen to given mutliple Invocations, he became de facto 'pastor to the nation' & then to the world as it was percieved
the CHOICE & TIMING & SYMBOLISM is what galls, not the outreach which would be admirable on any other day or occassion
that is a form of action on the part of Barack
and by Obama choosing mostly old pols like Gates & Panetta to fill his cabinet - exactly where is the real change we were told was a'comin' ???
I am taking a wait & see & must remain vigilant & be more skepitical until his actions do speak louder than words
yes, Obama might not have won IF he still publicly supported gay marriage [which Barack is on the record as supporting in the 90's before it 'matterred'
but wrongs/Warren/Jakes do not make 'wrights'....
DCM in FL said...
see, I completely understand why Obama chose Warren [as well as Hill & Gates et al]
but that is the same old same old as was done through political history
Warren on stage is a brilliant long-term strategy to marginalize the evangelical opposition, granted
BUT the tactic has immediate consequences & at what cost to his core ? plus it makes him appear to be pandering no matter how you slice it because we know he is not a true believer... don't we ???
he went to Baptist church this Sunday - and we know he is no Baptist either [at least not yet...]
now he chooses to go listen to TD Jakes preach [another mega-church evangelical] tomorrow morning just before he stands on stage with Rick Warren & encourages him to pray for the nation...
that is too much emphasis on appeasing the evangelicals on Inauguration day at the expense of all others...
I still support him, but much softer & leery until he proves himself worthy through action & advocacy with impact
Well, I doubt the pool is a thousand deep, because i'm pretty sure they aren't picking the pastor working in middle of no where Texas, but that's not really an argument.
I have the thought that Obama may be thinking of something besides just A issue in his choice of Warren. From what I under stand Warren has done some good in the world. And if you look at it, Obama and Warren share a lot of the same traits. maybe as a person, Obama likes Warren, who also from what i'm told, is a decent guy.
One thing I have learned is that because one is a bigot doesn't make him evil, or even mean. It just makes him ignorant. Obama choose Warren for personal reasons, not for a statement, or symbolism.
Remember, A reason Obama is so appealing is his willingness to talk with people who disagree with him. To listen to their story, for their reasons.
That, and for all we know, Warren may get on that stage and denounce his earlier statements about homosexuality and do an entire 180. Though that's just wishful thinking with a dash of naivete on my part.
And about his choices. Change can be brought about with old tools. Think of those around him not as old pols, but experienced. People who know who, what when, where, why, and how. These are people who know how things work, and thus how to work things. I would rather have Obama have all the resources he would need to be a successful president, then a new cabinet of no-nothings who have never been to Washington. Remember, Obama will use these people as he sees fit. And I'm getting the feeling i'm saying the same thing over and over again, and not very well at that....in this post at least...you understand what I'm trying to say
"I still support him, but much softer & leery until he proves himself worthy through action & advocacy with impact"
I would hope that you would have held that stance long before Warren was chosen. After all, none of us here are dumb enough to think Obama is anything less than a very skilled politician. We choose him because he talked of ideals we agree with, but he was pandering, of course he was, and still is, and will for the next four years. Such is the life of a politician.
What we are hoping for, is that he means at least 50% of what he says, and he's as smart as we all hope. But in the end we all should be taking a step back, and watch him very closely, and don't let him slip on anything.
I will admit that I'm mostly playing devil's advocate. I always feel that one should see all angles before one judges a choice. In fact, I personally will hold off on my judging of warren as a good idea or bad until after he gives his speech tomorrow.
That also being said, as an atheist, i don't consider it pandering to go to a church that one does not follow. You can learn a lot being in a church.
And then, a very nasty post by a third party:
I have removed the name
It is highly unlikely Warren will denounce his previous position. Which was to strip an entire class of citizens of their civil rights.
Inviting a bigot to deliver the opening prayer of your administration is an endorsement of that bigot and therefore of his bigoted views.
I'm sure there are some pretty charming racists and misogynists out there. Why is it that it's only the fags you are insisting on welcoming the people that have spread hate toward us?
The double standards imply that you think that homophobia is better than racism or sexism. Which therefore implies that GLBTs are not worth as much as other Americans in your view.
I therefore criticize you and everybody that would extend a welcome hand to those that would incite hate toward any class of American citizen. I condemn the notion that bigotry in any form is acceptable, expecially when you invite a purveyor of that hate to the microphone to bless your administration at it's inception.
Fuck bigotry, fuck hatred, fuck anybody that says any human life is worth less than another fuck anybody that would claim that any American should enjoy a lesser class of rights than any other, and fuck all of you that would allow those who claim these things to be your spokespeople.
Fuck you all.
We will not be left to beg for scraps from the table of liberty like dogs, especially when we have done the back breaking work it took to seat your ungrateful asses at that table to begin with. We gave you the donation money, we put in the volunteer hours, we made the phone calls and painted the signs and distributed the buttons, we registered the new voters, we made your change. And if your change does not include us, then we will make change out of your five dollar asses the next time an election comes around. We can turn the great strength we exerted in your favor against you just as easily, and we can elect you opponents. Yes, we did put you in power, and yes, we can throw your ass out.
And this was my reply:
Well, it seems you didn't read the part where i said it was very unlikely that Warren would denounce it.
And I have not spoken a word about racism or misogyny in any of my postings, so for you to assume my position on them as it relates to homophobia is really quite ignorant.
My position is, and always shall be in tolerance...to EVERYONE. not just those who have hatred spewed on them, but those who spew that hatred. We should not judge those by our own ideals and morals, because no one else has the ideals and morals.
That does not, and I will say that again, THAT DOES NOT mean i support any form of bigotry. I support the understanding of a person. And why that person believes what they do. I am not a radical, I am not militant. I believe we are all separate individuals with our own faults, our own bigotry. We are not perfect beings, and we all have our prejudices. and to denounce other's prejudices based on the sole assumption that theirs are wrong, and ours are right is ignorant to a degree that is staggering.
And you denounce bigotry, but you have shown amazing displays towards Pastor Warren. You make him into a monster because of a belief of his own. Whether that belief is right or wrong is relative, and to be a bigot towards him because of that, is just as bad as his bigotry to the gays.
So for you to condemn Warren you should condemn yourself for acting the same.
You sir, are a bigot. You are ignorant.
And you have judged me because I have decided to give reasons for Warren speaking on stage. I have not stated my own beliefs on that matter. I have refused to state my own beliefs. But in insist on judging me any way.
That, is the action of a bigot.
My question stands from the title of this blog. Was I in the right or wrong? Did i deserve the harsh words directed towards me?
I would like honest answers...please.