Rev. Robinson is a hero and Obama's choice of him is genius.

[Raven]

I'm a resident of New Hampshire and a non-practicing Catholic. I have been following this man for some time. I am amazed at his composure, compassion and kindness in the face of what he has had to endure from his own church and from the public in general. Warren leads millions but I doubt he has ever faced what Robinson has faced. Robinson's message will be one of love, acceptance...one that says that everyone, in their own lives, has to move over and make room. Robinson will put Warren to shame.

This is Obama at his best. He is going to make this Country face up to the fact that there is room for everyone as long as people allow for that room. Warren doesn't, but I suspect that he will have to or back out. Obama had put it right in that guy's face.

Barack Obama is going to do more for this country than fix the economy.

Now I will duck and put my vest on.

[Vinca]

1. Ditto what Raven said except the nonpracticing Catholic part. nt

[Klukie]

2. I couldn't agree more.....

no vest needed.

[MADem]

3. Naaah, it's not genius. Come on. It's a way of mitigating THIS STUNT by our friend Reverend

Fatass Warren....

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/01/61130096/1

Rev. Rick Warren takes another jab

[Raven]

5. Jury's out but you just watch...this will be a good thing in the end. n/t

[MADem]

6. I'm not saying it's not a good move. It IS a good move, it takes the worst sting out of the

Warren business.

But it's not an action, it is a REaction.

Who gave the "Invocation" at George Bush's "Lincoln Memorial event?"

No one. There wasn't one.

This is a manufactured event, an "assuager" of sorts. There's symbolism, too.

Marian Anderson "Colored contralto" and the DAR....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhd-Q6tBkAQ&feature=related

[Raven]

8. I understand what you're saying and I think you have reason to be

cynical. What has been in my mind over these last several weeks is what a huge country we are, with so many different and opposing opinions. For example, I work in a Town with a cult religion that thinks I am from the "evil world". They have a major population here and I think you have to work to find a bridge, something that will make folks realize that, to live at all, you have to find a common ground. In my case, it is to convince these people that I am a decent, living, breathing human being that cares as much for my kids as they do for theirs. It is very difficult but if we don't try to do this in this country, we'll be killing eachother eventually.

Remember, Obama is a community organizer at his deepest. He is going to try to find reconcilliation if there is any to have. The man was elected by many not just the Progressives (and, as I remember, we did it grudgingly) or any other group. I suspect that this man is going to piss all of us off at one time or another but I still hold out a hope that he will bring us together.

[MADem]

13. Well, I'm one of those types who looks at all sides of an issue.

I can REALLY see why the gay community is pissed off, I can see why strong Obama supporters want them to "tone it down" (that's fear talking, really, IMO, but I understand it), and then there's the Rodney "Why Can't We All Just Get Along?" King contingent weighing in, too, the old "Come on, he's better than Bush, be quiet or you'll RUUUUIN it..." bunch.

I'm in the "Disagree Without Being Disagreeable" crowd, myself. I think a bit of protest is good. It shakes up the mix. One size fits all protests, though, like those ANSWER things, are really vanity games. They don't do much. They don't get covered, either, because there's too much being protested, and half of the people in the crowd don't agree with the full agenda, they're there just for their particular gripe. They get diluted with all of the BS and the stupid speakers that aren't there for most of what the audience wants to hear.

If people want to get really serious, though, there's nothing like "Respectful Protest." Not treating a protest as a party, but as important work. That's part of the reason why the civil rights protests struck the public imagination. There were no mobs--there were quiet, well-dressed (in their Sunday best, many) people with expressions of singular determination. They were organized. Disciplined. Purposeful. Quite profound, that.

I don't know if we all want to be "brought together." Bush supposedly did that, after Nahn Wun Wun changed everything. I sat on my military ass and howled into the wind after that shit happened--if you think ninety percent of the nation was with Bush, imagine being a contrarian in the military-industrial-congressional complex. I was in the Less-Than-One-Percent minority, with the crazy people. I was berated, frankly, for my unpopular attitude about how I thought Nahn Wun Wun was mismanaged. I've actually had a few people apologize to me in subsequent years, or say "Gee, you were right," but damn few relative to the crap I took. I still get the odd shame-filled, averted eyes every now and again.

I'd rather he just teach people to be a little more CIVIL when they disagree, if he's going to do anything in terms of "the public conversation." Now, if he can swing that, he'll have done a lot for discourse in America.

[MADem]

14. I'm also one of those bozos who twitchily double-clicks unintentionally. NT

[Captain Hilts]

21. Okay heeeeere you go...

Two Gracious Hell Raisers:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. A lot of people want to minimize Bishop Robinson.

And the work he does for the community.

They did that a lot to the black civil rights leaders back in the '60's, and they're doing it now.

Fuck 'em.

[MADem]

36. I don't think they want to minimize him at all. I think a lot of people want to swap him out for

Warren on the 20th, actually.

[Cha]

7. Good to know, Raven..I'd never heard

of him before today.

[Raven]

9. Robinson??? Oh Jesus! He has been big, big news here in NH

and generally in the Episcopal Church. There was a big gathering in England awhile back and he was banned. There have been threats that some would leave the Church over him. He has handled this all with dignity and restraint and kindness. Actually, I think Obama has taken a huge risk asking him to participate in the Ceremonies because there is a very large contingent of the Epispocal Church that will not vote for Obama because of this choice.

[Cha]

12. He sounds really awesome and no

doubt we'll be hearing a lot more about him on a national stage.

[QC]

19. "there is a very large contingent of the Epispocal Church"

Take it from an Episcopalian: the anti-Robinson faction of the church is small, if loud, and practically all are Busheviks anyway.

[Rockholm]

29. That is correct.

The right-wing of the Episcopal Church is small, annoying and wrong. They pulled this same shit when women were allowed to be priests and when they updated the Book of Common Prayer.

[QC]

30. Exactly. Let's not make them out to be more important than they are.

I expect them to settle down now that the court cases are running against them--it's not as much fun to campaign for truth and purity from a rented storefront.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. I have the greatest respect for Gene Robinson

and agree with every word you say about him. He is an amazing man. Adding him late, or announcing late, either way, I'm glad he's going to be there.
I don't even want to sully him by speaking in terms of mitgation of the other guy. The other guy remains exactly what he is and his redemption is his own to work out. Place a rose next to a viper, the viper remains a viper. Pointing that out is wisdom. Forgetting it is danger.
But I am glad to know that Obama has been and will be getting to know Robinson. And glad that many Americans will pray with him, those that wish to pray.

[Raven]

11. Amen! Just Amen...and I have great hope that I'm right on this!

[Maven]

15. No it isn't. It's the same lame CYA as after McClurkin

except the person he picked to create a false sense of "balance" this time actually has credibility.

As yardwork posted in an exceptional explanation in GLBT, Robinson (or someone like him) should have been picked INSTEAD of Warren to give the invocation, not because he's gay, but because he preaches acceptance of all people.

EDIT: As a clarification, I meant no to your latter statement. Rev. Robinson is, indeed, a hero.

[sniffa]

16. +1

[Critters2]

22. Exactly. Thank you. nt

[H2O Man]

17. I think it shows

that Obama has an appreciation of the essential feature of our society being a duality that is further splintred by factionalism, and that he recognizes the need for establishing some sort of equalibrium in order to begin to move forward.

[Klukie]

18. perfectly stated

[Solon]

40. Equalibrium for what exactly?

Seriously, how fucked up is that reasoning when comparing Warren(a hatemonger) to Robinson(who teaches acceptance for all). Where's the balance on this?

[H2O Man]

44. I wish that Warren

had not been invited. I find him to be an offensive, obnoxious person.

In terms of balance, I was stating my opinion of what I suspect that Obama is doing. While it is not my opinion of what he should do, I think that I understand the reasoning. Balance is often found in opposites/ opposing forces. Hence, there is, in theory, more balance between a hatemonger-accepting pair, than between two two hateful speakers. I would personally say there is the greatest balance with two accepting people.

[Solon]

49. I think all this shows is that homophobia is one of the last respectable bigotries left in ...

society. Not so much that it exists at all, but rather that someone who is a homophobe can be brought onto a national stage, and most people don't have a problem with it. I contrast this with the scandal that occurred in the 1990s, when some Republicans spoke at a Conservative Citizen's Council(White Supremacist organization) meeting, and the overall reaction from the public, and even their own party.

[H2O Man]

58. I agree.

It is still entrenched, for example, in the law in a way that other forms of the disease are not -- for no one questions if any other group of citizens have the right to marry, protections in the work place, and there is far less debate regarding "hate crime" laws for other groups.

There are, sadly, still people who are racist getting the national stage -- for example, Patrick Buchanan on MSNBC. He also has issues with Jewish people. And there are other examples. The difference that I see is that the homophobic does not seem as concerned about pretending to walk as fine a line. They can say things like they "love" gay people, but disapprove of their "lifestyle." Even Buchanan doesn't open;y accuse non-white people of being "sinful" because of their skin color.

Since about the time the Beatles first appeared on Ed Sullivan, I have opted to wear my hair long. For many years, I heard the mindless "I can't tell if he's a boy or a girl." In more recent years, people who I do not know, and who do not know me, are more apt to question my sexual preference, based on my hair. I can honestly say that the most recent ugly remark came after my daughter's junior varsity basketball game last week, when a referee (of all people) made a stupid statement directed towards me in the restroom. Odd. I've never particularly cared what stupid people think of me -- I figure it's their problem, so long as they do not touch me. And those who have touched me, foolishly thinking I would be a victim, have without exception payed a serious penalty.

I've spoken before on this forum about when a group of racist thugs savagely attacked one of my nephews, simply because of the color of his skin. The leader of the group, who punched and kicked my unconscious nephew while he lay on the ground, was given a $50 fine -- for the open beer he had at the time. No other penalty, despite leaving my nephew in a dark field, not knowing if he was dead or alive. In fact, the judge, in open court, said he wasn't convinced that the use of racial slurs before and during the attack was evidence of racism. That was in October, 1998, the same month that Matthew Shephard was murdered. The crimes were rooted in the same hatred that is a disease on our society.

Those crimes remain connected in my mind. One of the things that bothers me is the way that too many people react:either a partial blaming of the victim, or a deafening silence. We have a long way to go as a society.

[Maven]

42. Wrong.

There is no equilibrium between bigotry and acceptance.

[H2O Man]

46. Respectfully disagree.

There isn't always, but there can be. It depends upon one's goal. However, I certainly appreciate that you have the right to your opinion, and even if we may disagree in part, I have no need to refer to your opinion as "wrong." It's your opinion. More, we probably have more in common than not -- I find Warren's inclusion to be offensive, and wish he were not going to be there. I have let the Obama people know that in a very direct way.

[Maven]

48. And that is the problem.

Some opinions actually are factually or logically--and quite simply--wrong.

Like the opinion that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago.

Like the opinion that being gay or lesbian is a mental disorder or a "lifestyle choice."

Like the opinion that there is any equivalency or parity between a person who preaches that a certain group of people are subhuman, on the one hand, and a person who preaches that all people are worthy of acceptance on the other.

This "let's just listen to everyone, not choose sides" approach to critical issues like human rights is simply moral cowardice disguised as wisdom.

Obama's explanation for his choice of Warren doesn't reveal a master plan, but rather an attempt to mitigate the hurt felt by one group from an obvious pander. Likewise, it is impossible to eliminate the validation of Warren, who works to disenfranchise and destroy one group, by giving a lesser honor to a man within said group. There is no "balance" there. The very concept that the humanity and legitimacy of a certain group of human beings is a subject on which there may be valid "disagreement" is offensive in itself. Thus, Obama's stated purpose for the Warren pick--to listen to all "viewpoints" on the issue--actually makes it worse, not better.

I'm glad you let Obama know you're offended by his choice of Warren.

[H2O Man]

59. Absolutely.

People even attempt to justify their hatred by twisting the concepts of the enlightened ones who have taught an acceptance of others who are different from one's selve. It wasn't that long ago, as you know as well as I, that white Americans used "religion" to justify the enslavement of Africans, the genocide of Native Americans, and Jim Crow. Too often, good people tend to focus on the differences, no matter if they are major or minor, in the way the hatred played out, rather than focusing on the obvious fact that they were all rooted in hatred, and hatred of any group of human beings can never be justified.

In the past two thousand years or more, those who hold power in most societies keep a grip on it by getting the ignorant masses to forget their own low level of being, by focusing their hatred on some "other." The "other" is identified as the "enemy," be they an internal or external group. It's no coincidence that the same "leaders" (for lack of a better word) who identify other populations around the globe as the enemy of our country are also intent upon convincing people that the gay people in this country are a threat -- be it a threat to marriage or the classroom or any other thing they project their hatreds on.

It is an error, I believe, to allow the hateful people equal billing. Though Martin Luther King, Jr. was known to offer a person who assaulted him an opportunity to get on stage with him, King was fully prepared to focus on where that person was wrong. He wasn't saying it was a difference of opinion. It was wrong to hate, and wrong to punch.

Our culture is seriously our of balance. As a result, many individuals are out of balance. If an off-balance person is standing next to a balanced person, the balanced person can indeed provide the security of balance to both individuals. As King taught by example, that is the best way to establish a balanced society. But that does not, and indeed cannot, result from pretending that both positions are equal.

[Solomon]

66. LOL Kudos to you Waterman for trying. LOL

Might need to wait a bit more before venturing out here with some common sense.

[Captain Hilts]

20. Too little, too late. It's not the global broadcast the invocation will be.

It's Obama at his worst.

[Marrah_G]

24. I think those people who are okay with all of this need to re-evaluate themselves

I think they are just giving lip service to the GBLT community because it is PC to do so. I think many do not really, deep down in their hearts, get it.

[QC]

31. I think that for many here, supporting GLBT equality is part of the progressive checklist,

like supporting choice, buying cage-free eggs, saving the whales, etc., but when it comes time to make even a very small sacrifice--like admitting that a politician with whom they feel a very strong personal identity might have made a mistake--then the game is over.

[Marrah_G]

23. I disagree.

Having a token gay do an invocation a few days before the actual inauguration does not in any way make up for the fact that of all the religious leaders in the country, Obama chose a hateful, anti-woman, anti-jew, anti-pagan, anti-gay activist to share a place of honor with him.

If this were a white supremist leader and a black preacher was invited to say a prayer a few days before hand to "balance" it out, you would not be so understanding.

Those who think this is okay, those who think this is balance, need to seriously sit down and think about whether or not you TRULY believe GBLT people deserve equality and more importantly whether or not you TRULY are okay with who they are.

[phleshdef]

25. The naysayers can continue to moan. History will report that Obama gave everyone a seat at the table

Thats just how its gonna be. Period.

[ruggerson]

26. Obama had to do something after the Warren mistake

and Robinson is a good start.

Obama deserves credit for actually listening to those who think the Warren choice to be profoundly wrong.

But your OP is written as if Warren giving the invocation is some kind of deus ex machina that Obama had nothing to do with.

Obama invited Warren to begin with. His choice of Robinson, while it demonstrates that he can listen and respond, does not negate the fact that the original choice was wrongheaded, offensive and sends entirely the wrong message to the nation.

[Clio the Leo]

27. If he felt it was a mistake he'd simply remove Warren....

... and I doubt VERY seriously he is trying to placate half of DU. Wrong or right, the overwhelming majority of Americans could give a flyin' flip that Warren is praying.

The man is simply trying to give everyone a seat at the table. We had fair warning. ;)

[ruggerson]

52. This was hardly a DU scuffle

it was all over the tv, the radio and the newspapers. He was also directly asked about it. Considering some of his top aides are gay (and his most prolific fundraisers are a gay couple), I assure you it was a topic of discussion at the highest levels.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

28. Gene Robinson was the reason my conservative parents quit the Episcopal Church

so that right there is reason enough to think he is great.

[chieftain]

32. I think this move speaks very well of Obama.

It is a tacit acknowledgment of the hurt he caused the GLT community which though insufficient in many ways demonstrates an ability to self correct that will stand him and the country in good stead.
As president he will make mistakes. But he won't persist in them the way doofus has.

[Critters2]

33. Rescinding the invitation to Warren would've acknowledged the hurt

he caused the GLBT community. This is trying to throw the gay community a bone, and classic ass-covering. By keeping Warren, he is persisting in the mistake.

[jenmito]

34. This is great news! And to all complaining that it's just to make up for Warren, is that going

to be your reply for EVERYTHING Obama does from here on in? Instead of giving him credit, are you going to keep using the same line? Or are you going to EVER accept his future actions as being sincere? :eyes:

[MADem]

37. Just because people point out that this selection is a mitigator for Warren, that doesn't make it a

"complaint."

Facts are facts. It is an entirely fair observation.

Obama's choice of Robinson for this "make up" event at the Lincoln Memorial is his acknowledgement that he took it too far by selecting his new Faith Forum buddy Warren, who promptly turned around and fucked him with some more gay-baiting.

It is no more productive to "complain" than it is to "excuse." Obama will be the nation's leader, and his decisions are going to come under scrutiny, just like Chimp's did, and Clinton's, and Chimpy Daddy's did....and so on, and so on.

Discussion is the goal, here. Not excoriation nor adulation.

It's what's happening, for the most part.

[jenmito]

38. My question has yet to be answered:

Instead of giving him credit, are you going to keep using the same line? Or are you going to EVER accept his future actions as being sincere?

[MADem]

39. Why give someone "credit" for doing the right thing, though?

We don't pat him on the back for taking a nice morning poop, or eating his Wheaties, after all.

He's not a big baby who needs our praise, he's soon-to-be the President of these United States, responsible, accountable, large and IN CHARGE.

He wanted the gig. Scrutiny goes with it. So does discussion of his decisions.

Wagon-circling and defensiveness, as though the man can't take care of himself and needs coddling, is annoying, too. It makes one wonder about the sincere faith of the coddlers in the guy.

By his ACTIONS we shall know him. Let him take the reins and get to work. We'll see how he does. It's difficult to give "credit" when he's not even in charge yet. And you don't "credit" someone for trying to patch a fuckup, you just say "Well, he's aware of how that fuckup was taken."

I certainly wish him the best, but I'm not going to put on a cheerleader sweater and get out there like Bush's opposite numbers screaming "Rah Rah RATE, Obama's Perfectly GREAT!" When he's not. He's on the right track, but he's not perfect, and he's not great--not yet, anyway. Give him time, he may well be.

His transition has gone fairly smoothly, but people do have the right to note things they don't like, as well as things they do like. Trying to control the comments of others on an anonymous message board is a futile exercise, though--you'll probably be happier if you just express your own opinions, rather than try to stifle or channel the opinions of others.

[jenmito]

41. When did I try to stifle the opinions of others? I'm asking a question that you STILL

haven't answered: Are you going to keep using the same line (that he's just trying to make up for a mistake)? Or are you going to EVER accept his future actions as being sincere?

Yes, he hasn't even been sworn in yet but he's been taking as much criticism from Dems. here as he is from freepers. He doesn't deserve credit but he does deserve criticism, apparently.

[MADem]

43. When he takes the reins, we'll SEE. How much clearer can that be?

How can you give someone "credit" when thay haven't DONE anything yet? And why should you give anyone "credit" for behaving decently? That should be the DEFAULT, not an occasion for praise.

Are you going to "keep using the same line" that people are being MEAN to Obama simply because they're not guzzling Kool Aid and doing a happy dance every day? Because they actually analyze his decisions and ascribe motives and purpose to them?

Sheesh.

You ARE trying to control discussion when you attempt to scold people in this fashion. It's tiresome. And it blows back on Obama, unfortunately, in a less-than-positive way. He doesn't need acolytes. He's a big boy. He can't take care of himself, I'm sure.

[jenmito]

45. You first stated that " It's a way of mitigating THIS STUNT by our friend Reverend Fatass Warren."

I'm asking if that will be your answer for everything ELSE positive he does in the future or if you'll, yes, give him credit for doing something you approve of.

When did I say people are being mean to Obama??? And are you accusing me of guzzling Kool Aid? You really seem to have a chip on your shoulder with all these claims you're making about ME saying I'm "trying to control discussion when you attempt to scold people" which I'm not doing at ALL.

And if I had the power to cause blowback on Obama, I'm more powerful than I realized. ;)

[MADem]

47. Yes, I meant what I said. What's your point? Really??

Play all the word games you want, your point is that you get your drawers in a knot when anyone says something you perceive as "bad" about Obama. Your ire is especially raised by this Warren/Robinson business.

And as for the STUNT, you need to read what I wrote in that post. You plainly didn't--you're somehow smearing Obama with the "stunt" word, through lack of careful reading, I assume. The stunt was BY Rev. Warren.

Did you click the link to see what the stunt was?

It was a pretty nasty-ass stunt "BY" Rev. Warren. Rather craven, and done after his inaugural invocation invitation. It was a stunt designed to put Fatty Reverend Rick in the news, and boost his cred with the gay-haters.

It was, quite plainly, A STUNT. But that word, for some stupid reason I can't fathom, gives you agita.

Sheesh.

You, personally, do not have blowback power. But neither does a drop of water. Many, many drops of water can wear away a rock, though. Keep carping if it pleases you. If there are enough of you, overanxious and over-protective, snarling at anyone with valid criticism, you could drown out any good the future President does do, though.

You are trying to control discussion, even if you don't see it. You don't want anyone to say anything you perceive as negative about Obama and this Warren - Robinson business. You're demanding that people promise to say positive things.

And I've given you my answer. My "answer" to what Obama does will depend on WHAT he does. If he does a good thing, I will, as I always have in the past, say so. If he does a dumbass thing, I'll characterize it in that way. But the characterization is up to ME, not YOU.

I'm not going to roll out a "false positive" attitude to please you. Disabuse yourself of that notion.

You keep demanding an "if-then" pledge. You're not gonna get it.

He's an adult. He doesn't need his hand held. Let go. It's better for him, certainly, if you do.

[jenmito]

50. I'm not playing word games and I understood that post...

It's the "It's a way of mitigating..." that I was focusing on which is why I asked if that will be your answer for everything ELSE positive he does in the future or if you'll, yes, give him credit for doing something you approve of. (You put the words in all caps. I just quoted you exactly. I didn't mean it as the emphasis of your words, let alone giving me agita.)

And since you didn't answer these questions, I'll ask again:

When did I say people are being mean to Obama??? And are you accusing me of guzzling Kool Aid?

I am not a mindless defender of Obama. And that's YOUR (wrong) interpretation of my posts if you think I am trying to control ANYTHING ANYONE says. I merely asked questions and get no answers.

[MADem]

51. Yes you are. Now it's "mitigating" you don't like. Before, it was "stunt."

Come on, I don't have to give you a definition of "to mitigate" do I?

He hired a gay hating BIGOT to give his Invocation. He hired a gay Episcopalian bishop to turn up at a less important event to MITIGATE that action, to AMELIORATE that sting. It's not erasing it, it's just making it a little less worse.

Obama does not deserve to be "rewarded" for realizing that he fucked up big time. He'll get his 'reward' when he supports--which he does not do NOW--full equal rights for gay people at the federal level.

Every post you make, hectoring people to say nice things, is an assertion, by YOU, that we're not being "nice enough"--i.e., MEAN.

I don't "accuse" you of drinking Kool Aid. I declaratively state that your overprotective posts and frantic attempts to shield Obama from any criticism on this forum are certainly Kool-Aid-ISH. You sound like a mindless acolyte, i.e., a Kool Aid Drinker.

Think for yourself. Stop parroting mindless claptrap, and let Obama stand on his own two feet. He CAN do it. He doesn't need your well-meaning hovering and dare I say, attempts at MITIGATING his horrid error in judgment.

This whole Warren thing was a MISTAKE on Obama's part. The Robinson thing was a way of saying "Ooops, I'm sorry, but I already invited the Bigot guy, I can't un-invite him without pissing off my new fundy friends." And Warren knows he's not going to be disinvited, so he pulled that STUNT you got all pissy about.

You are, indeed, a mindless defender of Obama. You're doing it now, willingly, and you're playing another word game to do it. The guy fucked up, and you're annoyed because people mention it. Consequently, you demand a "loyalty pledge" from people to say nice things about him in the future. Democrats don't do that kind of shit. We aren't lockstep loyalists. We expect our leaders to EARN our respect first before we shower them with praise. We don't promise praise IF they do nice things, like we're waving a dog treat at a dancing poodle.

You don't have to continue your mindless defense--you can, if you'd like (no skin off my nose). You're unlikely to gain converts, though, and it's more likely that you'll annoy people.

Just allow people to have an opinion that differs from yours, why don't you? It's not that hard to do, really. If you want to keep worshipping His O-ness, be my guest. Just don't insist that I go along for the ride. I like the guy just fine, but the only thing I worship is a hot cup of coffee in the morning.

[JohnnieGordon]

53. You do beautiful work, that's all I'm going to say

Thanks for the laughs in this subthread :)

[MADem]

54. Thanks!

Much appreciated!

[jenmito]

57. No, I'm NOT. It was NEVER the words "THIS STUNT" that I singled out. It was the phrase

"It's a way of mitigating THIS STUNT..." and the ONLY one thinking I'm fixated on "THIS STUNT" is YOU! YOU'RE the one who put those words in caps and I just cut and pasted it. You have an idiotic idea in your head that I'm a mindless cheerleader when you're the one stuck in your iron-clad little world of "the choice of Warren was wrong and anything Obama does in the future is to try to make up for it." That's YOUR problem-not mine. But you're lumping me in with people YOU think are Obama apologists and nothing will change your mind. You sound like a RW zealot with all of their talking points. The more you write the clearer it becomes that you are out to twist everything Obama does into a negative and you therefore treat his supporters with the same disdain.

[MADem]

60. You keep coming back at me with the same crap. What am I supposed to think?

He did mitigate Warren's stunt. That's just fact. If you're upset about it, it's not the PHRASE that is bothering you, it's because you're experiencing a profound degree of cognitive dissonance. You think, maybe, that cheerleading will make it go away. It won't.

And that's not an "idiotic idea," it's fact. It's also bothering you so much you want it to go away, and it's why you just can't let anyone have an opinion that doesn't match yours without berating them to death over picayune bullshit.

I don't know how many times I have to say I wish Obama well. I keep saying it, and you, for some reason, glaze over at that part, and then you want more. I won't give you a loyalty oath--how many times do I have to say that, as well?

And this shit just isn't on:

You sound like a RW zealot with all of their talking points. The more you write the clearer it becomes that you are out to twist everything Obama does into a negative and you therefore treat his supporters with the same disdain.

You've lost the bubble on the discussion, so now you're down to calling me completely inappropriate names. I don't sound like a RW zealot--you sound a little off the page for saying so, though.

You're not hurting my feelings with your mismatched and silly insults--you're just making yourself, in the context of this discussion, look profoundly foolish.

Just calling it like I see it.

:hi:

[jenmito]

62. I can't believe you formed this opinion of me supposedly trying to shut people up

and demanding a loyalty oath while mindlessly cheerleading anything and everything Obama "the chosen one" does from this:

"This is great news! And to all complaining that it's just to make up for Warren, is that going to be your reply for EVERYTHING Obama does from here on in? Instead of giving him credit, are you going to keep using the same line? Or are you going to EVER accept his future actions as being sincere?"

You have a real problem. I simply asked questions. Will everything ELSE Obama does, such as his choice of the openly gay man John Berry to head the Office of Personnel Management, be seen as just more mitigation of his Warren pick?

Your use of terms like "cheerleader" and others to try to make me look like a "fan" (like the RW does) make you look foolish. You've said some nice things about Obama and I'VE said some critical things about him, although not on this thread.

But you are totally off base with your assessments that I'm trying to stifle opposing opinions, shut people up, etc. You really sound ridiculous with your repeated claims of all of that bull.

[MADem]

63. My opinion of you is based solely on what you've said to me.

You're accusing people who are annoyed about Warren of being carping scolds who will gripe about "EVERYTHING Obama does from here on in." You're picking apart words, and you're flailing around looking for a point to hang your "Waaah, no one is going to just LOVE OBAMA with no questions" complaint.

I don't have a problem. You do.

I don't know how many times I have to answer the question for you to get it. I'll judge Obama on his actions. Do you understand that, or is it too much of a concept for you to grasp?

If Obama does good things, that aren't a reaction to a fuckup, he'll get praise.

If the things he does are a reaction to a fuckup, the fuckup will be noted.

If he fucks up, he'll get a big old finger wag and a "Bad, bad, President!"

I'm not going to leap through hoops because Obama puts a woman up giving a sermon the day after the inauguration, that he "lets" Bishop Robinson do an invocation at a made-up event at the Lincoln Memorial, or that he appoints some gay dude to OMB. Bush appointed a few gay dudes, too--out ones. Yes, really. Didn't make his administration too interested in Equal Rights, though, did it?

Bush is the first Republican president to appoint an openly gay man to serve in his administration, Scott Evertz as director of the Office of National AIDS Policy.<8> In addition, during Bush's first term, his nominee as ambassador to Romania, Michael E. Guest, became the first openly gay man to be confirmed by the Senate as a U.S. ambassador. The first openly gay ambassador, James Hormel, received a recess appointment from Bill Clinton after the Senate failed to confirm the nomination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration

Obama can "fix" the Warren thing by going back to his roots and finding that part of him that used to be FOR equal rights for all people. And he won't get "praise" if he does that, either. He'll get an "About fucking time."

You can keep asking your "Will you love him if....?" questions all day. The answer stays the same.

I'm not the one demanding obeisance to the Lord Obama, Light Bringer And Wonderful Fellow. You are.

I'm the one rejecting your demands. Now, who has the "problem" here?

You don't have to answer. That was rhetorical.

:hi:

[jenmito]

64. "I'm not the one demanding obeisance to the Lord Obama, Light Bringer And Wonderful Fellow."

Case closed. You were and probably still are a rabid Hillary supporter who dislikes Obama. You have the PUMA talking points down. Enjoy your delusions that Obama's supporters aren't realistic in our support for him and give him credit where credit is due and criticize him where criticism is due. You can talk 'til you're blue in the face about how I worship Lord Obama but it's you who looks foolish. Bush's appointments are irrelevant but thanks for trying, once again, to minimize what Obama has done and is doing. You look silly.

:hi:

[MADem]

65. Case CLOSED, indeed!!!

Look at these assumptions:

--"You were and probably are...."

--"You have the PUMA talking points...."

"Give him credit..." Or what? Or ELSE?

Accuse much? Demand much? It's what people do when they can't refute the argument.

I like Obama. A lot. I think he'll be a far sight better than Bush.

I'm not in love with him, though. I think he's a smart, sharp politician, not a "teen idol."

There's the difference.

And you've illustrated the difference, by getting angry at me and calling me names, beautifully.

You are starting to look a bit more than silly, you know.

We're done, here. Do, please, have the last word. Make a few more false assumptions, call me a few more names, and give us all one more good look at your nature.

[jenmito]

69. Here ya go:

My post: "This is great news! And to all complaining that it's just to make up for Warren, is that going　to be your reply for EVERYTHING Obama does from here on in? Instead of giving him credit, are you going to keep using the same line? Or are you going to EVER accept his future actions as being sincere?”

Comments you've made in response to my comment and questions in that post:

”Discussion is the goal, here. Not excoriation nor adulation.”

”I certainly wish him the best, but I'm not going to put on a cheerleader sweater and get out there like Bush's opposite numbers screaming "Rah Rah RATE, Obama's Perfectly GREAT!"

”Play all the word games you want, your point is that you get your drawers in a knot when anyone says something you perceive as "bad" about Obama. Your ire is especially raised by this Warren/Robinson business.”

”You don't want anyone to say anything you perceive as negative about Obama and this Warren - Robinson business. You're demanding that people promise to say positive things.”

”You keep demanding an "if-then" pledge. You're not gonna get it.”

"I'm not the one demanding obeisance to the Lord Obama, Light Bringer And Wonderful Fellow. You are."

"I'm not in love with him, though. I think he's a smart, sharp politician, not a 'teen idol.' There's the difference."
-----------------------------------
All of your accusations are based on me asking questions. You're one of those people who thinks you can dismiss me as being an "idol worshipper" which I definitely am not, so all of your criticism of me is based on a false premise. :hi:

[Balderdash]

67. Look at what you just did?

You're the one, if anyone does, look silly. There are lots of people on here who
were once Hillary supporters, so what? We're now supporters of the Democrat who
won the nomination. We were all supporters of Obama in the general election. That's
how it works. Another thing that works is speaking truth to power and making critical
judgments on what our leaders are doing. That wasn't just the right thing to do when
the opposition was in power, it's the right thing to do always. Obama will OUR President
and I don't think he needs us to be sheep, he said that he wants to hear from us, especially
when we think he's screwing up. I'm going to hold him to that.

[Renew Deal]

68. In your case, facts are opinions

And your "opinions" are baseless.

[MADem]

70. I don't think so.

The "facts" to which I was referring were the invitations to Warren and the Bishop at these separate events. Those things happened.

The "observations" are my opinions.

But facts ARE facts. And more people than not agree with my opinion on the dynamics surrounding these facts; even the ones who aren't in favor of equal rights. They see cause, and they see effect, and they can see the forest for the trees.

You have a nice day. I don't really care if you share my opinion, and I don't have any motivation to try to change your mind.

[Renew Deal]

71. lol, then why did you post on DU?

Are you just talking to yourself? You see London. You see France.

[MADem]

72. Ah, forgive me--didn't realize I was talking to a Rhodes Scholar....

:rofl:

[Renew Deal]

73. Now that we have that settled

:D

[progdog]

35. The National Cathedral in DC

is Episcopal. I was raised as an Episcopalian and attended an Episcopal School. It's my experience that they are far more liberal than folks realize. But, as usual, the squeaky wheel (conservative wing) always gets the grease. Robinson is a hero.

[saltpoint]

55. The Robinson interview today on NPR was revealing. He said he

had studied the history of invocations for presidential inaugural ceremonies and was disconcerted by the lopsided representation of the Judeo-Christian God and told the interviewer that his invocation would invoke "the god of our many understandings."

It was an astonishing moment.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

56. The Right Rev. Robinson

is a man who, unlike Warren, truly lives his faith.

[leftofthedial]

61. geeeeeee-nius

I tell you.