That's not how it works. Momentum matters and Palin was joke before this debate. She killed the joke. That's the best she could have done. The bottom line is that VPs don't matter all that much. What was interesting to me was the clarification in the debate that Palin and McCain aren't really on the same political page. This has seemed obvious for a while. Frankly, I think the reason Palin seems so stupid in interviews is because she's afraid to show her true political colors. Maybe she doesn't not remember Dred Scott so much as can't in good conscience say she disagrees with it.
Ok so we're allowed to make shit up now? Honestly did you watch this debate? Americans did and they certainly are still laughing at the Palin joke. Hell the auditorium laughed at her 3 times and they were supposed to be on their best behavior. Her true political colors? Which ones would those be? Her cronyistic do as I say or I'll fire you? It's funny when she mentioned getting everyone healthcare I wanted Biden to ask "Like your former brother in law who you actively acted to deny his claim?"
Or when she mentioned working for bipartisan support. "You mean like that bipartisan committee looking into your ethical violations?"
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
On an amusing note, everytime time Biden did his trademark smile, the room I was watching the debate in shook with laughter. I am 99% sure that Biden's people told him to smile whenever he was feeling angry or irritated, because he tended to do it whenever Palin was saying something ridiculous (he smiled a lot).
Also great was when Biden audibly sighed into his mic after Palin went off the track on an answer.
She appeared competent woopity fucking do, she sure as hell didn't come off as anything but an empty suit. Hell she was worse then an empty suit because she chose where to take her responses and failed to really give a reason for going there.
I don't really think she was a competent debater. Competence would imply that she actually answered most of her questions. She was just lucky that the moderator didn't force her to get back on-topic.
Her main advantage tonight was that she managed to form semi-coherent sentences and not sound like a total imbecile. That's a step up from her recent interview performance.
So, she has the ability to repeat memorized lines without messing up too much. Is that sufficient to be elected to one of the most powerful positions in the world? I hope not.
Actually, historically speaking, the right to approve or veto marriages was vested in the king, who was, in essence, the state. While this only applied to nobility, most other classes didn't even need a priest and could make their vows to each other over a barrel of hay.
It strikes me that popular Christian religious opinion in much of the country is against gay marriage. Other faiths - not denominations, faiths - don't really get to have a say, I'm afraid.
Just like shia law will never penetrate western countries in any official manner, and various Christian beliefs are not widely represented in Muslim or Hindu countries. There is a state religion and it is reasonable for them to dictate the rules.
Uhm, you do realize that The United States of America does not have an official or state religion, right?
That said, what you're seemingly arguing is the idea that, should a faith be tolerant of gay union, my views would literally disable said gay followers from getting married.
What I am against is the state overriding the religion. Concisely:
- The leaders of said religion/denomination allows or disallows the permit. This is enacted as an official policy.
Churches don't approve or deny marriage licenses, they merely perform ceremonies, and then the clergy person signs the license. The state cannot, and has never, ever, ever ever ever ever ever ever been able to force a clergyman or a particular religion to sign said license or perform said ceremony.
I'm not trying to outline a case wherein the Gov. is allowed to say "no marriage for you". Completely the opposite. I am saying all power should be invested in the officials of the religion or denomination, and that the Government is bound to support that policy.
What? I honestly don't understand what you are saying here. It doesn't seem like you actually understand where the law ends and a church begins when it comes to marriage.
Hopefully if you look at the reverse of that argument, you'll see what I meant when I said 'hijack', as well.
No, I have no fucking clue what you are saying that meant. I only know what I read, which was the bullshit notion that only certain mainstream christian churches have the right to the concept of marriage, and any minority religion can go piss off.
Actually, historically speaking, the right to approve or veto marriages was vested in the king, who was, in essence, the state. While this only applied to nobility, most other classes didn't even need a priest and could make their vows to each other over a barrel of hay.
Yeah, but Palin didn't come across as a complete moron only like, 70% stupid.
Which is good enough to at least make her seem semi-competent. While she was still an incoherent rambling mess, she wasn't as bad as she has been and that will be noticed.
We tend to have a low view of the american voter in here but so far through two debates (and we'll have to see on this one but the snap polling is trending so far like McCain Obama). Americans are tired of bullshit with no back up. Palin didn't answer questions and even when she went off on random tangents she sure as fuck wasn't giving answers to questions Americans wanted to know.
She appeared competent woopity fucking do, she sure as hell didn't come off as anything but an empty suit. Hell she was worse then an empty suit because she chose where to take her responses and failed to really give a reason for going there.
Basically Palin exemplified the stereotype the McCain campaign tries to paint Obama with.
The fact that Palin has proven herself mentally capable of memorizing a few talking points doesn't fill you with confidence in her ability?
Jeez, you're difficult to please, aren't you?
I know I'm a policy voter its in my blood. Hell they weren't even good talking points. How many times did she say maverick? Like 10? I'm glad Biden waited to hammer her on that, let her set the noose nice and tight and yanked it up.
there was at least one question that she said it about 4-5 times. i think that was just before Biden pulled out his ' Maverick? he's no maverick, whats a maverick, how many times can we both say maverick before it loses all meaning! MAVERICK!' reply.
Wraith260 on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
That's not how it works. Momentum matters and Palin was joke before this debate. She killed the joke. That's the best she could have done. The bottom line is that VPs don't matter all that much. What was interesting to me was the clarification in the debate that Palin and McCain aren't really on the same political page. This has seemed obvious for a while. Frankly, I think the reason Palin seems so stupid in interviews is because she's afraid to show her true political colors. Maybe she doesn't not remember Dred Scott so much as can't in good conscience say she disagrees with it.
there was at least one question that she said it about 4-5 times. i think that was just before Biden pulled out his ' Maverick? he's no maverick, whats a maverick, how many times can we both say maverick before it loses all meaning! MAVERICK!' reply.
Well her saying maverick was stupid, its a stupid talking point the McCain campaign clings to, that they try and paint her with it is even more ridiculous. How is she a maverick? I guess overt corruption and dangerous incompetence is a pretty different departure from the common perception of a politicians.
We expect the corruption but the incompetence is a bridge too far... to nowhere.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Also, Ebz and I were watching the debate again, and offer our brief opinion:
Palin: No calamity, but empty headed and some cringeworthy moments. Predict will moderately bolster support amongst most Republicans due to slightly strained relief that she can at least sound ok. Democrats will notice the contradictions etc. and probably won't be won over. Independents will probably split to Biden, as there was a noticeable difference between quality, confidence and specificity of answer. However, red-leaning independents probably quite liked her and she may have claimed a few of them to solid red now.
Biden: Mostly sharp, a trifle over-numbered at times - flooded in figures - but generally reinforced the view that he is smart and competent. A better stump speaker than a debater, but did perfectly acceptably. Apathetic democrats which he risked losing to Palin will likely not be swayed by Palin's empty rhetoric and obviously rehearsed lines. Was outshone by Palin on terms of style until about 2/3rds through, where Palin ran her mouth somewhat and probably alienated a chunk of people. Came back stong yet remained on-message to deliver some body blows to McCain campaign. However, probably neutralized by Palin's feisty attacks. Scored a point (much to my irritation - there are more important things) with the choke - not that I doubt it's genuine.
Oh, and also, Palin especially towards the end increasingly became self-parodying and even rather snide. Biden evaded the offensive trap deftly, so it shows it up the more. Will probably hurt her.
So I'm saying more or less a tie, with a slight shoring up of the R base and fringe, fringe Ds not won over by obnoxiousness and/or emptyness, and a slight shift in Independents towards D.
I think Palin is going to lose here in large part for the same reason McCain did -- a blatant lack of respect. In McCain's case it was a lack of respect for Obama. And in Palin's case, it was a lack of respect for the format.
Seriously, when you are known for completely flubbing interviews, people are not going to be particularly happy with "Ya know, I think I don't want to answer that question, so I'm going to talk about something completely unrelated! Teehee! Ain't I a stinker?" (And yes, Biden dodged a few questions too, but he didn't explicitly say that's what he was doing.)
That's not how it works. Momentum matters and Palin was joke before this debate. She killed the joke. That's the best she could have done. The bottom line is that VPs don't matter all that much. What was interesting to me was the clarification in the debate that Palin and McCain aren't really on the same political page. This has seemed obvious for a while. Frankly, I think the reason Palin seems so stupid in interviews is because she's afraid to show her true political colors. Maybe she doesn't not remember Dred Scott so much as can't in good conscience say she disagrees with it.
Ok so we're allowed to make shit up now? Honestly did you watch this debate? Americans did and they certainly are still laughing at the Palin joke. Hell the auditorium laughed at her 3 times and they were supposed to be on their best behavior. Her true political colors? Which ones would those be? Her cronyistic do as I say or I'll fire you? It's funny when she mentioned getting everyone healthcare I wanted Biden to ask "Like your former brother in law who you actively acted to deny his claim?"
Or when she mentioned working for bipartisan support. "You mean like that bipartisan committee looking into your ethical violations?"
I don't know what to say other than that Palin exceeded expectations and Biden met expectations. I don't think this will make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things. Palin is spouting 30 year old talking points but I still think she was personable and didn't flinch. That's all she needed to do (debate wise).
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
That's not how it works. Momentum matters and Palin was joke before this debate. She killed the joke.
I disagree with you, she's still a complete joke. The only thing she "killed" was that she could get any worse.
She's still an incoherent rambling mess, but at least she didn't go completely overboard in the clown train wreck that is the McSame:Bible Spice 08 campaign. I assure you though, she is still a complete joke but she will be dumped into the backline somewhere and deemphasised by the campaign. Biden on the other hand didn't gaff at all and was very on message I feel. I expected him to make an idiot of himself as well and he didn't.
Actually, historically speaking, the right to approve or veto marriages was vested in the king, who was, in essence, the state. While this only applied to nobility, most other classes didn't even need a priest and could make their vows to each other over a barrel of hay.
So I'm saying more or less a tie, with a slight shoring up of the R base and fringe, fringe Ds not won over by obnoxiousness and/or emptyness, and a slight shift in Independents towards D.
It's only a tie if you compare it to expectations leading up to the debate.
If you score it objectively, ignoring the expectations, then Biden won clearly.
Look, like I just said, I'm atheist and I 100% support the Democrat stance on this one. We have a similar system here in the UK.
Look, you can't scream about seperation of church and state and then ask for a specifically religious term to be rebranded by the Government. Marriage's primary meaning is not 'enjoined'. It is inescapably religious and you have no right to hijack it for secular purposes - just like religion should not affect politics.
Hate religion, me. With a passion. But don't try to infringe upon what is rightfully their territory.
Unless you're gay and religious of course, but I think the fact that the overwhelming majority of your religion's structure opposes you means you just have to accept that marriage is not something you are going to easily obtain. That's a sacrifice you make.
edit: beated
There are many religious denominations which sanctify gay and lesbian unions and call them "marriage". How do these faiths have any less right to apply this term to unions they sanctify than a religious sect which does not sanctify gay unions?
I'm calling you out and asking, no, I'm fucking demanding to know where the fuck this "hijacking" nonsense is coming from.
denominations. thats the qualifier there. each little group and church can make its own rules as to local matters, but at the end of the day, the most devout followers are always going to fall back on the most strict interpretation of their particular text.
so at the end of the day it doesn't matter who is up on that pulpit and what he's saying, 'cause if if the people sitting in those pews don't agree they aren't going to be swayed.
So because Southern Baptists won't marry gay people, Reform Jews should stop?
Bitch, what?
kinda mixing two different religions there, but i'll try and go into more detail(with out fucking up the point to much).
first i'll go for one of the examples you've used. the Southern Baptists wont marry gays because they feel its wrong. they're sticking pretty close to what they feel is the doctrine laid out by the bible. other christian churches/denominations feels that times have changed(and admit that the bible shouldn't be taken literally), and so will marry gay couples. he fundies are always going to side with the more extreme groups on this issue(in this case the Southern Baptists).
but now you mention that Refrom Jews will marry gay couples(least i think thats what you're getting at). but do all Jewish denominations do so(as i assume there are many just as with every other religion)? again, as with the Southern Baptists, i'm sure there are Jewish groups that do not condone gay marriage.
so its an issue that splits the community, there are those that are for and those that are against, and there are people on both sides of this issue that will share the comman bond of religion, sharing the same core belifes, but interpruting them differently.
I'm pretty sure that Reform doesn't hold any position, as there's only really a yearly rabbinical convention-thing where at least the most influential, if not all the reform rabbis get together and discuss stuff and vote on other stuff (as you can see, all I really know is what I can remember what my rabbi told us after he got back each year). Otherwise, every shul can basically do whatever it wants, so services can vary from all English except for the sh'ma to everything short of seating men and women separately.
Actually, come to think of it, I seem to recall my rabbi telling us some pro-gay marriage referendum passing.
The conservative movement is pretty split, with a cantor actually disavowing the rabbis pro-gay sermon right after she (the rabbi was female) finished and leaving the bema a few years ago, although I think the central council thing handed down a favorable ruling several months after that.
Don't ask me about modern orthodox or chasidim, because I have no idea.
BTW, if anyone missed the debate and wants to see it, or just watch it again, http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=OhMyScience420 has 1-6 out of 11 videos up right now. Apparently the 7th is being uploaded right now, but is going kind of slow.
That's not how it works. Momentum matters and Palin was joke before this debate. She killed the joke. That's the best she could have done. The bottom line is that VPs don't matter all that much. What was interesting to me was the clarification in the debate that Palin and McCain aren't really on the same political page. This has seemed obvious for a while. Frankly, I think the reason Palin seems so stupid in interviews is because she's afraid to show her true political colors. Maybe she doesn't not remember Dred Scott so much as can't in good conscience say she disagrees with it.
Ok so we're allowed to make shit up now? Honestly did you watch this debate? Americans did and they certainly are still laughing at the Palin joke. Hell the auditorium laughed at her 3 times and they were supposed to be on their best behavior. Her true political colors? Which ones would those be? Her cronyistic do as I say or I'll fire you? It's funny when she mentioned getting everyone healthcare I wanted Biden to ask "Like your former brother in law who you actively acted to deny his claim?"
Or when she mentioned working for bipartisan support. "You mean like that bipartisan committee looking into your ethical violations?"
I don't know what to say other than that Palin exceeded expectations and Biden met expectations. I don't think this will make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things. Palin is spouting 30 year old talking points but I still think she was personable and didn't flinch. That's all she needed to do (debate wise).
Your expectations maybe, she met mine in not saying a god damn thing that amounted to a policy or a position she personally took. When she talked about her own record it was contradictory to what it actually is, when she talked about McCains it was glossing over, and when she talked about Obamas it was blatant fucking lying.
So I guess if your expectations were "Sarah Palin shows up and drools" yeah she exceeded those, bravo.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
That's not how it works. Momentum matters and Palin was joke before this debate. She killed the joke.
I disagree with you, she's still a complete joke. The only thing she "killed" was that she could get any worse.
She's still an incoherent rambling mess, but at least she didn't go completely overboard in the clown train wreck that is the McSame:Bible Spice 08 campaign. I assure you though, she is still a complete joke but she will be dumped into the backline somewhere and deemphasised by the campaign. Biden on the other hand didn't gaff at all and was very on message I feel. I expected him to make an idiot of himself as well and he didn't.
Bush won twice as an incoherent rambling mess.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Actually, historically speaking, the right to approve or veto marriages was vested in the king, who was, in essence, the state. While this only applied to nobility, most other classes didn't even need a priest and could make their vows to each other over a barrel of hay.
I'm pretty sure that Reform doesn't hold any position, as there's only really a yearly rabbinical convention-thing where at least the most influential, if not all the reform rabbis get together and discuss stuff and vote on other stuff (as you can see, all I really know is what I can remember what my rabbi told us after he got back each year). Otherwise, every shul can basically do whatever it wants, so services can vary from all English except for the sh'ma to everything short of seating men and women separately.
Actually, come to think of it, I seem to recall my rabbi telling us some pro-gay marriage referendum passing.
The conservative movement is pretty split, with a cantor actually disavowing the rabbis pro-gay sermon right after she (the rabbi was female) finished and leaving the bema a few years ago, although I think the central council thing handed down a favorable ruling several months after that.
Don't ask me about modern orthodox or chasidim, because I have no idea.
The bottom line is that no one is suggesting that gay marriage being legal will in any way force religious organizations to perform or sanctify such unions if they prefer not to except for anti-gay forces who are trying to scare people and muddy the issue.
That's not how it works. Momentum matters and Palin was joke before this debate. She killed the joke.
I disagree with you, she's still a complete joke. The only thing she "killed" was that she could get any worse.
She's still an incoherent rambling mess, but at least she didn't go completely overboard in the clown train wreck that is the McSame:Bible Spice 08 campaign. I assure you though, she is still a complete joke but she will be dumped into the backline somewhere and deemphasised by the campaign. Biden on the other hand didn't gaff at all and was very on message I feel. I expected him to make an idiot of himself as well and he didn't.
Bush won twice as an incoherent rambling mess.
Is there anything in this race other then bible spice and John McCain's positions that represent the bush presidential races? Polls are improving for Obama and he's been leading them like Bush did to Kerry. Joe Public is saying Obama/Biden are winning the debates. It's like you are seeing bizarro events.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
That's not how it works. Momentum matters and Palin was joke before this debate. She killed the joke. That's the best she could have done. The bottom line is that VPs don't matter all that much. What was interesting to me was the clarification in the debate that Palin and McCain aren't really on the same political page. This has seemed obvious for a while. Frankly, I think the reason Palin seems so stupid in interviews is because she's afraid to show her true political colors. Maybe she doesn't not remember Dred Scott so much as can't in good conscience say she disagrees with it.
Ok so we're allowed to make shit up now? Honestly did you watch this debate? Americans did and they certainly are still laughing at the Palin joke. Hell the auditorium laughed at her 3 times and they were supposed to be on their best behavior. Her true political colors? Which ones would those be? Her cronyistic do as I say or I'll fire you? It's funny when she mentioned getting everyone healthcare I wanted Biden to ask "Like your former brother in law who you actively acted to deny his claim?"
Or when she mentioned working for bipartisan support. "You mean like that bipartisan committee looking into your ethical violations?"
I don't know what to say other than that Palin exceeded expectations and Biden met expectations. I don't think this will make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things. Palin is spouting 30 year old talking points but I still think she was personable and didn't flinch. That's all she needed to do (debate wise).
I think she met expectations, did what she absolutely 100% HAD TO DO in order not to be laughed at for the rest of this election. I'm not sure she exceeded them at all.
That's not how it works. Momentum matters and Palin was joke before this debate. She killed the joke.
I disagree with you, she's still a complete joke. The only thing she "killed" was that she could get any worse.
She's still an incoherent rambling mess, but at least she didn't go completely overboard in the clown train wreck that is the McSame:Bible Spice 08 campaign. I assure you though, she is still a complete joke but she will be dumped into the backline somewhere and deemphasised by the campaign. Biden on the other hand didn't gaff at all and was very on message I feel. I expected him to make an idiot of himself as well and he didn't.
Bush won twice as an incoherent rambling mess.
That's true, but Bush wasn't sliding this badly in polls and eight years of arrogance and stupidity hadn't ground the American public opinion against them. Being a rambling, incoherent mess and a complete joke is going to bite McSame:Bible Spice 08 as much after this debate as it was before. The damage from Palin has already been done and then salt was thrown in the wound when McSame had to babysit her in an interview, which once and for all destroyed any confidence anyone could have had in Palin.
My mom thinks that Obama needs at least a 6 point lead going in to counteract closet racism (ie: people who won't say they have an issue with a black president but once inside the booth will vote for the white dude).
No, I have no fucking clue what you are saying that meant. I only know what I read, which was the bullshit notion that only certain mainstream christian churches have the right to the concept of marriage, and any minority religion can go piss off.
Okay, I hope you'll forgive me if I disregard the rest of your reply, because I think we're misunderstanding each other both, and furthermore you've summarised your point here so the rest is sort of irrelevent (and looks to be more legalistic than anything, rather than this core question which appears to be moral). As a caveat, I wasn't aware there was no state religion. However, the unofficial religion is certainly not in any doubt. Just look at the motto.
As for your point made here... It does, unfortunately, seem to me to be that way. Marriage is a religious concept, it does not mean 'enjoined'. Within the religion that prescribes it, you will have more conservative and more liberal stances on it.
But I'm sorry - when the majority of a body is against something, then that's it. As part of the Christian religion, those denominations who look favourably or neutrally upon gay marriage are for the moment not a powerful enough voice to affect change.
A good analogy, I hope, is politics itself. Look at slavery. Opponants of slavery started out in the minority and it grew. And liberalisation almost always happens in the end. When enough members of the Christian religion in the USA are accepting of gay marriage, it will become okay. But until the numbers grow, there is nothing you can do about it. Is it fair? No. It's not. But that's the case. You need majority support.
Now, as for the government... I will just repeat, marriage is a specifically religious term. I don't see that the government has any place in setting its allowances or limitations because it is not owned by them. The best they can do is give full legal protection to gay couples until popular religious opinion swings enough. There will always be more liberal outsiders. Always. Their message usually gets through in the end.
edit:
So I'm saying more or less a tie, with a slight shoring up of the R base and fringe, fringe Ds not won over by obnoxiousness and/or emptyness, and a slight shift in Independents towards D.
It's only a tie if you compare it to expectations leading up to the debate.
If you score it objectively, ignoring the expectations, then Biden won clearly.
I'm pretty sure that Reform doesn't hold any position, as there's only really a yearly rabbinical convention-thing where at least the most influential, if not all the reform rabbis get together and discuss stuff and vote on other stuff (as you can see, all I really know is what I can remember what my rabbi told us after he got back each year). Otherwise, every shul can basically do whatever it wants, so services can vary from all English except for the sh'ma to everything short of seating men and women separately.
Actually, come to think of it, I seem to recall my rabbi telling us some pro-gay marriage referendum passing.
The conservative movement is pretty split, with a cantor actually disavowing the rabbis pro-gay sermon right after she (the rabbi was female) finished and leaving the bema a few years ago, although I think the central council thing handed down a favorable ruling several months after that.
Don't ask me about modern orthodox or chasidim, because I have no idea.
The bottom line is that no one is suggesting that gay marriage being legal will in any way force religious organizations to perform or sanctify such unions if they prefer not to except for anti-gay forces who are trying to scare people and muddy the issue.
My question is how gay atheists will get married. Is there a such thing as a Confucian rabbi/imam/Terry Pratchett?
That's not how it works. Momentum matters and Palin was joke before this debate. She killed the joke.
I disagree with you, she's still a complete joke. The only thing she "killed" was that she could get any worse.
She's still an incoherent rambling mess, but at least she didn't go completely overboard in the clown train wreck that is the McSame:Bible Spice 08 campaign. I assure you though, she is still a complete joke but she will be dumped into the backline somewhere and deemphasised by the campaign. Biden on the other hand didn't gaff at all and was very on message I feel. I expected him to make an idiot of himself as well and he didn't.
Bush won twice as an incoherent rambling mess.
Is there anything in this race other then bible spice and John McCain's positions that represent the bush presidential races? Polls are improving for Obama and he's been leading them like Bush did to Kerry. Joe Public is saying Obama/Biden are winning the debates. It's like you are seeing bizarro events.
My mom thinks that Obama needs at least a 6 point lead going in to counteract closet racism (ie: people who won't say they have an issue with a black president but once inside the booth will vote for the white dude).
There are so many different factors going into this election that I wouldn't care if polling said a landslide one way or the other, no one knows what the fuck is going to happen this race.
My mom thinks that Obama needs at least a 6 point lead going in to counteract closet racism (ie: people who won't say they have an issue with a black president but once inside the booth will vote for the white dude).
There are so many different factors going into this election that I wouldn't care if polling said a landslide one way or the other, no one knows what the fuck is going to happen this race.
I do:
There will be several losers, only one of whom has a campaign blimp.
I think people are forgetting that for a lot of independent/undecided voters, this was their first introduction to Biden as well as Palin. Or at least their first chance to hear him speak at length. It's not exclusively about how people react to Palin.
I'm pretty sure that Reform doesn't hold any position, as there's only really a yearly rabbinical convention-thing where at least the most influential, if not all the reform rabbis get together and discuss stuff and vote on other stuff (as you can see, all I really know is what I can remember what my rabbi told us after he got back each year). Otherwise, every shul can basically do whatever it wants, so services can vary from all English except for the sh'ma to everything short of seating men and women separately.
Actually, come to think of it, I seem to recall my rabbi telling us some pro-gay marriage referendum passing.
The conservative movement is pretty split, with a cantor actually disavowing the rabbis pro-gay sermon right after she (the rabbi was female) finished and leaving the bema a few years ago, although I think the central council thing handed down a favorable ruling several months after that.
Don't ask me about modern orthodox or chasidim, because I have no idea.
The bottom line is that no one is suggesting that gay marriage being legal will in any way force religious organizations to perform or sanctify such unions if they prefer not to except for anti-gay forces who are trying to scare people and muddy the issue.
My question is how gay atheists will get married. Is there a such thing as a Confucian rabbi/imam/Terry Pratchett?
Are you serious? They go to a courthouse and get married. Possibly by sexy Gavin Newsom if they are lucky enough to be in San Francisco.
My question is how gay atheists will get married. Is there a such thing as a Confucian rabbi/imam/Terry Pratchett?
Confucian?
Confucianism is about as conservative when it comes to gender roles as you can get. I don't know why you picked it out of all the philosophies in the world.
Anyway, how do people get married outside of church these days? Using a civil celebrant of course.
My preference, as stated earlier, is just to call the legal aspect a "civil union" and keep "marriage" as the term for the ceremonial part.
Now, as for the government... I will just repeat, marriage is a specifically religious term.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't call it a "union license."
Bama on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
Yeah, Biden IMO exceeded what I thought of him because really all I knew about him is that he thought most Americans had TVs in 1929. So he was pleasantly surprising to me and I thought he performed exceptionally.
One candidate who answered very well vs. an incoherent mess is always a fun debate to watch.
That's not how it works. Momentum matters and Palin was joke before this debate. She killed the joke.
I disagree with you, she's still a complete joke. The only thing she "killed" was that she could get any worse.
She's still an incoherent rambling mess, but at least she didn't go completely overboard in the clown train wreck that is the McSame:Bible Spice 08 campaign. I assure you though, she is still a complete joke but she will be dumped into the backline somewhere and deemphasised by the campaign. Biden on the other hand didn't gaff at all and was very on message I feel. I expected him to make an idiot of himself as well and he didn't.
Bush won twice as an incoherent rambling mess.
Is there anything in this race other then bible spice and John McCain's positions that represent the bush presidential races? Polls are improving for Obama and he's been leading them like Bush did to Kerry. Joe Public is saying Obama/Biden are winning the debates. It's like you are seeing bizarro events.
Don't get me wrong. I think Obama is in the lead. I'm just saying that Palin improved her personal position in the political world. This saves her as a future force for Republicans, it isn't going to make a great deal of difference in this election.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Posts
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Ok so we're allowed to make shit up now? Honestly did you watch this debate? Americans did and they certainly are still laughing at the Palin joke. Hell the auditorium laughed at her 3 times and they were supposed to be on their best behavior. Her true political colors? Which ones would those be? Her cronyistic do as I say or I'll fire you? It's funny when she mentioned getting everyone healthcare I wanted Biden to ask "Like your former brother in law who you actively acted to deny his claim?"
Or when she mentioned working for bipartisan support. "You mean like that bipartisan committee looking into your ethical violations?"
pleasepaypreacher.net
Also great was when Biden audibly sighed into his mic after Palin went off the track on an answer.
I don't really think she was a competent debater. Competence would imply that she actually answered most of her questions. She was just lucky that the moderator didn't force her to get back on-topic.
Her main advantage tonight was that she managed to form semi-coherent sentences and not sound like a total imbecile. That's a step up from her recent interview performance.
So, she has the ability to repeat memorized lines without messing up too much. Is that sufficient to be elected to one of the most powerful positions in the world? I hope not.
Why would you put hay in a barrel?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Utterly irrelevant. What part of the Constitution provides more, or superior rights for popular religious as opposed to less popular ones?
What?
Uhm, you do realize that The United States of America does not have an official or state religion, right?
That is exactly what you are suggesting.
It should be their choice, yes.
Churches don't approve or deny marriage licenses, they merely perform ceremonies, and then the clergy person signs the license. The state cannot, and has never, ever, ever ever ever ever ever ever been able to force a clergyman or a particular religion to sign said license or perform said ceremony.
What? I honestly don't understand what you are saying here. It doesn't seem like you actually understand where the law ends and a church begins when it comes to marriage.
No, I have no fucking clue what you are saying that meant. I only know what I read, which was the bullshit notion that only certain mainstream christian churches have the right to the concept of marriage, and any minority religion can go piss off.
So it can ferment and you can make hay wine.
there was at least one question that she said it about 4-5 times. i think that was just before Biden pulled out his ' Maverick? he's no maverick, whats a maverick, how many times can we both say maverick before it loses all meaning! MAVERICK!' reply.
Welcome to politics?
Well her saying maverick was stupid, its a stupid talking point the McCain campaign clings to, that they try and paint her with it is even more ridiculous. How is she a maverick? I guess overt corruption and dangerous incompetence is a pretty different departure from the common perception of a politicians.
We expect the corruption but the incompetence is a bridge too far... to nowhere.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Palin: No calamity, but empty headed and some cringeworthy moments. Predict will moderately bolster support amongst most Republicans due to slightly strained relief that she can at least sound ok. Democrats will notice the contradictions etc. and probably won't be won over. Independents will probably split to Biden, as there was a noticeable difference between quality, confidence and specificity of answer. However, red-leaning independents probably quite liked her and she may have claimed a few of them to solid red now.
Biden: Mostly sharp, a trifle over-numbered at times - flooded in figures - but generally reinforced the view that he is smart and competent. A better stump speaker than a debater, but did perfectly acceptably. Apathetic democrats which he risked losing to Palin will likely not be swayed by Palin's empty rhetoric and obviously rehearsed lines. Was outshone by Palin on terms of style until about 2/3rds through, where Palin ran her mouth somewhat and probably alienated a chunk of people. Came back stong yet remained on-message to deliver some body blows to McCain campaign. However, probably neutralized by Palin's feisty attacks. Scored a point (much to my irritation - there are more important things) with the choke - not that I doubt it's genuine.
Oh, and also, Palin especially towards the end increasingly became self-parodying and even rather snide. Biden evaded the offensive trap deftly, so it shows it up the more. Will probably hurt her.
So I'm saying more or less a tie, with a slight shoring up of the R base and fringe, fringe Ds not won over by obnoxiousness and/or emptyness, and a slight shift in Independents towards D.
Seriously, when you are known for completely flubbing interviews, people are not going to be particularly happy with "Ya know, I think I don't want to answer that question, so I'm going to talk about something completely unrelated! Teehee! Ain't I a stinker?" (And yes, Biden dodged a few questions too, but he didn't explicitly say that's what he was doing.)
I don't know what to say other than that Palin exceeded expectations and Biden met expectations. I don't think this will make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things. Palin is spouting 30 year old talking points but I still think she was personable and didn't flinch. That's all she needed to do (debate wise).
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I disagree with you, she's still a complete joke. The only thing she "killed" was that she could get any worse.
She's still an incoherent rambling mess, but at least she didn't go completely overboard in the clown train wreck that is the McSame:Bible Spice 08 campaign. I assure you though, she is still a complete joke but she will be dumped into the backline somewhere and deemphasised by the campaign. Biden on the other hand didn't gaff at all and was very on message I feel. I expected him to make an idiot of himself as well and he didn't.
It's only a tie if you compare it to expectations leading up to the debate.
If you score it objectively, ignoring the expectations, then Biden won clearly.
I'm pretty sure that Reform doesn't hold any position, as there's only really a yearly rabbinical convention-thing where at least the most influential, if not all the reform rabbis get together and discuss stuff and vote on other stuff (as you can see, all I really know is what I can remember what my rabbi told us after he got back each year). Otherwise, every shul can basically do whatever it wants, so services can vary from all English except for the sh'ma to everything short of seating men and women separately.
Actually, come to think of it, I seem to recall my rabbi telling us some pro-gay marriage referendum passing.
The conservative movement is pretty split, with a cantor actually disavowing the rabbis pro-gay sermon right after she (the rabbi was female) finished and leaving the bema a few years ago, although I think the central council thing handed down a favorable ruling several months after that.
Don't ask me about modern orthodox or chasidim, because I have no idea.
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
Your expectations maybe, she met mine in not saying a god damn thing that amounted to a policy or a position she personally took. When she talked about her own record it was contradictory to what it actually is, when she talked about McCains it was glossing over, and when she talked about Obamas it was blatant fucking lying.
So I guess if your expectations were "Sarah Palin shows up and drools" yeah she exceeded those, bravo.
pleasepaypreacher.net
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Bush won twice as an incoherent rambling mess.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Bale?
I don't know, I heard that part on NPR.
The bottom line is that no one is suggesting that gay marriage being legal will in any way force religious organizations to perform or sanctify such unions if they prefer not to except for anti-gay forces who are trying to scare people and muddy the issue.
Is there anything in this race other then bible spice and John McCain's positions that represent the bush presidential races? Polls are improving for Obama and he's been leading them like Bush did to Kerry. Joe Public is saying Obama/Biden are winning the debates. It's like you are seeing bizarro events.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think she met expectations, did what she absolutely 100% HAD TO DO in order not to be laughed at for the rest of this election. I'm not sure she exceeded them at all.
That's true, but Bush wasn't sliding this badly in polls and eight years of arrogance and stupidity hadn't ground the American public opinion against them. Being a rambling, incoherent mess and a complete joke is going to bite McSame:Bible Spice 08 as much after this debate as it was before. The damage from Palin has already been done and then salt was thrown in the wound when McSame had to babysit her in an interview, which once and for all destroyed any confidence anyone could have had in Palin.
As for your point made here... It does, unfortunately, seem to me to be that way. Marriage is a religious concept, it does not mean 'enjoined'. Within the religion that prescribes it, you will have more conservative and more liberal stances on it.
But I'm sorry - when the majority of a body is against something, then that's it. As part of the Christian religion, those denominations who look favourably or neutrally upon gay marriage are for the moment not a powerful enough voice to affect change.
A good analogy, I hope, is politics itself. Look at slavery. Opponants of slavery started out in the minority and it grew. And liberalisation almost always happens in the end. When enough members of the Christian religion in the USA are accepting of gay marriage, it will become okay. But until the numbers grow, there is nothing you can do about it. Is it fair? No. It's not. But that's the case. You need majority support.
Now, as for the government... I will just repeat, marriage is a specifically religious term. I don't see that the government has any place in setting its allowances or limitations because it is not owned by them. The best they can do is give full legal protection to gay couples until popular religious opinion swings enough. There will always be more liberal outsiders. Always. Their message usually gets through in the end.
edit: Realpolitik and all that.
My question is how gay atheists will get married. Is there a such thing as a Confucian rabbi/imam/Terry Pratchett?
Nukulur?
I do:
There will be several losers, only one of whom has a campaign blimp.
Are you serious? They go to a courthouse and get married. Possibly by sexy Gavin Newsom if they are lucky enough to be in San Francisco.
Confucian?
Confucianism is about as conservative when it comes to gender roles as you can get. I don't know why you picked it out of all the philosophies in the world.
Anyway, how do people get married outside of church these days? Using a civil celebrant of course.
My preference, as stated earlier, is just to call the legal aspect a "civil union" and keep "marriage" as the term for the ceremonial part.
One candidate who answered very well vs. an incoherent mess is always a fun debate to watch.
And that's what we really need to change.
Don't get me wrong. I think Obama is in the lead. I'm just saying that Palin improved her personal position in the political world. This saves her as a future force for Republicans, it isn't going to make a great deal of difference in this election.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck