On Dec 21, 2008, at 12:42 AM, Michael Luscombe wrote: > On 19-Dec-08, at 5:03 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > >> At 01:00 PM 12/19/2008, richardsan's fingers tapped: >>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/18/kolbert.warren/index.html? >>> iref=mpstoryview >>> >>> i was looking forward to a historic inauguration, i think i'm >>> going to find something else to do that day. >>> the warren choice, was just not the best...who ever fought for >>> that pick should be given the sack. >> >> You know, Michael might deny that you -- a progressive leftist -- >> are unhappy with some of Obama's choices. Perhaps I spoke too soon >> and he needed more evidence. >> >> Be that as it may, a deranged Negro shouting "God d*mn America" >> might fill your bloomers, but it wouldn't set a good precedent for >> the first (half) black president. >> >> Rev. Rick Warren shares the views of a vast number of Americans. >> Obama recognizes that. It might be time for the rabid gay community >> to practice what they preach -- tolerance. >> >> I would also say that in a democracy you must give others time to >> change their mind and share their views. They want an authoritarian >> government to impose their views on the rest of the populace. Funny >> thing is that such totalitarian governments aren't very tolerant of >> gays. > -- > > Tolerance is a slippery slope.
No, it isn't. It's essential in a democracy. > Using tolerance so broadly that the > oppressed must tolerate being oppressed is really counter to the > connotation of the word. Subjecting gays to the same rules of marriage as everyone else is not "oppression." Stating that only marriage between man and a woman is recognized in the state of California is not "oppression." Forcing someone to resign because they support the traditional definition of marriage is oppression. Creating a new Hollywood blacklist to deny work to those that supported Prop. 8 is oppression. Protesting against churches and the religions during church services is contemptible. > Obama knows that half the country elected Bush twice, and a good many > of those supporters did so because Bush went so far as to claim that > he spoke with God regularly. He "talked to God," eh? I don't believe Bush _ever_ said that. Ever. You shouldn't confuse gaining inspiration, guidance and solace from your religion with "talking to God." > Any truly representative government must > not only uphold religious rights as protected in the constitution, > but act in the best interest of all, including the large Christian > base. Oh, you mean like Bush's decision to provide federal funding for stem cell research, just not embryonic stem cells? > I think he could have chosen a less divisive figure, but he's clearly > a notable one. Rick Warren is only considered "divisive" in Hollywood. That cluster of butt-reamers gets everything backwards. > Obama has already stated that he's against gay marriage, but for a > legally binding union with similar tax and estate benefits. Given > that the separation of church and state would prohibit state pressure > on the church to allow a religious union, that seems like the only > way to keep rolling with these wheels. There are others that would benefit from civil unions, but the radical gay community didn't push for those. (Think elderly siblings that depend on one another, for example.) Now, they're more interested in pursuing gay marriage because it's a two-fer. Not only do they get to play the victim, they get to poke religion in the eye. Your good buddy Obama was a bit disingenuous on the issue of gay marriage, which he stated he opposed, yet he opposed Prop. 8, which is the simplest way to state one's view on traditional marriage as there is. What will eventually happen is that the state won't recognize any marriage. It will be civil unions for everyone. Traditional marriage will become a religious ceremony only with no legal meaning. And we'll all be able to thank the gays. > Although, many amendments were made to the constitution after it's > inception. It's fair to say that even the founding fathers knew that > the single document would need to be adjusted over time. Ya think? > It may also be fair to say that the founding fathers would likely not > understand the issues of today, and disapprove of many of the > amendments made since. Washington's head may have exploded to learn > that American elected a black president. How do you know what Washington would think or do? But that exploding head bit is something. Imagine all the short wooden splinters that would be scattered about. > (Say half-white all you > want, Half-white, half-white, half-white, half-white, half-white, half- white, half-white, half-white, half-white. There, that should do it for awhile. > with a name like Barrack Obama, there was no confusion in > voter's minds. Even if they'd never heard of the guy, they could be > reasonably sure he wasn't white.) You liberals sure get hung up on names. And no, blackness isn't the first thing I think of when his name is mentioned. You liberals get too hung up on race, too. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
