Jump to content
HAIF - Houston's original social media

Change we can believe in?


Recommended Posts

Obama ran on a message of "change." He's not even President yet. However, a couple of disturbing developments have emerged that make me question just how committed he is to changing this country, and moving it forward.

First, keeping Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense. Obama... you are a DEMOCRAT. You need a democratic Secretary of Defense to restore balance to the Universe. Not sure what this fetish is with Democratic presidents that think a Republican has to be in charge of the military. Elections do have consequences.

Second, allowing hog-man, anti-gay, pro-prop8 Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. The

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on now, give the Messiah a chance. I did hear he was eyeing his buddy Bill Ayers as the new Homeland Security Chief before he went with Napolitano. I think he made a wise choice on that one, so cut him some slack.

Edited by TJones
Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama ran on a message of "change." He's not even President yet. However, a couple of disturbing developments have emerged that make me question just how committed he is to changing this country, and moving it forward.

i'm barack obama and i don't approve this message.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama ran on a message of "change." He's not even President yet. However, a couple of disturbing developments have emerged that make me question just how committed he is to changing this country, and moving it forward.

First, keeping Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense. Obama... you are a DEMOCRAT. You need a democratic Secretary of Defense to restore balance to the Universe. Not sure what this fetish is with Democratic presidents that think a Republican has to be in charge of the military. Elections do have consequences.

Second, allowing hog-man, anti-gay, pro-prop8 Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. The

Link to post
Share on other sites
He has also always said he was someone who would work with people on both sides of the aisle, and get past partisan politics. If you wanted all the Republicans swept out, Hillary was the choice for you. With Obama, we're going to have to be ready to hear a variety of voices. Even voices we don't like.

I know. And the more I think about it, the more I think she, and the Democrats, were robbed. If only FL and MI had not moved their primaries... It would be a different story right about now.

Let's see what he does and doesn't do... I'll give him a year. Not really impressed so far. He knew how unpopular the war was, yet he keeps Gates. He could have chosen a less divise person of faith, who would have been, in my view, much more progressive than the heart-attack-about-to-happen gluttonous slob, Rick Warren.

How about her:

Presiding%20Bishop%20Katharine%20Jefferts%20Schori.jpg

First female Episcopal bishop; Barbara C. Harris... and unlike Rick Warren... She probably actually voted for Obama! I would say she is more representative of where our country needs to go vs. "Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt."

Clinton also had Republicans in his cabinet... and tried all that "reaching across the aisle" garbage. Here's a clue Obama: the Republicans don't care. They're going to oppose you anyway! You're a fool if you think otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been fairly impressed with his selection of a cabinet.

You don't choose people just because they agree with you, that would be the utmost in stupidity.

Gates was a wise choice because he is already up to speed on the various things that are going on. To bring in a new person this late in the game would take a considerable amount of time to learn where the bodies are.

Give him until June to see if he's royally screwing people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If only FL and MI had not moved their primaries... It would be a different story right about now.

If only Howard Dean hadn't been so stupid as to not count those delegates. DUH!

I'm a Democrat too and agree that Rick Warren is bad choice. Why are we always expected to cater to these right-wing nuts? They never cater to us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If only Howard Dean hadn't been so stupid as to not count those delegates. DUH!

I'm a Democrat too and agree that Rick Warren is bad choice. Why are we always expected to cater to these right-wing nuts? They never cater to us.

Exactly. Republicans are appeased. "He's doing good." But they'll never vote for him. You can still play this game of charades of inclusiveness, and "diverse points of view" ... without getting bogged down with controversial figures.

Gay and lesbian people were left for dead on Election Day. Of all the 50 states out there... Obama picked a man who openly advocated for the repeal of civil rights in a controversial ballot initiative. Because, hey, he's met gay people. He's even given them "water and doughnuts." Good enough. Put him on the program.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If only Howard Dean hadn't been so stupid as to not count those delegates. DUH!

I'm a Democrat too and agree that Rick Warren is bad choice. Why are we always expected to cater to these right-wing nuts? They never cater to us.

WHOA, WHOA WHOA ! Rick Warren didn't go askin' Obama if he could do the prayer. Obama asked HIM ! What would you rather, Jeremiah Wright, after all, he was Obama's preacher for 20 years ? Which is a bigger mistake though, snubbing your preacher, or snubbing 10s of thousands that helped elect you into office ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
WHOA, WHOA WHOA ! Rick Warren didn't go askin' Obama if he could do the prayer. Obama asked HIM ! What would you rather, Jeremiah Wright, after all, he was Obama's preacher for 20 years ? Which is a bigger mistake though, snubbing your preacher, or snubbing 10s of thousands that helped elect you into office ?

I was talking about appeasing Rick Warren's audience not Rick Warren himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just find it interesting.

It took people 5 or six years to turn on bush, but its been about 5 or 6 weeks for people to already to turn on Obama.

Interesting indeed!

HA! I'm not turning on him, I'm criticizing his choice of Rick Warren. I criticized Howard Dean too. Doesn't mean I'm turning on him. Believe me, Obama and Dean aren't going to turn me into a Republican.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama ran on a message of "change." He's not even President yet. However, a couple of disturbing developments have emerged that make me question just how committed he is to changing this country, and moving it forward.

First, keeping Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense. Obama... you are a DEMOCRAT. You need a democratic Secretary of Defense to restore balance to the Universe. Not sure what this fetish is with Democratic presidents that think a Republican has to be in charge of the military. Elections do have consequences.

Second, allowing hog-man, anti-gay, pro-prop8 Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. The

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama ran on a message of "change." He's not even President yet. However, a couple of disturbing developments have emerged that make me question just how committed he is to changing this country, and moving it forward.

First, keeping Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense. Obama... you are a DEMOCRAT. You need a democratic Secretary of Defense to restore balance to the Universe. Not sure what this fetish is with Democratic presidents that think a Republican has to be in charge of the military. Elections do have consequences.

Second, allowing hog-man, anti-gay, pro-prop8 Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. The

Link to post
Share on other sites
I find a bit humorous that all the pro-Democrat/anti-Republicans are very angry and bitter on the Internet. I'm not stereotyping, because I feel like I've seen enough.

Right you are. The internets in general devolved pretty rapidly into a cackling, bitter old women's bitchfest. It's the low price of admission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see what he does and doesn't do... I'll give him a year.

No need to wait that long. Traditionally, presidents are judged on their first 100 days.

Until he gets into office and actually has the chance to do something I won't judge him.

This is all just partisan nit-picking and left over campaign steam from the angry left.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I find a bit humorous that all the pro-Democrat/anti-Republicans are very angry and bitter on the Internet. I'm not stereotyping, because I feel like I've seen enough.

HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! Yeah, Republicans are never angry and bitter. :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! Yeah, Republicans are never angry and bitter. :huh:

Everyone gets angry and bitter. Difference is Republicans very often sit back and smile and gloat at all they have or have accomplished (earn, steal, hoard, whatever), while Democrats after any success just move on to the next thing to whine and crusade about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone gets angry and bitter. Difference is Republicans very often sit back and smile and gloat at all they have or have accomplished (earn, steal, hoard, whatever), while Democrats after any success just move on to the next thing to whine and crusade about.

Huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
No need to wait that long. Traditionally, presidents are judged on their first 100 days.

Until he gets into office and actually has the chance to do something I won't judge him.

This is all just partisan nit-picking and left over campaign steam from the angry left.

From what I read... gay and lesbian people will have to wait longer than that. That is because... legislation, such non-discrimination in employment, hate crimes, and a repeal of "don't ask don't tell" are going to be placed on... the back burner. Perhaps, as even as long as, 2012/2013 - after he (plans to win) re-election. The code speak is already evident. And is becoming more evident by his actions, recently with Rick Warren. What is really going on here? I'm beginning to wonder

Edited by BryanS
Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I read... gay and lesbian people will have to wait longer than that. That is because... legislation, such non-discrimination in employment, hate crimes, and a repeal of "don't ask don't tell" are going to be placed on... the back burner. Perhaps, as even as long as, 2012/2013 - after he (plans to win) re-election. The code speak is already evident. And is becoming more evident by his actions, recently with Rick Warren. What is really going on here? I'm beginning to wonder
Edited by RedScare
Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama ran on a message of "change." He's not even President yet. However, a couple of disturbing developments have emerged that make me question just how committed he is to changing this country, and moving it forward.

First, keeping Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense. Obama... you are a DEMOCRAT. You need a democratic Secretary of Defense to restore balance to the Universe. Not sure what this fetish is with Democratic presidents that think a Republican has to be in charge of the military. Elections do have consequences.

Second, allowing hog-man, anti-gay, pro-prop8 Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. The "new" Jerry Falwell. Rick, lay off the fried chicken. You'll end up like your buddy.

What other actions has Obama taken (or not taken) that make you question his commitment to "change?"

I am *this close* to joining the Green (or even Libertarian) Party...

So, catering to everybody and not one group of people is not change to you?

I swear, he's ____ed no matter what he does. People just need to STFU and get over it. He's just doing to inauguration, no one should care what his trivial *in this event* views are, I mean unless he goes into a rant about 'how he hates gays' no one should care. But you know so uptight douche bags are going to get their panties all in a twist over this.

If only Howard Dean hadn't been so stupid as to not count those delegates. DUH!

I'm a Democrat too and agree that Rick Warren is bad choice. Why are we always expected to cater to these right-wing nuts? They never cater to us.

Really? You serious?

"Hey!! They were mean to us, so we have to be mean to them back!!!!"

Much change there huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously! ha ha Republicans are the most bitter people out there. Then again I would be too if I yearned for America to go back to the 1940s and 1950s. :rolleyes:

I'd like to add most (not all, though you seem to be included in this) leftists (not Democrats specifically) are quick to attack and extremely bias.

Well, everyone's biased to an extent, I will say I am, but the problem is they don't admit it.

Biased admins are the worse. My terrible experiences at Simtropolis involved admins turning a blind eye to vicious Bush haters but were quick to the gun when it involved bashing other candidates.

Needless to say, this is why I hate this section of forums, as they usually devolve into

a) An argument of religion and morals

B) Thoughtless yet vicious gnashing of teeth and personal attacks.

This could get very ugly very fast.

A sensible admin would lock the topic as soon as things start getting ugly, like now.

Edited by IronTiger
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to add most (not all, though you seem to be included in this) leftists (not Democrats specifically) are quick to attack and extremely bias.

Well, everyone's biased to an extent, I will say I am, but the problem is they don't admit it.

Biased admins are the worse. My terrible experiences at Simtropolis involved admins turning a blind eye to vicious Bush haters but were quick to the gun when it involved bashing other candidates.

Needless to say, this is why I hate this section of forums, as they usually devolve into

a) An argument of religion and morals

B) Thoughtless yet vicious gnashing of teeth and personal attacks.

This could get very ugly very fast.

A sensible admin would lock the topic as soon as things start getting ugly, like now.

You hate this section of forums yet you read them and post in them..... :huh::huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
You hate this section of forums yet you read them and post in them..... :huh::huh:

It's interesting at first...when things are newsworthy and fairly neutral and stuff...then when things get nasty, I take off (and, like I said, I didn't follow that advice at Simtropolis). And now,

POOF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is a full contact sport, both for the candidates and those that debate it. If it hurts your feelings when the flaws of your favorite candidate or party are laid bare, I suggest that you stick to the other less incendiary forums. I mean that with all sincerity. Those of us who post in the political forums usually recognize that we will invariably get insulted, whether directly or indirectly. To demand utter politeness, with the threat of closing threads, in a political forum is to stifle debate. The mods have done a good job of keeping these threads as civil as political threads can (or should be).

My recommendation is to keep your own postings free of personal attacks and grow thicker skin. If you feel a post is out of line, public shaming is allowed and works pretty well.

EDIT: Oh, and Hitler analogies never fly. :)

Edited by RedScare
Link to post
Share on other sites
So, catering to everybody and not one group of people is not change to you?

1.) He's definitely not catering to everybody, with that kind of pick - beyond the gay issue.

2.) He could cater to a much wider audience with a different pick (as I have suggested)

3.) As such, I see more of the same, not this so-called "change" he's been espousing.

We'll see. I'll give him a year...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1.) He's definitely not catering to everybody, with that kind of pick - beyond the gay issue.

2.) He could cater to a much wider audience with a different pick (as I have suggested)

3.) As such, I see more of the same, not this so-called "change" he's been espousing.

We'll see. I'll give him a year...

An Atlanta civil rights icon will play a very visible role in the historic and star-studded inauguration of Barack Obama, the nation

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since you are keeping score, maybe you could start with pointing us to Obama's promise to let gays marry. I am unaware of it. If you or other gays are superimposing your wishes onto a president elect who did not promise it, I would be inclined to come down far more harshly on your complaint than Obama's selection of Warren for the invocation.

FWIW, my gripe would be with having an invocation at all, but if you're gonna have an invocation, you might as well have some far-right douchebag give it, so that the fundies can have a few warm fuzzies. It is not as if Warren was appointed to a cabinet post. Gay Nation would be better served letting this one pass and picking their battles better, but that is not an area it has excelled in.

EDIT: On second thought, I am actually offended at much of what Warren says, but I think this a is a GREAT pick! Why? So that both Warren AND Obama may be skewered for their positions on the matter, as is currently being done. Obama still did not promise anything, but by stupidly highlighting it during something as silly as an invocation, his stance can be publicly ridiculed.

It's not about gay marriage. It's about inclusiveness and healing wounds; bringing the country together. Isn't that what he keeps harping? ... and then he goes off and selects someone that is basically a "nice" Jerry Falwell type vs. a more progressive, less caustic, less divisive person of faith. Whose selection does nothing to increase his support and gives great cause for those who did support him to question exactly how committed he his to his change message...

And all Gay Nation is saying is "Hey... we just got rooked in California. And this supposed 'nice guy' evangelical preacher, turns out is no different than all the others, based on his advocacy of stripping existing civil rights away from people, in California. Look at his commercial. What a mistake. Obama: Please don't screw up like this again when it comes to people that actually helped put you into office. Is that too hard to ask?"

Certainly not enough, at this point, to wholesale abandon him. I reserve to take that action after giving him a year to prove how real (or not) he is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know. And the more I think about it, the more I think she, and the Democrats, were robbed. If only FL and MI had not moved their primaries... It would be a different story right about now.

Let's see what he does and doesn't do... I'll give him a year. Not really impressed so far. He knew how unpopular the war was, yet he keeps Gates. He could have chosen a less divise person of faith, who would have been, in my view, much more progressive than the heart-attack-about-to-happen gluttonous slob, Rick Warren.

How about her:

Presiding%20Bishop%20Katharine%20Jefferts%20Schori.jpg

First female Episcopal bishop; Barbara C. Harris... and unlike Rick Warren... She probably actually voted for Obama! I would say she is more representative of where our country needs to go vs. "Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt."

Clinton also had Republicans in his cabinet... and tried all that "reaching across the aisle" garbage. Here's a clue Obama: the Republicans don't care. They're going to oppose you anyway! You're a fool if you think otherwise.

That's a picture of Katharine Jefferts Schori. While I wouldn't agree with it, choosing her would make just as many people (on the other side of the fence) wig out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

reaching across is one thing but he could have chosen someone a little less skewed in one direction than this guy. we go from rev. wright and his crazy-ass left wing ideology to a jerry falwell clone. one extreme to the other, how about someone in the middle that can at least appeal to both sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites
reaching across is one thing but he could have chosen someone a little less skewed in one direction than this guy. we go from rev. wright and his crazy-ass left wing ideology to a jerry falwell clone. one extreme to the other, how about someone in the middle that can at least appeal to both sides.

To me, Rev. Wright is like watching Comedy Central. His rendition of a white marching band... had me rolling on the floor...

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a picture of Katharine Jefferts Schori. While I wouldn't agree with it, choosing her would make just as many people (on the other side of the fence) wig out.

Doh! ... I knew there was a "first female Episcopal bishop"... Katharine Jefferts Schori is the first "woman Presiding bishop of the Episcopal church in the United States"...

The real Barbara Harris... which I still think would have been a better choice...

Bishop Barbara C. Harris

biothumb_harrisBarbaraC.jpg

In 1988, Bishop Barbara Harris was elected suffragan (assisting) bishop of the Diocese of Massachusetts. In 1989, she was consecrated a bishop, the first woman to be ordained to the episcopate in the worldwide Anglican Communion. Bishop Harris has been active in professional and community organizations, as well as in national church service.

A member of the Union of Black Episcopalians and a past president of the Episcopal Urban Caucus, Bishop Harris has represented the Episcopal Church on the board of the Prisoner Visitation and Support Committee. She is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts and a former member of the Episcopal Church's Standing Commission on Anglican and International Peace with Justice Concerns. After a long and distinguished career in the Episcopal church, Bishop Harris retired as bishop of the Episcopal Church in 2002 and currently serves as an assisting bishop to Bishop John B. Chane in the Diocese of Washington, DC.

http://www.nhap.org/bios/harrisBarbaraC.html

Edited by BryanS
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...