More Offended By Warren's Invocation Than Obama's Adoption Of Previous Administrations' Officials?

[omega minimo]

Certainly Warren's presence as Grand Invoker at Barack's inauguration can be seen as a slap in the face on many levels, by many groups.

In the context of all the various Same Old Same Old appointments that the President Elect has made to run and lead the country for the next four years beyond Inauguration Day, is a Fundamentalist Christian Preacher really a surprise or a stretch?

Is his presence really more of an insult than having "Change" turn into "Status Quo"?

As outrageous as Warren's Grand Poobah presence may feel and be, it also looks like the self-righteous offense taken by many GLTB folks is trapping itself in a wedge issue and ignoring the larger forces being arrayed to perpetuate the same forces that Warren and his ill ilk represent.

Warren represents the forces that keep gender roles rigid in society, to support a power structure that impacts all of us with its control, not just gays, lesbians, etc.

It's one thing to shout about rights and ignore history and have the White Wedding (brought back during the Reagan Error to make conspicuous consumption $$$$$) keep the cozy state worker job and middle class lifestyle and go to the dog park and complain about religious bigots.

It's another thing to understand the interconnection of all the forces, how the "moral," religious power structure supports and subverts the larger power structure, represented both by ugly bigots and professional politicians.

"Change we can believe in" always sounded wistful to me, as if there was a question mark at the end.

I predicted for months or years before his election that a best case scenario for an Obama administration would most likely be similar to the Clinton Era of "floating all boats." I didn't expect any real CHANGE in a significant way that altered the trajectory of our corporate government and its impacts on the people and the planet. Obama never sent any of those signals. Since his election he has not challenged those forces. Now, he and his old school helpers can only hope to right the ship of state -- and attempt the survival of biosphere -- soon enough and long enough to keep The American Dream alive.

Which lack of real change are you prepared to be more offended and motivated by?

Which topics are you prepared to post and discuss for the benefit of our common future?

Like Skinner suggested, how many ideas are you willing to hold in your head/heart at one time?

:bounce: :grouphug: :bounce:

[NJmaverick]

1. What a sad state our nation has reached, when efforts at unity and healing of divides

are perceived as a "slap in the face". Thankful our nation can turn to Obama's great leadership to pull us out of this sorry state.

[omega minimo]

3. "Efforts at unity and healing of divides" could be best served by

a non-toxic spiritual leader for the Inaugural invocation.

It was a perfect opportunity to do just that.

I don't want to turn my own thread entrapped in the wedge issue the OP comments on.... however, dismissing the "perceived slap in the face" AS IF Warren was presented as an "effort at unity and healing," is to also miss the point.

Different appointments for the Cabinet and for Jan. 20 could have sent different and better received messages that there still is some "change we can believe in."

[NJmaverick]

9. So your idea of uniting the nation is to only include those that agree with your views?

Frankly that's not a very effective way to unite or heal.

[omega minimo]

19. Wow, did you go to Devil's Advocate Mind Fuck School?

Impressive and masterful bait, but not biting, thanks.

[NJmaverick]

20. Well your closed minded reply certainly explains how you came up with your misguided opinions

pretty much explains everything.

[omega minimo]

23. then you're done here. I'm not closed minded. Homey don't play dat

[NJmaverick]

26. lol, right the person that only gets pissed off and refuses to listen to those that disagree

isn't closed minded. I think you don't know what the term means, but that's just my opinion.

[omega minimo]

27. you're first comment sounded peaceful but you are clearly here only to cause trouble

:thumbsdown:

[Two Americas]

98. absurd

We have all been listening "to those that disagree" non-stop for decades now. It is impossible to escape or ignore the views of the religious right.

We oppose their views. That has nothing to do with being "open minded" or willing to listen to those who disagree with us.

[NJmaverick]

100. hearing is not the same as listening

[omega minimo]

102. as you can see below, his absurdity only builds and collapses upon itself

:yoiks:

[NJmaverick]

107. Persnal attacks the last refuge for those incapable of a logical and rational

argument to support of their opinions

[omega minimo]

110. oh goody are you going away now?

yer the one making personal attacks on me, after my bafflement at your non-sensical one-liners. While you were busy doing that, I was reading your relatively lucid post #99, in which you were actually saying something that resembled -- and could contribute to -- discussion.


"104. sigh, you mind is slammed shut and locked down

it's clear I am wasting my time with any further discussion with you. You simply are incapable or refuse to listen to others, and that has caused you to have a very distorted view of the world."
---------------------------------------------------

You know that is a bunch of bullshit and if you don't, go back and read the OP. If you want to discuss, try to say something and not just fling your zingers.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. the fact that you still don't understand why this is not

an effort at unity and healing but instead a calculated slap in the face, despite it having been explained to you countless times here on this board by many people has gone beyond thickheadedness on your part.

In an effort at healing and unity how about just accepting that this was a wrong move by Obama, that it has clearly hurt many of his supporters and that continuing to post that this was a good thing is divisive in and of itself?

[omega minimo]

6. Did not see those earlier posts but definitely caught the faux concerned tone........

double edged and called it in my reply to (pre) echo yours.

Not sure that it was "calculated." But it, as my OP suggests, certainly wasn't calculated to do other than reinforce the status quo.

:hi:

[NJmaverick]

12. The fact that you don't understand what unity or healing is

just pretty much shows how closed minded you are. Sorry but uniting means coming together with people you don't agree with, not excluding and attacking them. It's a pretty simple concept that you have failed to grasp. I guess your screen name is quite appropriate.

[omega minimo]

32. If you read Skinner's post he talks about holding more than one thought at one time &

disagreeing constructively


"Sorry but uniting means coming together with people you don't agree with, not excluding and attacking them."

That may be true. It also doesn't mean presenting the exact opposite and expecting that to represent "unity and healing"

Non denominational would be inclusive -- sorry I don't have a name for you.

[NJmaverick]

44. If one puts the emotions aside for a minute and looks at this objectively

Obama is making an effort to reach out to conservatives and the deeply religious. They make up a sizable portion of our nation's population.


Warren was not a particular strong advocate for Proposition 8. He supported the measure, as a good majority of ministers did, but his concerns are more about helping the poor and working with Aids patients. This is an Evengelical who is more concerned about social justice than he is the usual causes of gay marriage or abortion.

There is no mythical minister on the right who is not going to hold significant views that we on the left find wrong. Warren is one of the better ones, all things consisder.

The problem with the "slap in the face" perception, is that it goes against the whole idea of reaching out and uniting. There is no way to reach out and unite, except to go with someone you don't agree with on significant issues. That's just the nature of unity and tolerance.

[omega minimo]

54. You've made the OP's point. Real change would have been having other than Fundamentalist Christian

give the invocation.

"There is no way to reach out and unite, except to go with someone you don't agree with on significant issues."

If you follow your own logic, it is time for change and inclusion of others points of view, rather than pretend that the old days of coddling the Religious Right must continue unabated, as if it leads to "unity"

[NJmaverick]

56. You have mistaken respect and willingness to listen

with "coddling"

[omega minimo]

60. you've mistaken the past 30 years of that with a current need for unity and change

:think:

[Warren Stupidity]

34. I see unity and healing all around me

how blind are you?

[NJmaverick]

38. Not blind, open minded and perceiving reality

you should try it some time.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. huge multiday flame fest on DU = "unity and healing"

obviously this is not the reality you are referring to.

[NJmaverick]

48. News flash- DU doesn't represent the United States

just a limited portion of the liberal/Democratic population. A noble cause is the unity of the United States; a healing of the damaging wounds of division. That's a very important and honorable goal. I suspect Obama didn't consider his actions would cause a multiday flame fest. I think he is looking at the entire nation, not that tiny percentage that posts on DU.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. so who exactly is being healed?

[NJmaverick]

65. Those who do not suffer from the "you are either with me or against me" syndrome

those that are willing to talk to and work respectfully with those they don't agree on. Those that are willing to seek common ground rather than focus on differences.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. and what exactly are they afflicted with that needs this bigot on the stage to heal them?

Please explain, now I'm fascinated.

[omega minimo]

73. He's playing games. There's no there there.

:thumbsdown:

[NJmaverick]

76. I see the arrogance of presuming to know what is in the heart of others

rears it's ugly face. Then again this sort of bad behavior has been quite popular on DU, of late.

[omega minimo]

78. Come in here with the spirit of "healing and unity" and not your games

:hi: thank you

[NJmaverick]

80. I have patiently explained my positions to you, while over looking

your snarking remarks (or simply slapping them down, with my only smart ass remarks). I think that is the spirit of unity, that you seem not to like (considering you don't like Obama's or my efforts in that regard).

[omega minimo]

91. your replies are usually misguided oppositional "so what you mean is.......?" posts

are you missing the point on purpose or you really see things in "either/or" opposition?

When you unlearn that habit, you will be more available for "healing and unity"

:thumbsup:

[NJmaverick]

95. What you don't like is a logical and rational explanation

that pokes holes in your position. You have used every intellectually dishonest tactic in the book, to try and eliminate it.

[omega minimo]

97. um, no, and your continuation of this bullshit further diminishes your credibility

:hi:

state your case clearly here or be off with you

[Swamp Rat]

105. "Hohohoho!! ... Jee tinka du murishani nopa wata che hopa... hahahah!!

:D

[omega minimo]

112. Swampy!!!! Bon Natale and big hugs!!

:hug:

[Warren Stupidity]

79. I still want to know what all these people who are getting healed by the bigot

are afflicted with.

[NJmaverick]

83. "these people" = the people of the United States of America

they are healed not by your hateful and divisive comments, but by Obama and those that support his efforts.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. just not us

those other people.

But what are they afflicted with precisely that the bigot Warren is going to heal? You made that assertion, please explain exactly what they are afflicted with and how the bigot Warren is going to heal them.

[NJmaverick]

90. Those that cling to pettiness and will not even allow a small gesture

to those with differing opinions, there is no way to satisfy and heal our nation. The nation will be healed by those that are willing to adopt noble causes that are bigger than themselves and their own concerns. In other words you are happy and satisfied enough with getting your choice for President, that you are willing to allow the other side a small gesture of a prayer. If you can't even allow that, there is no way you can be part of the healing and the unity.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. you edited your post. You are a dishonest git.

We done.

[NJmaverick]

93. Edits for spelling are not dishonest, you on the other hand...

well you remind me of Karl Rove and his tactic of accusing others of your own weaknesses.

[omega minimo]

96. Here is the flawed assumption that is disunifying and unhealing this thread:

"In other words you are happy and satisfied enough with getting your choice for President, that you are willing to allow the other side a small gesture of a prayer."

Wait a minute. What "other side"?

Hey there. "Small gesture of a prayer"?

You've got to be kidding, right?


The "other side" -- if you mean the Religious Wrong -- has had the White House by the gonads for at least thirty years now. You've made the OP's point again: Fundamentalist Christian giving Inaugural Invocation = No Change in the Status Quo. WHAT "other side"? :sheesh:

If you mean Religious in general, as if there's some dividing line b/w Obama voters and religion, that's just as illogical..........

Pretending that the Inaugural Invocation is not big deal, a "small gesture" is just silly.

You've done a lot of damage in here without actually specifying who -- or what -- yer talkin about.

:popcorn:

[NJmaverick]

104. sigh, you mind is slammed shut and locked down

it's clear I am wasting my time with any further discussion with you. You simply are incapable or refuse to listen to others, and that has caused you to have a very distorted view of the world.

[bigtree]

7. Accepting that we all see things differently, from the perspective of our own lives

. . . and from the lives we observe and experience around us, we can also accept that convincing 'change' involves more than just convincing ourselves. It's not easy to move a nation forward . . . nor should it be.

[NJmaverick]

13. No it's not easy, but all good DUers should be making every effort to make it easier

and try to ensure its success.

[mondo joe]

11. Obama should have chosen a unifying minister then, not a divisive one. NT

[NJmaverick]

15. Who is this "unifying minister" you speak of?

How would this minister do a better job of uniting the nation, than one that is from the other side of the political spectrum?

[omega minimo]

21. Perhaps a different denomination or non-denominational. Plenty of options

[NJmaverick]

24. That isn't an answer, you make that statement you should have a name

[mondo joe]

30. I don't know very many ministers so I'm not going to have a name. But I have a question for you:

Do you think there aren't a number of ministers who could deliver the invocation who have NOT involved themselves deeply in divisive politics?

[NJmaverick]

35. I think you would be hard pressed to find a conservative minister that isn't opposed to gay marriage

and if you want to reach out to conservatives, I would rather do it with a preacher giving a prayer, than say a cabinet position.

[mondo joe]

39. Why does it have to be a conservative minister? Why not a neutral one, if you want to

unite?

Seriously: I don't think if you want to unite you use divisive characters.

[NJmaverick]

45. Again you unite and heal by surrounding yourself with just liberals

it simply doesn't work that way. Your question is like saying why to I either have to eat less or excercise more, if I want to lose weight. After all neither of those options are very appealing to most people, but the goal of losing weight is a good one.

[mondo joe]

53. And again, I'm not suggesting a liberal minister.

There are ministers who are fairly neutral.

There are ministers who may oppose same sex marriage but don't get into the politics and don't equate same sex marriage with child molestation.

I hope you can understand what I'm saying here.

[NJmaverick]

55. The ministers you seek are considered liberals, not neutral

nor does a "neutral" minster help unite our nation.

[mondo joe]

59. Nomad, I'll try this one more time: Warren isn't *just* against same sex marriage.

He's particularly divisive and offensive. It adds insult to injury to people who just suffered a loss.

If unity means everyone, how does that include GLBT people?

[NJmaverick]

63. Actually the opposite is true. He isn't particular fervent in his opposition to gay marriage

especially compared to the vast majority of conservatives

[mondo joe]

69. Warren isn't?

Nomad, we may have said enough here.

Thanks for your time.

[NJmaverick]

77. There is always time to try and educate and enlighten

sadly so few are willing to listen.

[mondo joe]

81. I'll ask, then:How do you think it works for gays and lesbians to feel part of the unity

when someone who equates them with child molesters is honored?

That might sound snarky, but it's not how I mean it. I'm asking quite honestly.

[NJmaverick]

84. the LBGT community feels the unity that comes from having a President

that is a strong advocate for their causes and rights. That is a pretty strong stuff, much greater than the small prayer gesture some many are begrudging those on the other side of the political spectrum.

[mondo joe]

94. I think I see the crux of this.

I think you are seeing Obama as more of an advocate than I do.

If you're right, I'll be glad and will admit to it. :-)

[NJmaverick]

99. One needs to understand the political realities to fully appreciate

the benefits of this gesture. I am sure after the major crises are addressed, Obama is going to get around to issues like don't ask, don't tell. He is going to be successful in replacing that policy with a proper one, not by being perceived as the radical liberal, with a gay agenda. Rather he will be able to do this, if a sizable portion of the population perceives him as a thoughtful man that is simply trying to do the right thing. One gets that perception by being respectful and listening to the opposition, as that has a very disarming quality about it. I am sure after that he will make efforts to improve the rights afforded to couples in civil unions. I think the only task he will leave to other, is the push for gay marriage rights. If he pushes for that he would have a hard time getting reelected and once out of power he would be unable to affect any positive changes.

[mondo joe]

103. I'm confident that I do appreciate the poltical realities.

I'm less confident in Obama's ability and true willingness to come through.

We'll have to wait and see.

[mondo joe]

28. I'm going to very sincerely answer and hope we can continue in that way.

I don't think it's unifying to have a minister who equates gays with child molesters, and who was deeply involved in the divisive Prop 8. Warren has done some other divisive things, but I'll settle on those two points for the moment.

Now I'm deeply sincere about this - I really don't see how you can bring unity by saying deeply offensive things about a minority.

I am not for a moment opposed to working with the other side, and reaching out to them. But I don't think that's what this is.

I'm thinking that with all the religious people in the US, there has got to be a few ministers (or priests, or rabbis) who have not taken very public stances against segments of the population.

I think that sort of figure would do a better job of bringing unity than someone who has been antagonistic to either "side".

I hope you find that answers your question.

[NJmaverick]

33. With out a name you just have wishful thinking

Like it or not a sizeable percentage of our nation is either conservative or deeply religious. The way you reach out to them, is to include them in our nation's governence. You may not agree with them and you certainly don't want to see them get everything they want, but you need to respect and listen to them. That is the only way you unite and heal.

[mondo joe]

37. My question: Do you posit that there are no ministers who have not deeply inserted

themselves into divisive politics?

[NJmaverick]

46. I posit that you are not going to find a minister that isn't liberal

that doesn't hold a contrary view on issues like abortion and gay marriage. If they held good views on these positions, they are pretty much liberal. Having a liberal minister is only going to serve to further divide and wound.

[mondo joe]

50. I think you may not have understood my question. I'll explain:

Rick Warren was just very publicly in the mix of the very divisive Prop 8.

He has enough of a very public record that you can point to him not JUST being against same sex marriage but actually equating gays with child molesters.

That, IMO, is quite divisive.

I could have lived with a minister who opposes same sex marriage. Hell, if I could live with Obama I could live with that.

But Warren is well beyond that.

[omega minimo]

47. The Moral Majority is neither

"Like it or not a sizeable percentage of our nation is either conservative or deeply religious. The way you reach out to them, is to include them in our nation's governence."


Sizable percentage, perhaps. Not large enough or representative enough of Obama voters to justify the appointment of a Fundamentalist Christian to the role of Grand Poobah on Inauguration Day.

Sorry, that's just how it is. So there's plenty of reasons to question that decision and the messages it sends.

We've had thirty years of Administrations kissing Fundamentalist ass. This one is supposed to be about Change, not pretending that the Religious Wrong will continue to have a stranglehold on politicians and policy.


"So your idea of uniting the nation is to only include those that agree with your views? Frankly that's not a very effective way to unite or heal."

Frankly, this Opposite Land, either/or non-logic will never lead to unity or healing, as it is stuck in oppositional thinking and knee jerk creation of another view point as automatically antagonistic.

Another style of spiritual leadership present at the podium on Jan. 20 could have sent very different messages about how to have a national dialogue, perhaps less dualistic, less antagonistic, more UNIFIED.



EDIT: in case it's not clear enough YET

"So your idea of uniting the nation is to only include those that agree with your views?"

Classic red herring, Devil's Advocate mindfuck. No, that's not what I said or meant AT ALL.

[NJmaverick]

52. Here is your problem right here- "Not large enough or representative enough of Obama voters "

See the way to unite is to become President of all Americans, not just the ones that voted for you.

[omega minimo]

70. I'm rereading the thread and you just seem to be playing Devil's Advocate PLAYING

and that is also a favorite game of fundamentalists I've known...

you either don't intend "healing and unity" or this whole matter is a game for you. Good bye

[NJmaverick]

85. Ah and here comes the excuses to cling to your misguided position

you couldn't win a factual agument so you invent this nonsensical story about devil advocates and games. You are not a particularly hard person to figure out.

[mondo joe]

74. I guess the question is whether you can reach out to those who didn't vote for you, without

insulting those who did.

I think it's possible, and I don't think this does it.

[NJmaverick]

87. If those, that did get the person they voted for as President, desired unity

and healing, they would have a much greater threshold for insult, than has been shown. It's hard not to look petty when you will not even give the other side the gesture of saying a prayer.

[hfojvt]

116. couple of things wrong with that

First, Warren has a national following, of those who have read his book and those who watch him on TV or listen to him on the radio. You could pick somebody out of obscurity like my local Methodist minister, who is very good IMO, but that would not have the same 'reaching out' effect. Including Warren is not just reaching out to one preacher, but reaching out to the millions who respect that preacher. It says something like "Although I strongly disagree with you on some issues, we agree on others and we can work on those together." That's a good message for people who strongly disagree with us about abortion et. al. to hear. Have our strong differences, but cultivate our common ground.

Second, for all you would know, and for all I know, my local guy a) agrees with Warren, but is not on record saying so, or b) has said some things that you might consider to be just as bad.

Also, I note that you apparently feel it's okay to hate child molestors. That's what makes it such a terrible thing to compare gays to child molestors, right? Your hatred of child molestors does not make you a bigot, does it? Yet aren't the situations somewhat similar? Take Mary Kay Laterneau. She is now married to the person she loves. How happily is anyone's guess. But before that could happen, she had to lose her job, get pilloried in the press, and goto prison. All for falling in love with the wrong person. (Granted he was way too young, twelve IIRC, and her position as his teacher created another level of inappropriateness, but the result would not have been much different if he was 14 or 15 and she met him volunteering at the recycling center. I think about this as a former 14 year old boy who was totally hot for his German teacher.)

It's also okay to hate and to take very public stances against homophobes and other bigots. Hatred of Warren and intolerance of Warren, and other people who agree with Warren, does not make a person a bigot, right? In fact, it may be hailed as a virtue, but somebody else's bad analogy is 'deeply offensive' and marks him/her permanently as a bigot.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

101. Wow, if he's ok with uniting with homophobes and bigots where is the KKK? nt

[NJmaverick]

106. yeah because religious beliefs are just like racial bigotry

it seems your views on people with religious beliefs are strikingly similar to the beliefs homophobes have about gays.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

108. Religious beliefs said that blacks were the sperm of Satan....

You seriously need to do some search on the Internet.

LAWS against bigotry against blacks, laws that enforced civil rights for blacks had to be passed AGAINST the will of religious people who believe the Bible interpretation that claims dark skinned people are the sons of evil.

Evidently, you are either unaware of that, or you don't care. Which of the two is it?

[NJmaverick]

109. homophobes will make aguments supporting their bigotry toward gays

just as you have to support your bigotry toward the religious. There's always a reason, it's just none of them support the sweeping generalities.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

111. And Obama has specially selected a homophobe who worked tirelessly denying civil rights

to gays, to pray for him and our nation, and speak to our nation and give us ADVICE.

[NJmaverick]

113. Actually opposing gay marriage is not a high priority with Warren

Warren's priority are helping the poor and those afflicted with AIDS.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

114. Surely you jest. The man WORKED to get prop 8 passed. nt

[mitchtv]

2. Yes the warren affair is an attempt to marginalize a segment

Of society it was not meant to unify shit. It was a cynical political ploy to gain leverage at the expense of a less powerful group, a direct , provacative insult,

[Pirate Smile]

5. Why don't you wait until he gets sworn in and actually does a few things as President before

you decide what a failure he is.

[omega minimo]

8. please don't misrepresent and misdirect. My lowered expectations were justified and turned out to be

correct. Those of us weren't caught off guard by any perceived "turnabouts" by Obama that shocked others.....

So be it.

[Pirate Smile]

16. He has actually been quite consistent. I'm not exactly sure what the people who are shocked and

offended were expecting from Obama because he hasn't changed. Maybe some people believe the crap McCain and Palin were spewing.

[ananda]

10. No. Picking Warren was NOT O's first big mistake.

Jones, Gates, Geithner, Vilsack,
and some others are JUST as bad
in other ways.

[omega minimo]

18. I was concerned as soon as he praised Reagan's "trajectory"

Now, we're still on it.

Obama wants to play nice and not examine how we got where we are. Everyone born after 1980 will be happy to ignore the history they never learn.

Getting along with the same cast of characters and loyalties, with no real accountability or awareness on the part of American sheeple how they are led down the path and over the cliff..............

More outrage now about gay marriage than HEY THOSE GUYS TOTALLY FUCKED UP OUR ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THEY LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND PEOPLE DIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[stillcool]

31. Reagan's ability to form a

coalition...that drastically influenced American politics. I wish we had someone who could do the same, don't you?

[omega minimo]

40. Reagan was a baldfaced liar who fathered the current bogus administration, war, media and bankruptcy

:puke:

[stillcool]

42. No kidding..and how did he do that?

by forming coalition...what was it? "The Silent Majority". It is not what he did, it was how he was able to do it. Who gave him that power? "We the People"

[omega minimo]

61. Not all of us

:patriot:

[stillcool]

68. more than enough..

to elect him twice, and then elect his VP.

[omega minimo]

72. I hope they're happy with the bullshit world they created

Did it really have to get this bad before people woke up (and still they haven't)?

[stillcool]

29. There you go!

He's done nothing But make 'mistakes', since he got elected. I really do believe that there are a great many Democrats, who have no use for the previous Jr. Senator from Illinois, and would be thrilled if he were to somehow get side-tracked on his way to the inauguration.

[SammyWinstonJack]

115. That's right.

[BlooInBloo]

14. Why do you hate gay people?

:P

[JerseygirlCT]

17. Yes, actually. nt

[stillcool]

22. There is no 'change' without..

popular support, and there is no 'we the people' to give that popular support, so there is no 'change'. Easy peasy. Warren will soon be replaced by another outrage, and by another, and another. And in the meantime we will all sit back and enjoy the show. Piss and moan about what's on the tv, complain about how politicians vote, and curse and call people names. But only a handful will attempt use their power to influence those politicians, by gathering support for the issues they care about. If every person who is outraged now, is reaching out to those who are in a position of power to influence (calling representatives, writing letters, emailing, trying to get their friends to do the same) maybe, maybe..we might seem some 'change'. Or not.

[omega minimo]

25. There ya go

:applause:

[scarletwoman]

36. For me it's the frilly toothpick topping off the whole neo-liberal corporatist shit sandwich.

I'm out rant for today, however, so I'll just leave it at that.

sw

[omega minimo]

49. !!!

:spray:

me love scarletwoman :bounce:

[scarletwoman]

58. Thank you. :-)

I do believe your OP is deserving of a more in-depth response, but I just don't have it in me today. Besides, I need to be getting some housework done, not hanging out on the computer.

Later,
sw

[Warren Stupidity]

66. !

[Sebastian Doyle]

43. I've been very clear in stating that some of the cabinet picks completely turn my stomach

and that many more are weak choices, if not disgusting ones. But that's a completely separate issue from Obama giving his stamp of approval to a fucking bigoted piece of shit like Prick Warren.

[omega minimo]

57. Well, both show there's not much change in the air

:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

67. And we were admonished to shut up about that too

and now to shut up about this


and soon to shut up about the next outrage

[omega minimo]

75. What if it's all the same outrage? What if we got outraged together?

:wow:

[Warren Stupidity]

88. well it is all the same outrage

and I think until we get organized enough to scare the crap out of this new administration nothing is going to change other than the packaging.

[natrat]

51. and offending gays and shitty cabinet picks pales in comparison to the 8 trillion $ bank scam

unbelievable

[omega minimo]

62. it's all the same ball of crap -- see scarletwoman's spot on post

[fla nocount]

82. Great essay! And in response to the concluding querys...

I'm willing to watch it all burn down and pick through the ashes for the rare things that cannot be consumed.

[omega minimo]

89. well there's that

:rofl: :crazy: