Warren is a brilliant pick by Obama. Just look at all the air time and discussion

[rainy]

it has stirred up. Now we have a national discussion going on. Now everyone is talking about Gay rights and now more and more people are seeing the real debate. Gays are being listened to. Their stories are coming to the MSM and the country is watching and listening. Hopefully we will see reason reign supreme and equal rights will be for ALL americans.

This has been a wise choice by Obama because of all the press it is getting. Way to go Obama.

Keep the bigots in the spot light so all can see how ridiculous they really are.


Prop 8
Harvey Milk Movie
Obama's pic of a gay rights bigot

all coming together to shine light and create a national discussion in the open and main stream. It's brilliant. Just look at all the attention being paid.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. Yes! If he bombed an abortion clinic, think of the discussion we could have.

Add insult to injury for the purpose of discussion?

[BeFree]

4. Do you honestly believe?

That Obama picked Warren just to insult the Gay community?

[zipplewrath]

52. No

I suspect that it was done because the GLBT community is expendable and the large population that opposes homosexuals has far more votes. The last time I lived through this we ended up with "don't ask don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act.

[BeFree]

62. Very good

We agree that he didn't do it to insult anyone.

Some may take it as an insult, to varying degrees, but it wasn't purposeful. Do we agree?

[zipplewrath]

85. Unless you consider being marginalize, insulting

One does not need to intend to insult, to in fact accomplish it anyway.

[Marrah_G]

63. It was a convienent side effect

This was purely political.

Obama wanted to prove he was the right kind of christian to attract the Warrenesque types of Christians.

It was a bonus to have the GBLT community so angry since it gives him even MORE cred with those types.

"That Obama can't be all bad if those fucking queers hate him"

It's all done for political reasons.

Most of our politicians do it.

It's shameful.

The alternative to saying they lack political courage is to admit that they are all really bigots.

[BeFree]

72. A bonus?

So, you really think Obama did this with bad intent? Just to piss off the GLBT?

You are right, a politician does things for political purposes, and sometimes it is shameful.
But methinks you are putting shame on Obama where none is due.

[Marrah_G]

77. No- I think he did it to gain favor with people who despise gays

I am hopeful that Obama will do a far better job in other areas of his presidency.

But trying to paint him as some hero to the gay community or pretend he isn't on the wrong side of this issue is disingenuous.

He knew this would piss off the gblt community. He would have to be a fool, surrounded by fools, not to know it.

He did it anyway.

He is counting on the GBLT community having no other party to turn to in 2012.

He is a politician, not a savior, I never expected to agree with him on everything.

[rainy]

5. I think it is by exposing Warren by picking him that all the attention is now on

Warren and his bigoted ideas. I think Obama knew that this would stir things up and allow the bigots to be seen for what they are. By picking Warren, Obama exposes him for what he is and all the country is watching. I still think it is a brilliant move. Expect more of these types of moves from our brilliant new leader. He will not play the game as usual because the press will just hammer the progressives as usual and minimize us. This way we let the MSM show the bigots for what they are without even knowing they are doing it.

[FrenchieCat]

16. What could have been insteresting is being a fly on the wall of the corporate media boardrooms.

On the one hand, did they really want to pick apart Rick Warren, and expose him?
But if they didn't, their hands would be tied in being restricted form spreading some Obama controversy...and their ain't nothing better than doing that, especially since Blago wasn't paying off.

I'm sure it took a while to decide--What to do, what to do?

[Merlot]

18. I agree. And I think that he will probably do something for the gay

community after he's in office. Obama's using warren so as not to be painted into a narrow definition.

I think the discussion is good.

[immoderate]

22. Yes. Obama is "putting the squeeze" on Warren.

This is a firestorm and a flurry of activism that would not occur if Obama had ignored Warren. And Obama gets to play the statesman, and Warren is on the defensive.

--IMM

[LostinVA]

31. Does that include his new publishing deal with Reader's Digest?

[FrenchieCat]

7. In the chance that this exaggeration via comparing the Warren pick to bombing....

why don't you just go for the really big enchilada, and let us just compare the Warren pick to "if Obama started a nuclear war" instead.

After all, porportionality and context have no place in our rethoric anymore. :eyes:

[Evergreen Emerald]

76. Apparently...

...we need to "burn our bras" to make the point heard and understood. Obviously, thus far, the point is unheard by many.

[still_one]

2. It was a stupid, offensive decision. Obama did NOT need warren to get air time or

discussion.

Indirectly, what Obama is signaling by allowing warren's invocation, is prejudice is acceptable, and that is just plan wrong

[BeFree]

14. Do you honestly think?

That Obama, as a Black person thinks prejudice is acceptable?

[still_one]

19. No, but that is the message. Incidently, prejudice occurs in ALL demographics /nt

[BeFree]

23. So, you think..

...Obama was sending out a message that prejudice is acceptable?

Thing is, America, as a whole thinks prejudice is acceptable.
And it's gonna be a long uphill slog to change that.
But I don't think Obama is against that change, do you?

[still_one]

35. Obama is giving a platform to a person of intolerance, it is as simple as that

It is the law of unintended consequences

That is my view. Obama made his decision, and that is what it will be. I have no regrets voting for him, but am quite disappointed in his decision regarding this

Because America as a whole thinks prejudice is acceptable, does not mean that a person who shares that view should be given the honor to give the prayer at the inauguration

[BeFree]

46. The standing question is

Do you think Obama was sending out a message that prejudice is acceptable?

And this is the first time such a speaker is being attacked for his background, eh?
That is the message, "This has to change!" and it's a good one. I'd let it go at that, but that's just me.

[still_one]

51. It may not be Obama's intent, but that will be the result. I think Obama was pandoring plain and

simple. That was the reason he did this

[BeFree]

66. That was the reason?

But it may not be his intent? You've lost me.

[still_one]

71. What I am saying is that Obama does not consider having warren give the invocation

represents giving intolerance a standing, but it does based on Warren's views

[BeFree]

75. So

The blame lies squarely on Warren? If so, we totally agree.

Recap: Obama did this for a political reason, but he didn't mean to drive a stake through the heart of the GLBT or throw Gays under the bus, or insult Gays or otherwise stir up a hornet's nest?

[still_one]

78. I think it was a bad decision on Obama's part, though I agree with your "Recap"

he blew it

The inauguration should have been about what HIS vision is. Now it will be muddled with this. The MSM will insure that

[zipplewrath]

54. Tolerable

He is sending out "the message" that bigotry and hate are not an impediment to being honored by his administration. Whether he intended it or not, that is was is being accomplished. If you think Warren isn't using this, and isn't going to continue to use it to make himself appear more "mainstream" and acceptable in the larger community, you are mistaken. He already is.

[BeFree]

69. Heh

This episode is exposing Warren to millions who had no idea just what a jerk he really is.
Of course, that is mainstream - being a jerk.

And no, you haven't shown me where Obama is doing this to send a message that bigotry and hate are acceptable. But if tomorrow we decided as a country that bigotry and hate were no longer acceptable, how would we begin to get rid of the bigots and haters? Answer that and all our problems are over!

[zipplewrath]

102. It is the result

you haven't shown me where Obama is doing this to send a message that bigotry and hate are acceptable.

It is not that he intends this, it is that he is willing to allow this to be said to obtain other goals.

[Marrah_G]

41. SInce he is against gay marriage....Yes, I think he is not for complete equality

But then again, almost no politicians are.

It's to much of a risk and they are unwilling to take a risk.

[BeFree]

48. The question goes unanswered

Is Obama, as a Black person, thinking prejudice is acceptable?

[still_one]

55. Just because a person is a minority, does not mean they are not prejudice

that is not valid argument

A better approach is to examine Obama's views or writings on civil rights, and to base it on that

[BeFree]

59. Just a question, not an argument

To find out where you are coming from.

So, after reading Obama, do you think he finds prejudice acceptable?

[still_one]

68. No, not in general. However, views that believe some groups have rights that others don't

is prejudice

If Obama believes that gays should not be allowed to be married, that demonstrates a prejudice

Fifty years ago there were laws on the books in some states which made it illegal for marriage between different races. Those laws were prejudicial, and ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

[Marrah_G]

60. Prejudice? Depends on why he opposes it.

He does think discrimination is okay though. Just discrimination towards a certain type of person.

Being black does not keep one from discriminating or pre-judging.........

[BeFree]

64. Well

Everybody has the right to be discriminating.

But not the government, eh? Oh, it has been, oh yes it has.
And we are out to change that. Over the years we have made progress.

Whether Obama takes the lead on this issue is up to the people, but he never tried to take that lead
before, so it isn't like he's going back on his word, nor is he going out of his way to insult or throw anyone 'under the bus'.

[Marrah_G]

67. We disagree. We will never agree on this.

I hope your holiday is warm and peaceful and wish you well.

[mondo joe]

106. That's easy to answer: yes, he thinks certain prejudices are acceptable, or claims to.

I can't vouch for whether his prejudices are true or lies he's told.

[immoderate]

25. Disagree.

Obama gets to play it cool. He puts Warren in a position where he can be resoundingly denounced. Warren has already been forced to back track. This would not happen if he were ignored.

Obama's signal, if any, is that he is above passing judgment.

--IMM

[still_one]

45. We have different views /nt

[immoderate]

57. People need to be educated that this is prejudice. That's the point.

Warren's followers think they are righteous. They really do. They don't think of themselves as hateful. A direct attack by Obama would not accomplish anything. This needs to be aired out.

--IMM

[still_one]

70. Yes, but giving Warren the honor to give a prayer at the inauguration is not the way to do it

[immoderate]

74. Yeah? What if it works?

--IMM

[still_one]

80. It would surprise me /nt

[immoderate]

83. OK, let's see.

--IMM

[still_one]

84. OK, but I suspect nothing will change /nt

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Should have gone with Rev Phelps then.

Imagine if 'God Hates Fags' was the invocation prayer? Boy would we be having some great discussions.

[w4rma]

8. Phelps doesn't hold very good positions on the environment, economics and AIDS. Warren does. (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Warren's position on AIDS causes more disease and death.

He and his dominionist army are aligned with the Catholic Church fighting against prevention while providing treatment to the ever growing numbers of afflicted people, people who then become dependent on their aid.

[w4rma]

13. What's Warren's position on AIDS? Not, other churches.

He held a forum on it in 2006 where he invited Obama to speak.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Was I unclear?

If you don't know where his church stands on this and what they are up to then do some research.

[w4rma]

30. Here is the Saddleback Church's position. They appear to be working in a positive manner.

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/story/6902.html

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Please do some research.

Here I'll get you started.


Untold Consequences: Rick Warren's AIDS Activism
"For all intents and purposes, was a good thing to do," says Jodi Jacobson, consultant for RH Reality Check and the founder and former executive director of the Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE), an NGO that promotes sexual and reproductive health and rights. "But with the entry of evangelical churches, in alliance with the Catholic Church, all funding for prevention became very fraught."
A division of aims within the global AIDS movement between those advocating for prevention funding and those working for treatment access helped draw faith-based groups. Though treatment and prevention are complementary in fighting HIV/AIDS, the entry of religious right activists exacerbated this divide between the two priorities. Treatment access advocates sought out partnership with evangelicals hoping for increased funding and attention for expensive treatment programs. But the faith-based solution naturally brought with it skewed policies that limited prevention options and led to what Jacobson calls the "profoundly ineffective" spending of AIDS money: with $20 billion spent on treatment over the past five years, but six new infections for every person treated. "No one doesn't want people to have access to treatment," she says. "But my argument is about the tradeoff. You can't treat your way out of this epidemic."
But churches anxious to follow Warren's lead didn't want to provide comprehensive HIV prevention services, such as safer sex education or condoms, so they lobbied for PEPFAR funding policy to be interpreted narrowly, creating stand-alone abstinence-until-marriage programs out of the law's 30% abstinence-only earmark. The new faith-based arm of the AIDS movement Warren had energized asked for, and got, a number of obstacles to prevention services: a prohibition on needle exchange programs for drug users; a ban family planning services in Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission clinics; and the anti-prostitution loyalty oath, which required all groups receiving PEPFAR funding, including those that work with sex workers, to condemn prostitution. As with conscience clauses, Jacobson says, this ideological interpretation of PEPFAR became a source of U.S. funding that "allows groups or organizations to avoid having to provide prevention treatment or care according to evidence-based criteria." The Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation has stated that "PEPFAR has been successful not because of provisions such as the mandatory abstinence set-aside, but in spite of them."


http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/19/untold-consequences-rick-warrens-aids-activism

Googler: warren aids africa

[NWHarkness]

28. Warren'sposition on AIDS

Save the straight kids, let the fags die.

[w4rma]

32. I think that's an exaggeration. (nt)

[NWHarkness]

39. Why do think they only fight AIDS in Africa? n/t

[Chovexani]

119. Because you know nothing about this subject.

Please read that article in its entirety.

Also read threads http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=108141&mesg_id=108141 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=108138&mesg_id=108138 and the links within.

It is an extremely accurate description.

[Rockholm]

122. That is exactly what he believes.

The "AIDS in Africa" is total code...for straight vs. gay.

[bluedawg12]

58. Warren's position on AIDS/HIV does not address prevention adequately

it has been focused on treatment, even as new cases of HIV infections emerge daily.

Why is it that his prevention program has been criticized?

Because of his fundy theofascist abstinence and monogamy only philosophy the complimentary programs of treatment and prevention gave way to the faith-based solution ... skewed policies that limited prevention options.

[RetroLounge]

113. Who the fuck cares about his positions

on the environment, economics and AIDS?

:puke:

RL

[rainy]

9. Warren is more a main stream preacher with lots of followers. Phelps is a nobody.

By bringing Warren out in the open for all to see he may go down fast and lose his following least they all be seen as bigots and haters. This way the discussion is now open in full view. People are out in the streets talking about the issue with real people.

However, I do see your point when compared to the likes of Phelps. You have made a good point. I still think it is different because of the size of Warren's following.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Your OP's assertion was the volume of discussion was what was good.

You have now changed your position and are offering up an entirely tangential defense.

[xchrom]

6. yeah -- it's hard to look away when something Stupid and Ugly happens. nt

[izquierdista]

10. I'll agree with you

Even though many here are still seeing red and making fooling analogies (like the first three responses). Like in Hollywood, where no press is bad press, it sure has gotten the discussion going. It also seems like the anti-gay side has had to go on the defense, explaining their actions and logic. That is the first step in them losing the status quo, as more and more people see that they are on the wrong end of the argument, an argument that keeps changing. We've even heard Rick Warren backpedaling in the last few days, and putting his foot in his mouth on national television.

I think this discussion will continue to entertain. :popcorn:

[knixphan]

20. yep. Cameras are rolling-

That's always good for the activist side.

[NWHarkness]

33. So, there is no such thing as bad press?

Except when Warren gets good press, then that somehow magically turns into bad press?

I'd love to know what you people are reading or watching. Nearly all the mainstream coverage I've seen of the issue has portrayed Warren as the beleagured victim of bitchy gay radicals.

[yowzayowzayowza]

99. Thatz because we have given 'em an cause to frame it thusly...

by aiming our fire at Obama and Warren rather than praising Obamaz magnanimous inclusion and focusing our attacks on Warrenz intolerance.

Witness Rachel last night:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x252932

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. And in all of this, the outrage of the GLBT community is summarily dismissed as irrelevant

The ones most affected by this decision are not allowed to discuss it, because we are not enthusiastically happy about it.

Funny, isn't it, how that works out.


Edited for content. We are NOT allowed to discuss this, my bad.

[rainy]

24. I think that the ones who didn't believe in gay marriage now see a human

face on their hatred. This way they will be forced to evaluate that hate as fellow human beings. They are seeing real people and forced to see themselves in a mirror. I suspect that they will not like what they see and might change their views.

[NWHarkness]

37. I really, really appreciate that you feel that way.

It speaks well of you.


But, sadly, I believe you are absolutely wrong.

[Starry Messenger]

21. I'm glad the discussion is going on.

But I disagree with your first sentence. But I will say, if he is smart (and I believe he is), he will make it look that way. I think that's probably how this is going to go.

[NWHarkness]

26. So, Obama had to destroy the village

in order to save it? :eyes:

[NorthCarolina]

27. So you think this was Obama's intention from the get go?

Because I seriously doubt his invite had anything to do with creating an uproar amongst his base and a media feeding frenzy on Warren. If something good comes from it then great, but I could not be convinced this was the grand design of the Warren choice. From Obama's perspective it likely went no farther than reaching out to evangelicals. The rest is history.

[rainy]

29. Maybe, but Obama owed him one for the the stupid interview he had to endure

by Warren where Warren lied about McCain not hearing the questions etc.... This way Obama exposes Warren for what he is and does in ever so innocently. Remember how we always wanted Obama to fight back during his interviews? Maybe this is his way of getting even and still coming out smelling like a rose.

[immoderate]

34. You don't get too far by underestimating Obama.

I think Obama and his team brainstormed all the possible outcomes, and this had to be one of them. Someone must have brought up the idea that this will create a firestorm of protest, doncha think? Think of all the possibilities. Where was the down side? :shrug:

At the least, Obama gets to look like a statesman, engaging the opposition.

At the best, Obama gets to look like a statesman, engaging the opposition, and having the activists and the media tear Warren to pieces and expose his ignorance and bigotry, and enlighten enough minds to change Prop8 and its ilk.

--IMM

[NWHarkness]

40. So, it's ALL about Obama?

As long as Obama comes out looking good, it doesn't matter if he tosses Democratic constituencies out of the boat?

[immoderate]

44. He hasn't tossed anyone out of the boat -- he's allowed Warren on board.

It's a stretch, a bit of vanity, to say anyone has been jettisoned. If this works and Obama comes out looking good, what's wrong with that?

--IMM

[NWHarkness]

82. Define "works"

It appears to me, and to a lot of other people, that Obama is willing to use equal rights as a bargaining chip in courting the religious right. So, please, tell me why we should be rooting for that strategy to work.

I am sincerely hoping that the Obama presidency will be successful. But perhaps we define our terms differently. If, in 2012, gay Americans have not made progress in achieving equality, and Obama is re-elected in a landslide, you might consider his term a success. I will not.

[immoderate]

88. "Works," to me, means...

Overturning DADT, DOMA, and Prop 8. That's what I consider progress.

Making fundies happy is the last thing on my mind, and if you know me at all, you know that about me.

If Obama were to bargain away anyone's rights, I would oppose that. It would be totally out of bounds. To invite Warren (a bigot and total POS) to give a prayer does not infringe on anyone's rights. (Unless you think you have a right to never have your sensibilities offended.)

--IMM

[NWHarkness]

94. Fair enough

Of course, it is absurd to think that inviting Warren infringes on anyone's rights. But surely, you can understand the symbolic importance of the decision.

The right has never taken any sort of outreach or attempts to qualify as anything but a sign of weakness. They will process Obama's decision to invite Warren to the Inauguration as an indication that Obama's support for gay rights is a bargaining chip that he is willing to put on the table.

[immoderate]

100. I'm interpreting the symbols differently.

I just don't see Obama giving up anything on human rights. It's going against the tide of history. I would denounce him in a minute. The only compromise I think he has made here is not directly coming out for gay marriage, and I think that is a tactic to get elected. Like me, I don't think he gives a shit who gets married.

I'm much more concerned with his centrist tendencies on trade, economy, and military and foreign policy. Full human rights for GLBTs is a no brainer, and as I said, Obama is not stupid. Seriously, I can't believe that Obama thinks he has the right to bargain gay rights away. That would be atrocious.

--IMM

[NWHarkness]

115. I don't think he's stupid

But he's a politician, ans so we need to keep an eye on him. I agree with you in regard to his centrism.

[Kitsune]

38. He's the freaking President-Elect. He has a host of better ways to acheive this end.

Elevating and honoring Warren like this only lends legitimacy to his horseshit and makes it easier for him to con yet more people out of their money in the name of an invisible sky wizard who thinks gay people are icky.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. so he gets credit because he picked a bigot who then started a controversy?

:eyes:

daft

[noamnety]

47. Yes, he is a brilliant uniter

his master plan was to honor a bigot, thereby causing us to bring attention to the man's bigotry.

and of course it follows that the people who actually are bringing attention to what an ass Warren is need to shut up about it, because we aren't smart enough to see Obama's genius here. Or something.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. you mean like how bombing iraq drew attention to the sovereignty of the iraqi people?

hmm. good one bush. good one. before that i had NO idea that the iraqi people were part of a sovereign nation

[immoderate]

49. If it works, and he gets credit...

Changes have to come from the people. Obama's move forces those changes. Meantime Obama can only be accused of "inclusion."

How would you do it?

--IMM

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. it isnt working and he doesnt deserve credit for blatant pandering. he could have picked a moderate

preacher. one who was even against gay marriage but didnt kick gays out of his church, compare them to incest lovers and pedophiles without hurting my feelings and making me and mine further disenfranchised

[immoderate]

73. I think it is working.

Warren has already denied those statements, although we know that's a lie. But he is on the defensive. I don't think this invitation disenfranchises anyone. That was already done on election day. That it outrages and energizes the GLBT community, and its supporters, (of which I am one) will lead to progress.

Warren is a bigoted POS. But he has to be dealt with. I think this is a strategy that will accomplish that without backlash. Throwing shoes at him might feel good, but it won't accomplish our goals.

--IMM

[ginnyinWI]

43. He is modeling how to disagree but remain civil.

That's the message he's trying to send. You bring out the best in your opponents by treating them civilly, not villifying them and creating more division. I haven't seen any evidence that he is compromising his policy on gay issues. Just because you associate with a person doesn't mean that you ARE the person.

We cried out when they associated Obama with Bill Ayer's past actions; how is this not the same thing? Guilt by association.

I know he's asked Warren to give the opening prayer. It pleases everyone but the far left who want everything 100% ideologically pure. But Obama is a PRAGMATIST, not an ideologue, something for which we should be very thankful, given the last eight years.

[Kitsune]

53. And he picked Warren, who is still blasting away at gay people even now?

If he wanted to model civility he could have picked someone who doesn't equate us with pedophiles and then lie about it (really badly) when he realizes it's bad press. Warren hasn't got a civil bone in his body.

[ginnyinWI]

103. hm I heard him on the POTUS XM channel,

and he seemed pretty civil. But maybe I'm not getting the whole picture.

[Bluebear]

107. He equates me to a child molester. Not civil.

[bluedawg12]

61. Equating same sex marriage to pedophilia, polygamy and bestiality is civil?

Then lying about ever saying it is civil?

It's all on video.

"We cried out when they associated Obama with Bill Ayer's past actions; how is this not the same thing? Guilt by association." - ginnyinWI

You just contradicted yourself with this statement. The basis for decrying guilt by association with Ayers was that there was NO association with Ayers other than happenstance meetings in large groups. The out cry was: there was no Obama - Ayers relationship.

There is an Obama - Warren relationship. That cannot be denied.


It's more like the Rev. Wright issue, where there was an association and then Candidate Obama made that famous speech and after wards there was no more Obama - Wright relationship and Candidate Obama left that Church.

[mondo joe]

81. Indeed. You create a civil tone by rewarding civility - not by rewarding the uncivil.

[Marrah_G]

65. Would you be so accomodating if he invited a racist to speak in a place of honor?

[ginnyinWI]

104. well, look at it this way:

If a racist is in his own little enclave--say a radio show or tv show or newspaper--where everyone who listens to him agrees with him wholeheartedly--then nothing changes. When the racist is brought onto the national stage, he is then pressed to actually give rational reasons for his views, and they have to go beyond "because that's what I believe". He stands more of a change of being pushed into a more tolerant (and therefore less dangerous) position, simply because he's had the light of day shown on him and he finds he looks bad to a majority of his audience.

I think maybe this is what Obama has up his sleeve with this invitation. Whatever it is, he's way ahead of us and we'll find out eventually when we see the fruit it produces.

[mondo joe]

79. I'll take it seriously when it's not gays being sacrificed (yet again) to outreach.

[immoderate]

86. A salient point. And one I have avoided. But let's take it on.

This is a battle of gays, by gays, and for gays. They can't be excluded from the battle. As a mere sympathizer, I can not take their place on the front line.

In a chess game, some pieces have to be given up to win. I don't think this analogy is apt, because I don't believe in sacrificing human beings to win a war. Moreover, I don't think that anyone has actually been sacrificed, as so far, no one has lost anything in this battle. That was done on election day. (Point no one was thrown overboard when Warren was invited on board.)

Try it this way. Obama has placed in jeopardy his prestige, and the good will and feelings of his followers, to accomplish the greater good. Those are things that can be healed when our objectives are met.

--IMM

[mondo joe]

87. I disagree with the premise.

"Try it this way. Obama has placed in jeopardy his prestige, and the good will and feelings of his followers, to accomplish the greater good."

I think Obama has chosen to trade the good will of GLBTs for the greater numbers of religious righters who can be flexible on race (if not other issues). And because GLBT people have no better option, they'll just have to eat the shit sandwich.

So I don't see the jeopardy to his prestige, but a net gain.

[immoderate]

89. Wow. I really don't see that in Obama.

That would make him no better than George Bush. I don't think he needs to make any deals about race, he's already the president! There is nothing to gain there. It would be stupid. And if anything, he is not stupid.

His prestige is to be an advocate for all Americans and for justice. If what you say were to be true, I'd have no use for him. Throw him in the dumpster!

--IMM

[mondo joe]

90. The gain is in popularity and future votes.

I think he's plainly traded the good will of GLBT people for the good will of some religious righters - the ones who aren't too hung up on race.

It's a numeric gain for him, as he gains their good will, but probably keeps the GLBT votes anyway.

[immoderate]

91. Plainly?

I think this remains to be seen. All he's done is invite some fundy to say a prayer. He has denounced Warren's views, and reiterated his "fierce advocacy" for the gay community. So much for plainly.

It doesn't fit. You should be happy to know that.

--IMM

[mondo joe]

92. Plainly, in my opinion.

:-)

[immoderate]

95. Can't argue with that.

We'll just have to see what happens.

I'm rooting for reversal of DADT, DOMA and Prop 8.

--IMM

[bluedawg12]

109. It's very cynical, knowing that gays won't have much choice

but you nailed it, the calculus, is: we get the right wing social conservative voters and where will the gays go? To the repugs?

Very cynical indeed.

[yurbud]

93. the great thing about the discussion is the burden of proof has shifted to Warren

Rather than gays having to prove their worthiness of rights, Warren is on the spot to convince America he is not intolerant--and I think he is losing.

The result will be either he withdraws into Fred Phelps obscurity and ignominy or he figures out a way to moderate his rhetoric to make peace with gays and stay in the limelight.

If this guy is pastor of a megachurch, it will be tough for him to throw away access to a much bigger pulpit to defend a position the younger members of his church will eventually shed anyway.

[immoderate]

96. Yup!

--IMM

[SKKY]

97. Very well put!!!!

I'm surprised more people haven't looked at it from this point of view. That was my first impression of this choice, and I agree with you 100%, it's BRILLIANT!!!!

[yowzayowzayowza]

98. In an alternate universe, Obama would been hailed as a genius for...

creating an opening for such discussion at the astounding price of a coupla minutes of generic prayer.

[bluedawg12]

105. In a sane universe Warren would be outed for his HIV/AIDS program

that is "allegedly" contrary to evidence based medicine and fails to address HIV/AIDS prevention on the basis of best practices.

Unless of course people who are so f*cking pro Warren don't give a sh*t about the people in Africa and that tax dollars go to his and affiliated programs, that do not adequately address prevention of a disease, only expensive pharmaceutical treatments of a disease once human beings acquire it.

What would you prefer getting infected with HIV after having been denied education and means for prevention, or getting HIV and now having Pastah ricky come charging in on his stallion, to treat you?

That's worth a couple of minutes for a search.

[yowzayowzayowza]

108. And thx to Obamaz magnanimous invitation, you have...

cause and weeks to press your case.

[bluedawg12]

110. Aren't you concerned that African's are not being given full treatment

to include prevention of an infectious disease?

[yowzayowzayowza]

111. Certainly. n/t

[bluedawg12]

112. In what way are you concerned by not discussing it?

[yowzayowzayowza]

114. Ya lost me. I'm all for pressing Warren on all fronts.

:shrug: Jus not for blaming Obama for his magnanimous inclusion, especially after hez backed up our positions in opposition to Warren.

[bluedawg12]

118. Is it magnanimous to withhold HIV prevention from African peoples?

That's what is and has been happening regardless of this man's claim to be fighting HIV in Africa, he and his cohorts "allegedly" avoid evidence based medicine, "best practices" if you will, in preventing HIV infections.

New cases are reported daily.

Their "alleged" focus on prevention is narrow and not the best practice, so it is less than effective prevention of HIV infections.

Then, Rick&co. rush in to treat established infections and disease with pharmaceuticals.

In infectious disease there are two fights that must be waged at the same time.

1.) Prevention
2.) Treatment

Of those two, prevention is mandatory,ethical and humane. I am guessing we would all rather not get a serious disease in the fist place.

Also, prevention is most cost effective. From a purely cost perspective, it costs less to prevent than to treat.

Instead his group has "allegedly" fought prevention best practices, i.e. evidence based medicine.

Yes, they do pharmacological treatment, big pharm & big religion?

However, one cannot ethically, IMHO, do one without the other.

Allowing people to get infected just keeps the ball rolling and the infection continues.

Consider TB as another model, much energy is spent in prevention of spread, then, if the infection occurs of course it is treated.

Here check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=108138&mesg_id=108138

edit typos

[yowzayowzayowza]

120. Of course not. n/t

[bluedawg12]

124. I know that and I know you would not think that.

The link to the other thread has some good info.

This is how, we/I, learn. From one another.

peace & happy holidays!
bd12

[yowzayowzayowza]

126. And the same to you!!!

:hi:

[yurbud]

101. think back to primaries & election: Obama seemd to give opening to opponents, but when they bit

it always blew up in their faces--for both Hillary and McCain.

Obama is a good chess player.

I'm uneasy with this choice, but he may be seeing a couple of moves out.

[IndianaGreen]

116. In 2002 23 were told how brilliant the Democrats were if giving Bush enough rope to hang himself

How many thousands have died, been displaced, or been wrongfully detained how of the genious that gave us "impeachment is off the table?"

I am no longer buying anyone's claims that the failure to stand for principle is part of some brilliant plan.

[Chovexani]

117. You know what else would have started a discussion

Selecting Rev. Irene Munroe, a black openly lesbian minister. Or Rev. Mel White, an MCC pastor that has done activist work. Or fuck, almost any minister from his own denomination, which unequivocally supports equal rights for all people.

You guys ought to audition for Cirque du Soleil with the contortions of logic you've resorted to in order to justify this bullshit.

[yowzayowzayowza]

121. Those selections would have opened Obama up to charges...

of breaking his promise of inclusion and further would not have put the intolerance front and center.

[Chovexani]

123. Just like his selection of Warren has opened him up to charges

Of breaking his promise to consider LGBT people equal citizens under the law. But, as always, it's about upholding the privilege of the oppressor rather than doing anything

If you really, really believe this was part of some master plan to uplift the LGBT community, I suggest you stop huffing glue and start reading up on some things. Donnie McClurkin being one of them, the Dominionist movement being another.

[yowzayowzayowza]

125. Obama has answered those charges emphatically.

The goal of the inclusion policy it to uplift us all.

We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

[mondo joe]

127. Why? Who is excluded by either of those possibilities?

[yowzayowzayowza]

128. Excluded?

Choosing a liberal minister would open Obama up to justifiable criticism of braking his campaign promise of inclusion and fail to foster discussion of conservative intolerance.

Choosing a conservative minister meets Obamaz campaign promise of inclusion and his & our policy differences with conservatives fosters discussion of conservative intolerance ... to the extent we do not waste the opportunity blaming Obama for his inclusion.

Not sure what yer drivin at. :shrug: