He won. The “West Wing” scenario played out exactly as–
Uh oh.
Has anyone checked on Joe Biden?
PAD
456 comments on “I’ll be darned”
AJ,
First, I did read the articles I cited. More closely than you it would seem.
Let me try and explain something here. This has nothing to do with Bush, Obama or any conspiracy theory that you would care to cite about the evil Bush DOJ not caring about Obama’s health and well being. My job puts me in a position where I’m aware of countless threats against the Governor of Virginia, various members of the General Assembly, countless state officials and, in the last year of visits by them, Bush, Cheney, Obama and Hillary Clinton.
In the last two years we’ve had literally thousands of such incident reports generated in Virginia in the last two years alone. We’ve had only a small handful of those qualify as credible even when you had some pretty elaborate plans and actions laid out or started by the subjects. The reason is often based on a line you yourself said above.
“The guys were caught in Denver, staying at a hotel that they thought Obama was going to be staying at.”
I know of a threat to a public figure in the last five years where the public figure’s agenda was laid out in the news media for weeks before he arrived. The moron who was making the threats was setting himself up to do the deed in the wrong hotel and in the wrong city. Was that his stagingarea/fallback point? No. The moron thought that he was in the right place.
We get people all the time that make threats to state and federal public officials that prove themselves to stupid to be credible threats. I personally dealt with a woman one time who wanted to harm Hillary Clinton because she loved President Clinton and didn’t think that she was worthy of him. Oh, and she had a knife in her purse. We dealt with her but she was deemed to be not a very credible threat as (1) she thought that Bill was still POTUS in the early 2000s and (2) she came to the Capitol of Virginia to see Bill and Hillary not because they were visiting that year but because she thought that the Capitol Building was THE Capitol. I’ve had W. threats that were, while not that nutty, not very swift on the uptake. We’ve even had a few threats to public figures that are fairly comparable to the morons in Denver.
The Secret Service and the feds in general didn’t want to deal with that. They don’t want to deal with a lot of stuff when it turns out to be a local crazy that didn’t pose a legitimate threat because of incompetence or insanity. Unless a threat was truly a threat they don’t have the time to pursue it. If they treated every local idiot and crazy as a federal case they would be too swamped to deal with the threats that were 100% credible and deserving of further federal investigation and effort. Morons, idiots and half wits get left to the state and local authorities.
No conspiracy, no plot, no “hate Obama” theories and nothing that isn’t done with anyone else who is Republican, Democrat or Independent. Isn’t reality a pain in the ášš when it kicks conspiracy outrage in the nards?
AJ,
First, I did read the articles I cited. More closely than you it would seem.
Let me try and explain something here. This has nothing to do with Bush, Obama or any conspiracy theory that you would care to cite about the evil Bush DOJ not caring about Obama’s health and well being. My job puts me in a position where I’m aware of countless threats against the Governor of Virginia, various members of the General Assembly, countless state officials and, in the last year of visits by them, Bush, Cheney, Obama and Hillary Clinton.
In the last two years we’ve had literally thousands of such incident reports generated in Virginia in the last two years alone. We’ve had only a small handful of those qualify as credible even when you had some pretty elaborate plans and actions laid out or started by the subjects. The reason is often based on a line you yourself said above.
“The guys were caught in Denver, staying at a hotel that they thought Obama was going to be staying at.”
I know of a threat to a public figure in the last five years where the public figure’s agenda was laid out in the news media for weeks before he arrived. The moron who was making the threats was setting himself up to do the deed in the wrong hotel and in the wrong city. Was that his stagingarea/fallback point? No. The moron thought that he was in the right place.
We get people all the time that make threats to state and federal public officials that prove themselves to stupid to be credible threats. I personally dealt with a woman one time who wanted to harm Hillary Clinton because she loved President Clinton and didn’t think that she was worthy of him. Oh, and she had a knife in her purse. We dealt with her but she was deemed to be not a very credible threat as (1) she thought that Bill was still POTUS in the early 2000s and (2) she came to the Capitol of Virginia to see Bill and Hillary not because they were visiting that year but because she thought that the Capitol Building was THE Capitol. I’ve had W. threats that were, while not that nutty, not very swift on the uptake. We’ve even had a few threats to public figures that are fairly comparable to the morons in Denver.
The Secret Service and the feds in general didn’t want to deal with that. They don’t want to deal with a lot of stuff when it turns out to be a local crazy that didn’t pose a legitimate threat because of incompetence or insanity. Unless a threat was truly a threat they don’t have the time to pursue it. If they treated every local idiot and crazy as a federal case they would be too swamped to deal with the threats that were 100% credible and deserving of further federal investigation and effort. Morons, idiots and half wits get left to the state and local authorities.
No conspiracy, no plot, no “hate Obama” theories and nothing that isn’t done with anyone else who is Republican, Democrat or Independent. Isn’t reality a pain in the ášš when it kicks conspiracy outrage in the nards?
Happy birthday, Jerry. If my present to you hasn’t arrived yet, it should be on its way shortly. Jenn helped me pick it out.
Happy birthday, Jerry. If my present to you hasn’t arrived yet, it should be on its way shortly. Jenn helped me pick it out.
religion and faith aren’t inherently “irrational” in my view.
They are in mine, but not necessarily in a negative sense. Having faith in something happening almost by definition means that you cannot reason out your prediction or belief that it’s going to happen — that’s why it’s faith.
I don’t, for example, “have faith” that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning in the east. Knowing how the world works, I’m very confident when I predict that it’s going to do so, but that’s not a question of faith.
Roger Tang: I can’t think of a more despicable or hateful thing than to think that a civil right can be voted upon by a majority of people.
So where do civil rights come from?
Laws have to come from one of two places: Either they’re the expression of the sovereign– which in a democratic republic like ours is the people– in which case the sovereign gets to express itself as it sees fit, or there’s some sort of natural law that grants people inalienable rights, in which case it’s still valid to argue about which rights are inalienable. Because seriously, if you don’t believe that laws, rights, etc. are derived from the consent of the governed (i.e. voting), then you end up right in the middle of the “natural order” discussion that Proposition 8 supporters want to have.
Bill Myers: It doesn’t mean that everything is up for a vote. Some of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. quite wisely chose to include a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution in order to protect certain basic liberties. The theory behind it is that there are certain rights that are inalienable, and should therefore not be subject to the whims of popular opinion.
Okey dokey. Same question. Which ones are inalienable? And, unless the Founding Fathers were the recipients of a divine mandate of which I remain unaware, I’m pretty sure that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and the Civil Rights act all came from the ordinary democratic process. Things are protected from popular opinion because the original popular opinion was that it’s a good idea to keep those things cordoned off. And, by the way, everything in the Constitution except equal representation of states in the Senate is still up for negotiation– that’s the only part of the Constitution that is presently non-amendable.
I think many proponents of gay marriage are hoping this issue makes it to the Supreme Court.
They shouldn’t. Their chances aren’t good. (And actually, in the process of researching this post, I’ve become more convinced than ever that they’d lose in SCOTUS. There’s too much precedent the other way. I now even think DOMA is constitutional, which I didn’t until this morning. And yes, I do tend to do research before I fulminate on this blog.) And you should hope I’m right, because if you think Roe spawned a backlash, watch the Supreme Court overturn the will of every single elctorate that has had the chance to vote on the issue. (As I understand it, CT declined to have a constitutional convention, which let the gay marriage decision stand, so if you call that a win the current total is 30-1. Arizona rejected one version of the ban but approved the one that permitted civil unions, so I’m putting them in the 30.) Let me be explicit: I think allowing gay marriage is the morally, intellectually, philosophically correct decision. But that decision has already been made wrongly, and I’m not willing to turn my back on democracy to redress that wrong. There’s another, prudential reason, to worry. Enough states have now banned gay marriage that if the Supreme Court forces their hand, they can amend the US Constitution. Do you really want to pick that fight?
Roger Tang: I can’t think of a more despicable or hateful thing than to think that a civil right can be voted upon by a majority of people.
So where do civil rights come from?
Laws have to come from one of two places: Either they’re the expression of the sovereign– which in a democratic republic like ours is the people– in which case the sovereign gets to express itself as it sees fit, or there’s some sort of natural law that grants people inalienable rights, in which case it’s still valid to argue about which rights are inalienable. Because seriously, if you don’t believe that laws, rights, etc. are derived from the consent of the governed (i.e. voting), then you end up right in the middle of the “natural order” discussion that Proposition 8 supporters want to have.
Bill Myers: It doesn’t mean that everything is up for a vote. Some of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. quite wisely chose to include a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution in order to protect certain basic liberties. The theory behind it is that there are certain rights that are inalienable, and should therefore not be subject to the whims of popular opinion.
Okey dokey. Same question. Which ones are inalienable? And, unless the Founding Fathers were the recipients of a divine mandate of which I remain unaware, I’m pretty sure that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and the Civil Rights act all came from the ordinary democratic process. Things are protected from popular opinion because the original popular opinion was that it’s a good idea to keep those things cordoned off. And, by the way, everything in the Constitution except equal representation of states in the Senate is still up for negotiation– that’s the only part of the Constitution that is presently non-amendable.
I think many proponents of gay marriage are hoping this issue makes it to the Supreme Court.
They shouldn’t. Their chances aren’t good. (And actually, in the process of researching this post, I’ve become more convinced than ever that they’d lose in SCOTUS. There’s too much precedent the other way. I now even think DOMA is constitutional, which I didn’t until this morning. And yes, I do tend to do research before I fulminate on this blog.) And you should hope I’m right, because if you think Roe spawned a backlash, watch the Supreme Court overturn the will of every single elctorate that has had the chance to vote on the issue. (As I understand it, CT declined to have a constitutional convention, which let the gay marriage decision stand, so if you call that a win the current total is 30-1. Arizona rejected one version of the ban but approved the one that permitted civil unions, so I’m putting them in the 30.) Let me be explicit: I think allowing gay marriage is the morally, intellectually, philosophically correct decision. But that decision has already been made wrongly, and I’m not willing to turn my back on democracy to redress that wrong. There’s another, prudential reason, to worry. Enough states have now banned gay marriage that if the Supreme Court forces their hand, they can amend the US Constitution. Do you really want to pick that fight?
AJ–in a few weeks Obama will be president and be able to put who he please in charge of the DOJ. If, at that time, no charges are brought against these idiots, what will your explanation be?
Oh, and regarding whether the First Amendment is supposed to prevent things like Prop 8, I’m inclined to agree.
Hmmm. Being both for the first amendment and against Prop 8 I’d like to think that’s a good argument but how exactly do you think it would go? I don’t think you can really use one to invalidate the other and if you can would tat not eliminate any and all standards for marriage altogether? (Which would validate those who claim this is a slippery slope that will result in destroying the concept of marriage as we know it..
I think we have to be careful not to invoke the constitution when we have a perfectly valid argument–vote against prop 8 because it’s the right and decent thing to do.
Jerry–Happy Birthday! My present will arrive shortly after i get an email from you reminding me what your address is. I’ll try to remember to poke holes in the box. We sure don’t want a repeat of what happened last time…
And, by the way, everything in the Constitution except equal representation of states in the Senate is still up for negotiation– that’s the only part of the Constitution that is presently non-amendable.
David, that’s interesting. How did they make that irrevocable?
To everyone who is calling opponents of gay marriage bigots–you do realize that you have to include the president-elect, right? I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but in all the celebration of Obama’s victory I don’t recall anyone adding the caveat “Too bad he’s a bigot.” Why?
Bill Mulligan:
“Jerry–Happy Birthday! My present will arrive shortly after i get an email from you reminding me what your address is. I’ll try to remember to poke holes in the box. We sure don’t want a repeat of what happened last time…”
Ðámņìŧ Bill, do NOT send Jerry another Mogwai, you remember what happened last time don’t you?
When do Obama vote to take away gay’s rights?
I remeber him dodging the question on the campaign trail, but when did he vote to deny them rights?
Bill Mulligan:
“Jerry–Happy Birthday! My present will arrive shortly after i get an email from you reminding me what your address is. I’ll try to remember to poke holes in the box. We sure don’t want a repeat of what happened last time…”
Ðámņìŧ Bill, do NOT send Jerry another Mogwai, you remember what happened last time don’t you?
When do Obama vote to take away gay’s rights?
I remeber him dodging the question on the campaign trail, but when did he vote to deny them rights?
To everyone who is calling opponents of gay marriage bigots–you do realize that you have to include the president-elect, right? I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but in all the celebration of Obama’s victory I don’t recall anyone adding the caveat “Too bad he’s a bigot.” Why?
Speaking for myself, I don’t believe Obama is really against gay marriage. Yeah, I know he’s said he is. But I simply cannot fathom how someone whose parents’ own marriage was illegal in sixteen states a mere forty years ago could possibly think denying a group of people equal rights is a good idea.
Which would make him not a bigot but a liar. Except he may not feel he has a choice; if he came out in favor of it, the GOP would have killed him with it during the campaign. Look how they managed to kneecap Clinton with gays in the military in his first term. So he went with the current temperature of the electorate. I’m not excusing it. I’m sure not thrilled with it. But I understand it.
PAD
To everyone who is calling opponents of gay marriage bigots–you do realize that you have to include the president-elect, right? I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but in all the celebration of Obama’s victory I don’t recall anyone adding the caveat “Too bad he’s a bigot.” Why?
Speaking for myself, I don’t believe Obama is really against gay marriage. Yeah, I know he’s said he is. But I simply cannot fathom how someone whose parents’ own marriage was illegal in sixteen states a mere forty years ago could possibly think denying a group of people equal rights is a good idea.
Which would make him not a bigot but a liar. Except he may not feel he has a choice; if he came out in favor of it, the GOP would have killed him with it during the campaign. Look how they managed to kneecap Clinton with gays in the military in his first term. So he went with the current temperature of the electorate. I’m not excusing it. I’m sure not thrilled with it. But I understand it.
PAD
Shame on you Mr. Peter David. If you think about it, isn’t it people like you — who display such unjustified anger and personal attacks against people you don’t even know — that really hurt the “gay marriage” movement?
Calling someone a bigot isn’t unjustified if the person makes bigoted statements.
Now declaring for no reason that isn’t steeped in bigotry and prejudice that gays should be deprived of equal rights…THAT is unjustified.
PAD
Shame on you Mr. Peter David. If you think about it, isn’t it people like you — who display such unjustified anger and personal attacks against people you don’t even know — that really hurt the “gay marriage” movement?
Calling someone a bigot isn’t unjustified if the person makes bigoted statements.
Now declaring for no reason that isn’t steeped in bigotry and prejudice that gays should be deprived of equal rights…THAT is unjustified.
PAD
Peter, I always thought Pres Bush thought the same thing. He also went”… with the current temperature of the electorate..”
Which would make him not a bigot but a liar.
And a coward to boot.
Frankly, I have a better opinion of him than you do. Still, you have to admit it’s a sad state of affairs when you have to grasp at the hope that a politician is secretly on your side and lying about it to everyone else. “Hope and change”. You’re hoping he’ll change.
If Obama is actually, as he says, against gay marriage on purely religious grounds it seems to me that one might be able to successfully argue that he needs to apply the same standard he would to religious pro lifers and not let his own religious beliefs factor into the law. It might work. If, on the other hand, he is just afraid to speak his mind because of any possible political backlash, the fact that California, that liberal bellwether, just voted down gay rights probably means he will maintain the illusion throughout his presidency.
Which would make him not a bigot but a liar.
And a coward to boot.
Frankly, I have a better opinion of him than you do. Still, you have to admit it’s a sad state of affairs when you have to grasp at the hope that a politician is secretly on your side and lying about it to everyone else. “Hope and change”. You’re hoping he’ll change.
If Obama is actually, as he says, against gay marriage on purely religious grounds it seems to me that one might be able to successfully argue that he needs to apply the same standard he would to religious pro lifers and not let his own religious beliefs factor into the law. It might work. If, on the other hand, he is just afraid to speak his mind because of any possible political backlash, the fact that California, that liberal bellwether, just voted down gay rights probably means he will maintain the illusion throughout his presidency.
I’m with Bill, PAD. I hope he honestly *is* against it for religious reasons — because he strikes me as a reasonable enough man that he can be convinced it’s not a problem after all.
If he’s just a hypocrite, then there’s not much reason to expect that he’ll change anything.
I’m with Bill, PAD. I hope he honestly *is* against it for religious reasons — because he strikes me as a reasonable enough man that he can be convinced it’s not a problem after all.
If he’s just a hypocrite, then there’s not much reason to expect that he’ll change anything.
Bill Mulligan on the parts of the Constitution that are unamendable/nonamendable/whatever the right word is: David, that’s interesting. How did they make that irrevocable?
They put it in the text of the original Constitution. Article V, describing the amendment process, had that as a caveat. There were actually two provisions that couldn’t be amended: equal state suffrage in the Senate, and the slave trade couldn’t be abolished or taxed into oblivion before 1808.
Technically it ensures that equal suffrage can’t be denied without the state’s consent, so theoretically Delaware could agree that it’s unfair that it has the same number of Senators as California and declare Joe Biden’s seat abolished, but somehow I don’t see that happening.
PAD regarding President-elect Obama’s secret gay marriage support: Which would make him not a bigot but a liar.
Which is so much better. I’d much rather have the leader of the free world be someone who lied about his political beliefs in order to gain access to the most powerful office on Earth than someone who honestly disagrees with me about an issue of morality. I hope Keith Olbermann doesn’t call for his resignation and Dennis Kucinich doesn’t campaign for his impeachment when this comes out. {/sarcasm}
I agree with Tim, actually. People can always be reasoned with. It’s hard to get someone to change deeply rooted moral beliefs, but it happens. That would have to be better than discovering that the President-elect is just another dishonest Chicago politician after all.
I did not say being a liar is “better” than being a hypocrite, David.
It is truly a dámņëd if he does, dámņëd if he does not scenario. Either he is a religiously motivated bigot, or he is lying. Pick your poison. If it is the former, the religious environment that inculcated such a belief system is most unfortunate. If it is the latter, I despise the political system–the same one that, as noted, kneecapped Clinton with gays in the military–that makes keeping his true feelings a political necessity.
PAD
I did not say being a liar is “better” than being a hypocrite, David.
It is truly a dámņëd if he does, dámņëd if he does not scenario. Either he is a religiously motivated bigot, or he is lying. Pick your poison. If it is the former, the religious environment that inculcated such a belief system is most unfortunate. If it is the latter, I despise the political system–the same one that, as noted, kneecapped Clinton with gays in the military–that makes keeping his true feelings a political necessity.
PAD
Bill Mulligan and Tim Lynch, I believe both of you are overstating your case. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Obama is pro-gay-marriage (which isn’t much of a stretch). What if he had endorsed gay marriage and lost the election as a result (also not much of a stretch)? The answer: Obama would be sitting on the sidelines while watching President John McCain implement domestic and foreign policies that Obama fought so hard against.
Oh, and did I mention McCain also opposes gay marriage?
Sometimes life doesn’t provide you with clean choices. Sometimes you have to choose the less bad choice. That’s not cowardice or hypocrisy, that’s just life.
Bill Mulligan and Tim Lynch, I believe both of you are overstating your case. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Obama is pro-gay-marriage (which isn’t much of a stretch). What if he had endorsed gay marriage and lost the election as a result (also not much of a stretch)? The answer: Obama would be sitting on the sidelines while watching President John McCain implement domestic and foreign policies that Obama fought so hard against.
Oh, and did I mention McCain also opposes gay marriage?
Sometimes life doesn’t provide you with clean choices. Sometimes you have to choose the less bad choice. That’s not cowardice or hypocrisy, that’s just life.
Actually, I think that President Obama is against gay marriage on religious grounds, but I don’t think that he is a bigot. This is for two reasons: firstly, he has said that he is willing to consider that he might be wrong, and secondly (and more importantly) he’s also said that he will not use his office to oppose it. Were he truly a bigot, neither of those would be the case.
Actually, I think that President Obama is against gay marriage on religious grounds, but I don’t think that he is a bigot. This is for two reasons: firstly, he has said that he is willing to consider that he might be wrong, and secondly (and more importantly) he’s also said that he will not use his office to oppose it. Were he truly a bigot, neither of those would be the case.
If it is the latter, I despise the political system–the same one that, as noted, kneecapped Clinton with gays in the military–that makes keeping his true feelings a political necessity.
It’s necessary only if he values winning over principle. Remember that this is a guy who was advocating change– not just in governing philosophy, but in partisanship and the way government is conducted. If he was lying about his political beliefs in order to pad his chances of winning (unnecessarily so in a year in which my border collie, were he nominated by the Democratic party, would have carried 20 states), then he was necessarily lying about all of it. It means he isn’t a new kind of politician. It means he isn’t changing Washington. It means Washington doesn’t even need to change him. Clinton’s impeachment was never about sex (and only partly about lying about sex– it was about lying about sex under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit, aka perjury) but this would still be infinitely worse. Your theory is that the candidate lied about who he was, what he believed, how he would govern, in order to gain massive political power. Bill Myers is right, it isn’t hypocrisy; it’s fraud. And this is someone you supported?
I didn’t vote for him, but I don’t think he’s that duplicitous either. I just think he was telling the truth when he said he believed what a supermajority of the people in this country believe. Even so, his views are a step in the right direction; why dismissively write him off as a bigot? Isn’t it enough that he’s far less bigoted than many? Are “completely right” and “bigot” truly the only two categories?
If it is the latter, I despise the political system–the same one that, as noted, kneecapped Clinton with gays in the military–that makes keeping his true feelings a political necessity.
It’s necessary only if he values winning over principle. Remember that this is a guy who was advocating change– not just in governing philosophy, but in partisanship and the way government is conducted. If he was lying about his political beliefs in order to pad his chances of winning (unnecessarily so in a year in which my border collie, were he nominated by the Democratic party, would have carried 20 states), then he was necessarily lying about all of it. It means he isn’t a new kind of politician. It means he isn’t changing Washington. It means Washington doesn’t even need to change him. Clinton’s impeachment was never about sex (and only partly about lying about sex– it was about lying about sex under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit, aka perjury) but this would still be infinitely worse. Your theory is that the candidate lied about who he was, what he believed, how he would govern, in order to gain massive political power. Bill Myers is right, it isn’t hypocrisy; it’s fraud. And this is someone you supported?
I didn’t vote for him, but I don’t think he’s that duplicitous either. I just think he was telling the truth when he said he believed what a supermajority of the people in this country believe. Even so, his views are a step in the right direction; why dismissively write him off as a bigot? Isn’t it enough that he’s far less bigoted than many? Are “completely right” and “bigot” truly the only two categories?
David–thanks for the info. Interesting. I wonder why and how they settled on 1808 and what they thought would happen by then. I also notice, after reading the actual article, how they didn’t use the word slavery; The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
“migration or importation”, well, that sounds nice. It’s interesting, as is the fact that they outlawed the International Slavery trade the day they were able to do it. But why? If they thought slavery was ok–and plenty in 1808 did–why outlaw the trade? Why did they think the international trade was immoral but not the internal trade?
Amazing what contortions people can go through to justify things they know, at some level, are wrong.
It is truly a dámņëd if he does, dámņëd if he does not scenario. Either he is a religiously motivated bigot, or he is lying. Pick your poison. If it is the former, the religious environment that inculcated such a belief system is most unfortunate. If it is the latter, I despise the political system–the same one that, as noted, kneecapped Clinton with gays in the military–that makes keeping his true feelings a political necessity.
Except it isn’t. Not being against gay marriage would not have cost him the election, I strongly suspect. Whatever he would have lost among hardcore anti-gay people–and I suspect many of them were either not in his camp or, like the 70% of black voters in california that voted for prop 8, they would have voted for him despite this one area of disagreement–would have been partly offset by getting about 100% of the gay vote. (McCain got 27% of the gay vote, an actual increase over Bush).
I’m not saying he had to run around saying he wanted gay marriage and he wanted it now–just say it didn’t matter to him one way or another, he wasn’t going to take a stand on something that doesn’t concern him and the country has bigger fish to fry blah blah. He would have still won. If it cost him a few close states like NC–still wins. And he’d have the satisfaction of knowing he actually showed some courage.
(Note–this assumes PAD is right that Obama is actually lying about all this. Keep in mind, I disagree.)
As for Bill Clinton, he kneecapped himself. You don’t propose an advance in civil rights and then, when it looks like you might lose, save face by actually making legislation that codifies the discrimination. If you’re going to compromise on fundamental issues of human rights don’t even bring it up. Just wait for someone with the balls to take the heat. If he’d stuck to his guns and gone down to defeat you could have respected him.
It isn’t the system that makes them cowards–it’s when we excuse them for it.
David the lawyer, please use more care when paraphrasing me. Your sentence construction makes it sound as though I, like you, think Obama is a fraud. I do not.
Bill Mulligan and Tim Lynch, I believe both of you are overstating your case. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Obama is pro-gay-marriage (which isn’t much of a stretch). What if he had endorsed gay marriage and lost the election as a result (also not much of a stretch)? The answer: Obama would be sitting on the sidelines while watching President John McCain implement domestic and foreign policies that Obama fought so hard against.
I think it is a stretch but even if it isn’t, I stand by the assertion that it’s cowardly to claim to have a view that you don’t–ESPECIALLY when that position involves hurting a group of people, supporting their second class status. Strom Thurmond probably wopuld not have been elected senator from South Carolina if they knew he had a black daughter. That doesn’t make him less of a coward for stating, when his daughter was 25, “there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”
(I’m assuming here that Thurmond was, like it’s being suggested of Obama, just palying to the mob, that his personal actions make it clear he did not believe his own words.)
If a candidate claims to belong to a church, or love his wife, or any of a number of falsehoods that make him more attractive to the public, well, ok. But to lie about something that affects people’s lives…cowardly. There’s no other word for it.
Oh, and did I mention McCain also opposes gay marriage?
Well yeah, but so far nobody is suggesting that he’s lying about that. If he is, the same applies to him.
lastly, if you really believe that he’s lying about this just to get elected…are you at all worried that this may not be the only thing he’s lied about? Why assume that someone so willing to lie is only doing it in a way thatmakes him a better candidate in your eyes?
Bill Mulligan and Tim Lynch, I believe both of you are overstating your case. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Obama is pro-gay-marriage (which isn’t much of a stretch). What if he had endorsed gay marriage and lost the election as a result (also not much of a stretch)? The answer: Obama would be sitting on the sidelines while watching President John McCain implement domestic and foreign policies that Obama fought so hard against.
I think it is a stretch but even if it isn’t, I stand by the assertion that it’s cowardly to claim to have a view that you don’t–ESPECIALLY when that position involves hurting a group of people, supporting their second class status. Strom Thurmond probably wopuld not have been elected senator from South Carolina if they knew he had a black daughter. That doesn’t make him less of a coward for stating, when his daughter was 25, “there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”
(I’m assuming here that Thurmond was, like it’s being suggested of Obama, just palying to the mob, that his personal actions make it clear he did not believe his own words.)
If a candidate claims to belong to a church, or love his wife, or any of a number of falsehoods that make him more attractive to the public, well, ok. But to lie about something that affects people’s lives…cowardly. There’s no other word for it.
Oh, and did I mention McCain also opposes gay marriage?
Well yeah, but so far nobody is suggesting that he’s lying about that. If he is, the same applies to him.
lastly, if you really believe that he’s lying about this just to get elected…are you at all worried that this may not be the only thing he’s lied about? Why assume that someone so willing to lie is only doing it in a way thatmakes him a better candidate in your eyes?
Politics is the art of compromise.
If you can look at yourself in the mirror while shaving, you’re ahead of the game.
Second guessing a man’s choices, unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances, is easy. But not necessarily accurate or fair.
Cheers.
Politics is the art of compromise.
If you can look at yourself in the mirror while shaving, you’re ahead of the game.
Second guessing a man’s choices, unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances, is easy. But not necessarily accurate or fair.
Cheers.
Second guessing a man’s choices, unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances, is easy. But not necessarily accurate or fair.
True enough but if we let that stop us we’d just have to let the politicians do as they please without comment. I don’t think that would improve the general lack of integrity among our political class.
And on the bright side it isn’t as though my (or anyone’s) criticism is going to make Obama any less the president elect. If any of it bothered him it would likely be because it hit too close to the truth, in which case there’s an easy way out.
Bill Mulligan: I wonder why and how they settled on 1808 and what they thought would happen by then. I also notice, after reading the actual article, how they didn’t use the word slavery
Neither was accidental. Georgia was concerned (and possibly the Carolinas were also) that they wouldn’t have enough slaves to maintain their plantation economy if the faucet were immediately shut off. 1808 was 20 years after the ratification was expected, and they thought that might be enough time. The reason for both the circumlocution and the fear that the trade might be banned was the presence of proto-abolitionists. Members of the drafting committee (including Alexander Hamilton) were founding members of NY’s first abolition society. The word “slave” appears nowhere in the Constitution until slavery is abolished. Abolition movements began around 1776– at least some people took the “all men are created equal” language in the Declaration seriously. (Not its author, of course.) Curiously, there’s a theory that modern racism began around the same time as a mental defense mechanism to try to justify slavery’s continued existence. (That theory is by no means an historical consensus, and xenophobia in some form is probably as old as humanity.)
As it happens, the Georgians were right. The slave trade was abolished in the United States effective 1/1/1808. It’s hard to understand why people would have a problem with the slave trade but not slavery itself, but it’s probably because the middle passage was just so insanely gruesome that even people who had no objection to whipping or working slaves would draw the line.
(I’m assuming here that Thurmond was, like it’s being suggested of Obama, just palying to the mob, that his personal actions make it clear he did not believe his own words.)
I wouldn’t make that assumption. It’s not inconsistent with racial bias to use a member of the despised minority and dispose of her, which is a plausible (if unkind) interpretation of what Sen. Thurmond apparently did with the maid. (He did have some sort of relationship with his daughter, so you never know.) Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was a raging racist and misogynist, but most likely fathered children with one of his slaves.
Bill Myers: David the lawyer, please use more care when paraphrasing me. Your sentence construction makes it sound as though I, like you, think Obama is a fraud. I do not.
Noted, but you’d actually have to misread what I said to interpret it that way. I’ll concede that it’d be a relatively easy mistake to make, though. (You can just call me David, by the way.)
PJP: Second guessing a man’s choices, unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances, is easy. But not necessarily accurate or fair.
Well, I guess President Bush is off the hook then, because nobody on this blog has had to make the same choices. That’s good to know.
Bill Mulligan: I wonder why and how they settled on 1808 and what they thought would happen by then. I also notice, after reading the actual article, how they didn’t use the word slavery
Neither was accidental. Georgia was concerned (and possibly the Carolinas were also) that they wouldn’t have enough slaves to maintain their plantation economy if the faucet were immediately shut off. 1808 was 20 years after the ratification was expected, and they thought that might be enough time. The reason for both the circumlocution and the fear that the trade might be banned was the presence of proto-abolitionists. Members of the drafting committee (including Alexander Hamilton) were founding members of NY’s first abolition society. The word “slave” appears nowhere in the Constitution until slavery is abolished. Abolition movements began around 1776– at least some people took the “all men are created equal” language in the Declaration seriously. (Not its author, of course.) Curiously, there’s a theory that modern racism began around the same time as a mental defense mechanism to try to justify slavery’s continued existence. (That theory is by no means an historical consensus, and xenophobia in some form is probably as old as humanity.)
As it happens, the Georgians were right. The slave trade was abolished in the United States effective 1/1/1808. It’s hard to understand why people would have a problem with the slave trade but not slavery itself, but it’s probably because the middle passage was just so insanely gruesome that even people who had no objection to whipping or working slaves would draw the line.
(I’m assuming here that Thurmond was, like it’s being suggested of Obama, just palying to the mob, that his personal actions make it clear he did not believe his own words.)
I wouldn’t make that assumption. It’s not inconsistent with racial bias to use a member of the despised minority and dispose of her, which is a plausible (if unkind) interpretation of what Sen. Thurmond apparently did with the maid. (He did have some sort of relationship with his daughter, so you never know.) Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was a raging racist and misogynist, but most likely fathered children with one of his slaves.
Bill Myers: David the lawyer, please use more care when paraphrasing me. Your sentence construction makes it sound as though I, like you, think Obama is a fraud. I do not.
Noted, but you’d actually have to misread what I said to interpret it that way. I’ll concede that it’d be a relatively easy mistake to make, though. (You can just call me David, by the way.)
PJP: Second guessing a man’s choices, unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances, is easy. But not necessarily accurate or fair.
Well, I guess President Bush is off the hook then, because nobody on this blog has had to make the same choices. That’s good to know.
Having faith in something happening almost by definition means that you cannot reason out your prediction or belief that it’s going to happen — that’s why it’s faith.
Faith is a form of reasoning you may apply to a predicament. Success or failure does not validate nor disqualify reason as reason. By definition. They only make the reasoning in question faithful or unfaithful to reality.
Has Obama mentioned why he is against gay Marriage?
I know he has said that history may prove him wrong on that stand, which points to the possibility that Obama recognises that the reason why he is against it is based in fear.
I’m disappointed in him for allowing that fear, but I do recognise that he does seem to be a mild opponent.
I do think he chooses not to challenge that aspect because it would be political suicide.
Blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly supported prop 8. Obama seems to have known how these segments stood on this and wanted to keep their votes.
Blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly supported prop 8. Obama seems to have known how these segments stood on this and wanted to keep their votes.
I believe both of you are overstating your case.
That’s certainly your right, but as I think Bill and David have both rebutted the statement well, I’ll refrain from adding to it.
TWL
You can always refuse whatever universal health-care Obama manages, being too good to take it from someone who expressed indifference to a legitimate cause to win an election.
You can always refuse whatever universal health-care Obama manages, being too good to take it from someone who expressed indifference to a legitimate cause to win an election.
Second guessing a man’s choices, unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances, is easy. But not necessarily accurate or fair.
Well, I guess President Bush is off the hook then, because nobody on this blog has had to make the same choices. That’s good to know.
“Not necessarily” and “not under any circumstance” aren’t phrases that can be applied interchangeably. You must have missed that day in law school when they covered conditional qualifiers.
David, I thought for sure you were wrong when you said that slaves and slavery was never mentioned but I went and looked it up and you were quite correct–the part I swore said that slaves were only 3/5 of a person was very carefully worded not to actually say slaves.
The impression I almost get is that we were actually close to eliminating slavery or that at the very least it was reasonable to assume that it was soon to be eliminated…and then things went in the opposite direction (invention of the cotton gin usually gets the blame).
Imagine how different things would have been if they had managed to find some way out–maybe a set date for the elimination of slavery, some 40 or 50 years from ratification (enough to satisfy those who would have seen anything sooner as a loss of property). A different world, for sure. Anyway, thanks for the chance to correct an old assumption on my part.
David, I thought for sure you were wrong when you said that slaves and slavery was never mentioned but I went and looked it up and you were quite correct–the part I swore said that slaves were only 3/5 of a person was very carefully worded not to actually say slaves.
The impression I almost get is that we were actually close to eliminating slavery or that at the very least it was reasonable to assume that it was soon to be eliminated…and then things went in the opposite direction (invention of the cotton gin usually gets the blame).
Imagine how different things would have been if they had managed to find some way out–maybe a set date for the elimination of slavery, some 40 or 50 years from ratification (enough to satisfy those who would have seen anything sooner as a loss of property). A different world, for sure. Anyway, thanks for the chance to correct an old assumption on my part.
Dude, you can’t put a clock on addiction. If you could kick an addiction without hitting bottom, it wouldn’t be an addiction.
The impression I almost get is that we were actually close to eliminating slavery or that at the very least it was reasonable to assume that it was soon to be eliminated…and then things went in the opposite direction (invention of the cotton gin usually gets the blame).
That’s certainly a common theory, both among historians and people at the time. (Actually the standing-but-not-precisely-true joke is that Eli Whitney caused the Civil War by inventing the cotton gin but then made sure the North would win by inventing replaceable rifle parts.) Every state north of Maryland abolished slavery by 1804. Admittedly, there weren’t a whole heck of a lot of cotton or tobacco plantations north of Maryland, so none of those states took a financial hit in the process. The standing theory at the time was that slavery wasn’t self-sustaining; that’s one reason the expansion of slavery into the territories was such a live issue up until the Civil War, as it was assumed that the institution would die out if it were confined geographically. There are good reasons to think that was actually wrong (exhibit 1: viable tobacco fields in the Upper South right now), but they acted based on their beliefs. A fair number of people (including Abraham Lincoln) were gradual emancipationists– they were willing to wait it out.
Sheesh. This thread has me blabbing about law and history. Heaven help us all if I find a way to work medieval England into this somehow. I might never shut up. Maybe I should go read that Lord Chief Justice Mansfield biography I got for Christmas last year…
The impression I almost get is that we were actually close to eliminating slavery or that at the very least it was reasonable to assume that it was soon to be eliminated…and then things went in the opposite direction (invention of the cotton gin usually gets the blame).
That’s certainly a common theory, both among historians and people at the time. (Actually the standing-but-not-precisely-true joke is that Eli Whitney caused the Civil War by inventing the cotton gin but then made sure the North would win by inventing replaceable rifle parts.) Every state north of Maryland abolished slavery by 1804. Admittedly, there weren’t a whole heck of a lot of cotton or tobacco plantations north of Maryland, so none of those states took a financial hit in the process. The standing theory at the time was that slavery wasn’t self-sustaining; that’s one reason the expansion of slavery into the territories was such a live issue up until the Civil War, as it was assumed that the institution would die out if it were confined geographically. There are good reasons to think that was actually wrong (exhibit 1: viable tobacco fields in the Upper South right now), but they acted based on their beliefs. A fair number of people (including Abraham Lincoln) were gradual emancipationists– they were willing to wait it out.
Sheesh. This thread has me blabbing about law and history. Heaven help us all if I find a way to work medieval England into this somehow. I might never shut up. Maybe I should go read that Lord Chief Justice Mansfield biography I got for Christmas last year…
• 
AJ,
First, I did read the articles I cited. More closely than you it would seem.
Let me try and explain something here. This has nothing to do with Bush, Obama or any conspiracy theory that you would care to cite about the evil Bush DOJ not caring about Obama’s health and well being. My job puts me in a position where I’m aware of countless threats against the Governor of Virginia, various members of the General Assembly, countless state officials and, in the last year of visits by them, Bush, Cheney, Obama and Hillary Clinton.
In the last two years we’ve had literally thousands of such incident reports generated in Virginia in the last two years alone. We’ve had only a small handful of those qualify as credible even when you had some pretty elaborate plans and actions laid out or started by the subjects. The reason is often based on a line you yourself said above.
“The guys were caught in Denver, staying at a hotel that they thought Obama was going to be staying at.”
I know of a threat to a public figure in the last five years where the public figure’s agenda was laid out in the news media for weeks before he arrived. The moron who was making the threats was setting himself up to do the deed in the wrong hotel and in the wrong city. Was that his stagingarea/fallback point? No. The moron thought that he was in the right place.
We get people all the time that make threats to state and federal public officials that prove themselves to stupid to be credible threats. I personally dealt with a woman one time who wanted to harm Hillary Clinton because she loved President Clinton and didn’t think that she was worthy of him. Oh, and she had a knife in her purse. We dealt with her but she was deemed to be not a very credible threat as (1) she thought that Bill was still POTUS in the early 2000s and (2) she came to the Capitol of Virginia to see Bill and Hillary not because they were visiting that year but because she thought that the Capitol Building was THE Capitol. I’ve had W. threats that were, while not that nutty, not very swift on the uptake. We’ve even had a few threats to public figures that are fairly comparable to the morons in Denver.
The Secret Service and the feds in general didn’t want to deal with that. They don’t want to deal with a lot of stuff when it turns out to be a local crazy that didn’t pose a legitimate threat because of incompetence or insanity. Unless a threat was truly a threat they don’t have the time to pursue it. If they treated every local idiot and crazy as a federal case they would be too swamped to deal with the threats that were 100% credible and deserving of further federal investigation and effort. Morons, idiots and half wits get left to the state and local authorities.
No conspiracy, no plot, no “hate Obama” theories and nothing that isn’t done with anyone else who is Republican, Democrat or Independent. Isn’t reality a pain in the ášš when it kicks conspiracy outrage in the nards?
AJ,
First, I did read the articles I cited. More closely than you it would seem.
Let me try and explain something here. This has nothing to do with Bush, Obama or any conspiracy theory that you would care to cite about the evil Bush DOJ not caring about Obama’s health and well being. My job puts me in a position where I’m aware of countless threats against the Governor of Virginia, various members of the General Assembly, countless state officials and, in the last year of visits by them, Bush, Cheney, Obama and Hillary Clinton.
In the last two years we’ve had literally thousands of such incident reports generated in Virginia in the last two years alone. We’ve had only a small handful of those qualify as credible even when you had some pretty elaborate plans and actions laid out or started by the subjects. The reason is often based on a line you yourself said above.
“The guys were caught in Denver, staying at a hotel that they thought Obama was going to be staying at.”
I know of a threat to a public figure in the last five years where the public figure’s agenda was laid out in the news media for weeks before he arrived. The moron who was making the threats was setting himself up to do the deed in the wrong hotel and in the wrong city. Was that his stagingarea/fallback point? No. The moron thought that he was in the right place.
We get people all the time that make threats to state and federal public officials that prove themselves to stupid to be credible threats. I personally dealt with a woman one time who wanted to harm Hillary Clinton because she loved President Clinton and didn’t think that she was worthy of him. Oh, and she had a knife in her purse. We dealt with her but she was deemed to be not a very credible threat as (1) she thought that Bill was still POTUS in the early 2000s and (2) she came to the Capitol of Virginia to see Bill and Hillary not because they were visiting that year but because she thought that the Capitol Building was THE Capitol. I’ve had W. threats that were, while not that nutty, not very swift on the uptake. We’ve even had a few threats to public figures that are fairly comparable to the morons in Denver.
The Secret Service and the feds in general didn’t want to deal with that. They don’t want to deal with a lot of stuff when it turns out to be a local crazy that didn’t pose a legitimate threat because of incompetence or insanity. Unless a threat was truly a threat they don’t have the time to pursue it. If they treated every local idiot and crazy as a federal case they would be too swamped to deal with the threats that were 100% credible and deserving of further federal investigation and effort. Morons, idiots and half wits get left to the state and local authorities.
No conspiracy, no plot, no “hate Obama” theories and nothing that isn’t done with anyone else who is Republican, Democrat or Independent. Isn’t reality a pain in the ášš when it kicks conspiracy outrage in the nards?
Happy birthday, Jerry. If my present to you hasn’t arrived yet, it should be on its way shortly. Jenn helped me pick it out.
Happy birthday, Jerry. If my present to you hasn’t arrived yet, it should be on its way shortly. Jenn helped me pick it out.
religion and faith aren’t inherently “irrational” in my view.
They are in mine, but not necessarily in a negative sense. Having faith in something happening almost by definition means that you cannot reason out your prediction or belief that it’s going to happen — that’s why it’s faith.
I don’t, for example, “have faith” that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning in the east. Knowing how the world works, I’m very confident when I predict that it’s going to do so, but that’s not a question of faith.
Roger Tang: I can’t think of a more despicable or hateful thing than to think that a civil right can be voted upon by a majority of people.
So where do civil rights come from?
Laws have to come from one of two places: Either they’re the expression of the sovereign– which in a democratic republic like ours is the people– in which case the sovereign gets to express itself as it sees fit, or there’s some sort of natural law that grants people inalienable rights, in which case it’s still valid to argue about which rights are inalienable. Because seriously, if you don’t believe that laws, rights, etc. are derived from the consent of the governed (i.e. voting), then you end up right in the middle of the “natural order” discussion that Proposition 8 supporters want to have.
Bill Myers: It doesn’t mean that everything is up for a vote. Some of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. quite wisely chose to include a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution in order to protect certain basic liberties. The theory behind it is that there are certain rights that are inalienable, and should therefore not be subject to the whims of popular opinion.
Okey dokey. Same question. Which ones are inalienable? And, unless the Founding Fathers were the recipients of a divine mandate of which I remain unaware, I’m pretty sure that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and the Civil Rights act all came from the ordinary democratic process. Things are protected from popular opinion because the original popular opinion was that it’s a good idea to keep those things cordoned off. And, by the way, everything in the Constitution except equal representation of states in the Senate is still up for negotiation– that’s the only part of the Constitution that is presently non-amendable.
I think many proponents of gay marriage are hoping this issue makes it to the Supreme Court.
They shouldn’t. Their chances aren’t good. (And actually, in the process of researching this post, I’ve become more convinced than ever that they’d lose in SCOTUS. There’s too much precedent the other way. I now even think DOMA is constitutional, which I didn’t until this morning. And yes, I do tend to do research before I fulminate on this blog.) And you should hope I’m right, because if you think Roe spawned a backlash, watch the Supreme Court overturn the will of every single elctorate that has had the chance to vote on the issue. (As I understand it, CT declined to have a constitutional convention, which let the gay marriage decision stand, so if you call that a win the current total is 30-1. Arizona rejected one version of the ban but approved the one that permitted civil unions, so I’m putting them in the 30.) Let me be explicit: I think allowing gay marriage is the morally, intellectually, philosophically correct decision. But that decision has already been made wrongly, and I’m not willing to turn my back on democracy to redress that wrong. There’s another, prudential reason, to worry. Enough states have now banned gay marriage that if the Supreme Court forces their hand, they can amend the US Constitution. Do you really want to pick that fight?
Roger Tang: I can’t think of a more despicable or hateful thing than to think that a civil right can be voted upon by a majority of people.
So where do civil rights come from?
Laws have to come from one of two places: Either they’re the expression of the sovereign– which in a democratic republic like ours is the people– in which case the sovereign gets to express itself as it sees fit, or there’s some sort of natural law that grants people inalienable rights, in which case it’s still valid to argue about which rights are inalienable. Because seriously, if you don’t believe that laws, rights, etc. are derived from the consent of the governed (i.e. voting), then you end up right in the middle of the “natural order” discussion that Proposition 8 supporters want to have.
Bill Myers: It doesn’t mean that everything is up for a vote. Some of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. quite wisely chose to include a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution in order to protect certain basic liberties. The theory behind it is that there are certain rights that are inalienable, and should therefore not be subject to the whims of popular opinion.
Okey dokey. Same question. Which ones are inalienable? And, unless the Founding Fathers were the recipients of a divine mandate of which I remain unaware, I’m pretty sure that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and the Civil Rights act all came from the ordinary democratic process. Things are protected from popular opinion because the original popular opinion was that it’s a good idea to keep those things cordoned off. And, by the way, everything in the Constitution except equal representation of states in the Senate is still up for negotiation– that’s the only part of the Constitution that is presently non-amendable.
I think many proponents of gay marriage are hoping this issue makes it to the Supreme Court.
They shouldn’t. Their chances aren’t good. (And actually, in the process of researching this post, I’ve become more convinced than ever that they’d lose in SCOTUS. There’s too much precedent the other way. I now even think DOMA is constitutional, which I didn’t until this morning. And yes, I do tend to do research before I fulminate on this blog.) And you should hope I’m right, because if you think Roe spawned a backlash, watch the Supreme Court overturn the will of every single elctorate that has had the chance to vote on the issue. (As I understand it, CT declined to have a constitutional convention, which let the gay marriage decision stand, so if you call that a win the current total is 30-1. Arizona rejected one version of the ban but approved the one that permitted civil unions, so I’m putting them in the 30.) Let me be explicit: I think allowing gay marriage is the morally, intellectually, philosophically correct decision. But that decision has already been made wrongly, and I’m not willing to turn my back on democracy to redress that wrong. There’s another, prudential reason, to worry. Enough states have now banned gay marriage that if the Supreme Court forces their hand, they can amend the US Constitution. Do you really want to pick that fight?
AJ–in a few weeks Obama will be president and be able to put who he please in charge of the DOJ. If, at that time, no charges are brought against these idiots, what will your explanation be?
Oh, and regarding whether the First Amendment is supposed to prevent things like Prop 8, I’m inclined to agree.
Hmmm. Being both for the first amendment and against Prop 8 I’d like to think that’s a good argument but how exactly do you think it would go? I don’t think you can really use one to invalidate the other and if you can would tat not eliminate any and all standards for marriage altogether? (Which would validate those who claim this is a slippery slope that will result in destroying the concept of marriage as we know it..
I think we have to be careful not to invoke the constitution when we have a perfectly valid argument–vote against prop 8 because it’s the right and decent thing to do.
Jerry–Happy Birthday! My present will arrive shortly after i get an email from you reminding me what your address is. I’ll try to remember to poke holes in the box. We sure don’t want a repeat of what happened last time…
And, by the way, everything in the Constitution except equal representation of states in the Senate is still up for negotiation– that’s the only part of the Constitution that is presently non-amendable.
David, that’s interesting. How did they make that irrevocable?
To everyone who is calling opponents of gay marriage bigots–you do realize that you have to include the president-elect, right? I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but in all the celebration of Obama’s victory I don’t recall anyone adding the caveat “Too bad he’s a bigot.” Why?
Bill Mulligan:
“Jerry–Happy Birthday! My present will arrive shortly after i get an email from you reminding me what your address is. I’ll try to remember to poke holes in the box. We sure don’t want a repeat of what happened last time…”
Ðámņìŧ Bill, do NOT send Jerry another Mogwai, you remember what happened last time don’t you?
When do Obama vote to take away gay’s rights?
I remeber him dodging the question on the campaign trail, but when did he vote to deny them rights?
Bill Mulligan:
“Jerry–Happy Birthday! My present will arrive shortly after i get an email from you reminding me what your address is. I’ll try to remember to poke holes in the box. We sure don’t want a repeat of what happened last time…”
Ðámņìŧ Bill, do NOT send Jerry another Mogwai, you remember what happened last time don’t you?
When do Obama vote to take away gay’s rights?
I remeber him dodging the question on the campaign trail, but when did he vote to deny them rights?
To everyone who is calling opponents of gay marriage bigots–you do realize that you have to include the president-elect, right? I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but in all the celebration of Obama’s victory I don’t recall anyone adding the caveat “Too bad he’s a bigot.” Why?
Speaking for myself, I don’t believe Obama is really against gay marriage. Yeah, I know he’s said he is. But I simply cannot fathom how someone whose parents’ own marriage was illegal in sixteen states a mere forty years ago could possibly think denying a group of people equal rights is a good idea.
Which would make him not a bigot but a liar. Except he may not feel he has a choice; if he came out in favor of it, the GOP would have killed him with it during the campaign. Look how they managed to kneecap Clinton with gays in the military in his first term. So he went with the current temperature of the electorate. I’m not excusing it. I’m sure not thrilled with it. But I understand it.
PAD
To everyone who is calling opponents of gay marriage bigots–you do realize that you have to include the president-elect, right? I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but in all the celebration of Obama’s victory I don’t recall anyone adding the caveat “Too bad he’s a bigot.” Why?
Speaking for myself, I don’t believe Obama is really against gay marriage. Yeah, I know he’s said he is. But I simply cannot fathom how someone whose parents’ own marriage was illegal in sixteen states a mere forty years ago could possibly think denying a group of people equal rights is a good idea.
Which would make him not a bigot but a liar. Except he may not feel he has a choice; if he came out in favor of it, the GOP would have killed him with it during the campaign. Look how they managed to kneecap Clinton with gays in the military in his first term. So he went with the current temperature of the electorate. I’m not excusing it. I’m sure not thrilled with it. But I understand it.
PAD
Shame on you Mr. Peter David. If you think about it, isn’t it people like you — who display such unjustified anger and personal attacks against people you don’t even know — that really hurt the “gay marriage” movement?
Calling someone a bigot isn’t unjustified if the person makes bigoted statements.
Now declaring for no reason that isn’t steeped in bigotry and prejudice that gays should be deprived of equal rights…THAT is unjustified.
PAD
Shame on you Mr. Peter David. If you think about it, isn’t it people like you — who display such unjustified anger and personal attacks against people you don’t even know — that really hurt the “gay marriage” movement?
Calling someone a bigot isn’t unjustified if the person makes bigoted statements.
Now declaring for no reason that isn’t steeped in bigotry and prejudice that gays should be deprived of equal rights…THAT is unjustified.
PAD
Peter, I always thought Pres Bush thought the same thing. He also went”… with the current temperature of the electorate..”
Which would make him not a bigot but a liar.
And a coward to boot.
Frankly, I have a better opinion of him than you do. Still, you have to admit it’s a sad state of affairs when you have to grasp at the hope that a politician is secretly on your side and lying about it to everyone else. “Hope and change”. You’re hoping he’ll change.
If Obama is actually, as he says, against gay marriage on purely religious grounds it seems to me that one might be able to successfully argue that he needs to apply the same standard he would to religious pro lifers and not let his own religious beliefs factor into the law. It might work. If, on the other hand, he is just afraid to speak his mind because of any possible political backlash, the fact that California, that liberal bellwether, just voted down gay rights probably means he will maintain the illusion throughout his presidency.
Which would make him not a bigot but a liar.
And a coward to boot.
Frankly, I have a better opinion of him than you do. Still, you have to admit it’s a sad state of affairs when you have to grasp at the hope that a politician is secretly on your side and lying about it to everyone else. “Hope and change”. You’re hoping he’ll change.
If Obama is actually, as he says, against gay marriage on purely religious grounds it seems to me that one might be able to successfully argue that he needs to apply the same standard he would to religious pro lifers and not let his own religious beliefs factor into the law. It might work. If, on the other hand, he is just afraid to speak his mind because of any possible political backlash, the fact that California, that liberal bellwether, just voted down gay rights probably means he will maintain the illusion throughout his presidency.
I’m with Bill, PAD. I hope he honestly *is* against it for religious reasons — because he strikes me as a reasonable enough man that he can be convinced it’s not a problem after all.
If he’s just a hypocrite, then there’s not much reason to expect that he’ll change anything.
I’m with Bill, PAD. I hope he honestly *is* against it for religious reasons — because he strikes me as a reasonable enough man that he can be convinced it’s not a problem after all.
If he’s just a hypocrite, then there’s not much reason to expect that he’ll change anything.
Bill Mulligan on the parts of the Constitution that are unamendable/nonamendable/whatever the right word is: David, that’s interesting. How did they make that irrevocable?
They put it in the text of the original Constitution. Article V, describing the amendment process, had that as a caveat. There were actually two provisions that couldn’t be amended: equal state suffrage in the Senate, and the slave trade couldn’t be abolished or taxed into oblivion before 1808.
Technically it ensures that equal suffrage can’t be denied without the state’s consent, so theoretically Delaware could agree that it’s unfair that it has the same number of Senators as California and declare Joe Biden’s seat abolished, but somehow I don’t see that happening.
PAD regarding President-elect Obama’s secret gay marriage support: Which would make him not a bigot but a liar.
Which is so much better. I’d much rather have the leader of the free world be someone who lied about his political beliefs in order to gain access to the most powerful office on Earth than someone who honestly disagrees with me about an issue of morality. I hope Keith Olbermann doesn’t call for his resignation and Dennis Kucinich doesn’t campaign for his impeachment when this comes out. {/sarcasm}
I agree with Tim, actually. People can always be reasoned with. It’s hard to get someone to change deeply rooted moral beliefs, but it happens. That would have to be better than discovering that the President-elect is just another dishonest Chicago politician after all.
I did not say being a liar is “better” than being a hypocrite, David.
It is truly a dámņëd if he does, dámņëd if he does not scenario. Either he is a religiously motivated bigot, or he is lying. Pick your poison. If it is the former, the religious environment that inculcated such a belief system is most unfortunate. If it is the latter, I despise the political system–the same one that, as noted, kneecapped Clinton with gays in the military–that makes keeping his true feelings a political necessity.
PAD
I did not say being a liar is “better” than being a hypocrite, David.
It is truly a dámņëd if he does, dámņëd if he does not scenario. Either he is a religiously motivated bigot, or he is lying. Pick your poison. If it is the former, the religious environment that inculcated such a belief system is most unfortunate. If it is the latter, I despise the political system–the same one that, as noted, kneecapped Clinton with gays in the military–that makes keeping his true feelings a political necessity.
PAD
Bill Mulligan and Tim Lynch, I believe both of you are overstating your case. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Obama is pro-gay-marriage (which isn’t much of a stretch). What if he had endorsed gay marriage and lost the election as a result (also not much of a stretch)? The answer: Obama would be sitting on the sidelines while watching President John McCain implement domestic and foreign policies that Obama fought so hard against.
Oh, and did I mention McCain also opposes gay marriage?
Sometimes life doesn’t provide you with clean choices. Sometimes you have to choose the less bad choice. That’s not cowardice or hypocrisy, that’s just life.
Bill Mulligan and Tim Lynch, I believe both of you are overstating your case. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Obama is pro-gay-marriage (which isn’t much of a stretch). What if he had endorsed gay marriage and lost the election as a result (also not much of a stretch)? The answer: Obama would be sitting on the sidelines while watching President John McCain implement domestic and foreign policies that Obama fought so hard against.
Oh, and did I mention McCain also opposes gay marriage?
Sometimes life doesn’t provide you with clean choices. Sometimes you have to choose the less bad choice. That’s not cowardice or hypocrisy, that’s just life.
Actually, I think that President Obama is against gay marriage on religious grounds, but I don’t think that he is a bigot. This is for two reasons: firstly, he has said that he is willing to consider that he might be wrong, and secondly (and more importantly) he’s also said that he will not use his office to oppose it. Were he truly a bigot, neither of those would be the case.
Actually, I think that President Obama is against gay marriage on religious grounds, but I don’t think that he is a bigot. This is for two reasons: firstly, he has said that he is willing to consider that he might be wrong, and secondly (and more importantly) he’s also said that he will not use his office to oppose it. Were he truly a bigot, neither of those would be the case.
If it is the latter, I despise the political system–the same one that, as noted, kneecapped Clinton with gays in the military–that makes keeping his true feelings a political necessity.
It’s necessary only if he values winning over principle. Remember that this is a guy who was advocating change– not just in governing philosophy, but in partisanship and the way government is conducted. If he was lying about his political beliefs in order to pad his chances of winning (unnecessarily so in a year in which my border collie, were he nominated by the Democratic party, would have carried 20 states), then he was necessarily lying about all of it. It means he isn’t a new kind of politician. It means he isn’t changing Washington. It means Washington doesn’t even need to change him. Clinton’s impeachment was never about sex (and only partly about lying about sex– it was about lying about sex under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit, aka perjury) but this would still be infinitely worse. Your theory is that the candidate lied about who he was, what he believed, how he would govern, in order to gain massive political power. Bill Myers is right, it isn’t hypocrisy; it’s fraud. And this is someone you supported?
I didn’t vote for him, but I don’t think he’s that duplicitous either. I just think he was telling the truth when he said he believed what a supermajority of the people in this country believe. Even so, his views are a step in the right direction; why dismissively write him off as a bigot? Isn’t it enough that he’s far less bigoted than many? Are “completely right” and “bigot” truly the only two categories?
If it is the latter, I despise the political system–the same one that, as noted, kneecapped Clinton with gays in the military–that makes keeping his true feelings a political necessity.
It’s necessary only if he values winning over principle. Remember that this is a guy who was advocating change– not just in governing philosophy, but in partisanship and the way government is conducted. If he was lying about his political beliefs in order to pad his chances of winning (unnecessarily so in a year in which my border collie, were he nominated by the Democratic party, would have carried 20 states), then he was necessarily lying about all of it. It means he isn’t a new kind of politician. It means he isn’t changing Washington. It means Washington doesn’t even need to change him. Clinton’s impeachment was never about sex (and only partly about lying about sex– it was about lying about sex under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit, aka perjury) but this would still be infinitely worse. Your theory is that the candidate lied about who he was, what he believed, how he would govern, in order to gain massive political power. Bill Myers is right, it isn’t hypocrisy; it’s fraud. And this is someone you supported?
I didn’t vote for him, but I don’t think he’s that duplicitous either. I just think he was telling the truth when he said he believed what a supermajority of the people in this country believe. Even so, his views are a step in the right direction; why dismissively write him off as a bigot? Isn’t it enough that he’s far less bigoted than many? Are “completely right” and “bigot” truly the only two categories?
David–thanks for the info. Interesting. I wonder why and how they settled on 1808 and what they thought would happen by then. I also notice, after reading the actual article, how they didn’t use the word slavery; The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
“migration or importation”, well, that sounds nice. It’s interesting, as is the fact that they outlawed the International Slavery trade the day they were able to do it. But why? If they thought slavery was ok–and plenty in 1808 did–why outlaw the trade? Why did they think the international trade was immoral but not the internal trade?
Amazing what contortions people can go through to justify things they know, at some level, are wrong.
It is truly a dámņëd if he does, dámņëd if he does not scenario. Either he is a religiously motivated bigot, or he is lying. Pick your poison. If it is the former, the religious environment that inculcated such a belief system is most unfortunate. If it is the latter, I despise the political system–the same one that, as noted, kneecapped Clinton with gays in the military–that makes keeping his true feelings a political necessity.
Except it isn’t. Not being against gay marriage would not have cost him the election, I strongly suspect. Whatever he would have lost among hardcore anti-gay people–and I suspect many of them were either not in his camp or, like the 70% of black voters in california that voted for prop 8, they would have voted for him despite this one area of disagreement–would have been partly offset by getting about 100% of the gay vote. (McCain got 27% of the gay vote, an actual increase over Bush).
I’m not saying he had to run around saying he wanted gay marriage and he wanted it now–just say it didn’t matter to him one way or another, he wasn’t going to take a stand on something that doesn’t concern him and the country has bigger fish to fry blah blah. He would have still won. If it cost him a few close states like NC–still wins. And he’d have the satisfaction of knowing he actually showed some courage.
(Note–this assumes PAD is right that Obama is actually lying about all this. Keep in mind, I disagree.)
As for Bill Clinton, he kneecapped himself. You don’t propose an advance in civil rights and then, when it looks like you might lose, save face by actually making legislation that codifies the discrimination. If you’re going to compromise on fundamental issues of human rights don’t even bring it up. Just wait for someone with the balls to take the heat. If he’d stuck to his guns and gone down to defeat you could have respected him.
It isn’t the system that makes them cowards–it’s when we excuse them for it.
David the lawyer, please use more care when paraphrasing me. Your sentence construction makes it sound as though I, like you, think Obama is a fraud. I do not.
Bill Mulligan and Tim Lynch, I believe both of you are overstating your case. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Obama is pro-gay-marriage (which isn’t much of a stretch). What if he had endorsed gay marriage and lost the election as a result (also not much of a stretch)? The answer: Obama would be sitting on the sidelines while watching President John McCain implement domestic and foreign policies that Obama fought so hard against.
I think it is a stretch but even if it isn’t, I stand by the assertion that it’s cowardly to claim to have a view that you don’t–ESPECIALLY when that position involves hurting a group of people, supporting their second class status. Strom Thurmond probably wopuld not have been elected senator from South Carolina if they knew he had a black daughter. That doesn’t make him less of a coward for stating, when his daughter was 25, “there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”
(I’m assuming here that Thurmond was, like it’s being suggested of Obama, just palying to the mob, that his personal actions make it clear he did not believe his own words.)
If a candidate claims to belong to a church, or love his wife, or any of a number of falsehoods that make him more attractive to the public, well, ok. But to lie about something that affects people’s lives…cowardly. There’s no other word for it.
Oh, and did I mention McCain also opposes gay marriage?
Well yeah, but so far nobody is suggesting that he’s lying about that. If he is, the same applies to him.
lastly, if you really believe that he’s lying about this just to get elected…are you at all worried that this may not be the only thing he’s lied about? Why assume that someone so willing to lie is only doing it in a way thatmakes him a better candidate in your eyes?
Bill Mulligan and Tim Lynch, I believe both of you are overstating your case. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Obama is pro-gay-marriage (which isn’t much of a stretch). What if he had endorsed gay marriage and lost the election as a result (also not much of a stretch)? The answer: Obama would be sitting on the sidelines while watching President John McCain implement domestic and foreign policies that Obama fought so hard against.
I think it is a stretch but even if it isn’t, I stand by the assertion that it’s cowardly to claim to have a view that you don’t–ESPECIALLY when that position involves hurting a group of people, supporting their second class status. Strom Thurmond probably wopuld not have been elected senator from South Carolina if they knew he had a black daughter. That doesn’t make him less of a coward for stating, when his daughter was 25, “there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”
(I’m assuming here that Thurmond was, like it’s being suggested of Obama, just palying to the mob, that his personal actions make it clear he did not believe his own words.)
If a candidate claims to belong to a church, or love his wife, or any of a number of falsehoods that make him more attractive to the public, well, ok. But to lie about something that affects people’s lives…cowardly. There’s no other word for it.
Oh, and did I mention McCain also opposes gay marriage?
Well yeah, but so far nobody is suggesting that he’s lying about that. If he is, the same applies to him.
lastly, if you really believe that he’s lying about this just to get elected…are you at all worried that this may not be the only thing he’s lied about? Why assume that someone so willing to lie is only doing it in a way thatmakes him a better candidate in your eyes?
Politics is the art of compromise.
If you can look at yourself in the mirror while shaving, you’re ahead of the game.
Second guessing a man’s choices, unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances, is easy. But not necessarily accurate or fair.
Cheers.
Politics is the art of compromise.
If you can look at yourself in the mirror while shaving, you’re ahead of the game.
Second guessing a man’s choices, unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances, is easy. But not necessarily accurate or fair.
Cheers.
Second guessing a man’s choices, unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances, is easy. But not necessarily accurate or fair.
True enough but if we let that stop us we’d just have to let the politicians do as they please without comment. I don’t think that would improve the general lack of integrity among our political class.
And on the bright side it isn’t as though my (or anyone’s) criticism is going to make Obama any less the president elect. If any of it bothered him it would likely be because it hit too close to the truth, in which case there’s an easy way out.
Bill Mulligan: I wonder why and how they settled on 1808 and what they thought would happen by then. I also notice, after reading the actual article, how they didn’t use the word slavery
Neither was accidental. Georgia was concerned (and possibly the Carolinas were also) that they wouldn’t have enough slaves to maintain their plantation economy if the faucet were immediately shut off. 1808 was 20 years after the ratification was expected, and they thought that might be enough time. The reason for both the circumlocution and the fear that the trade might be banned was the presence of proto-abolitionists. Members of the drafting committee (including Alexander Hamilton) were founding members of NY’s first abolition society. The word “slave” appears nowhere in the Constitution until slavery is abolished. Abolition movements began around 1776– at least some people took the “all men are created equal” language in the Declaration seriously. (Not its author, of course.) Curiously, there’s a theory that modern racism began around the same time as a mental defense mechanism to try to justify slavery’s continued existence. (That theory is by no means an historical consensus, and xenophobia in some form is probably as old as humanity.)
As it happens, the Georgians were right. The slave trade was abolished in the United States effective 1/1/1808. It’s hard to understand why people would have a problem with the slave trade but not slavery itself, but it’s probably because the middle passage was just so insanely gruesome that even people who had no objection to whipping or working slaves would draw the line.
(I’m assuming here that Thurmond was, like it’s being suggested of Obama, just palying to the mob, that his personal actions make it clear he did not believe his own words.)
I wouldn’t make that assumption. It’s not inconsistent with racial bias to use a member of the despised minority and dispose of her, which is a plausible (if unkind) interpretation of what Sen. Thurmond apparently did with the maid. (He did have some sort of relationship with his daughter, so you never know.) Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was a raging racist and misogynist, but most likely fathered children with one of his slaves.
Bill Myers: David the lawyer, please use more care when paraphrasing me. Your sentence construction makes it sound as though I, like you, think Obama is a fraud. I do not.
Noted, but you’d actually have to misread what I said to interpret it that way. I’ll concede that it’d be a relatively easy mistake to make, though. (You can just call me David, by the way.)
PJP: Second guessing a man’s choices, unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances, is easy. But not necessarily accurate or fair.
Well, I guess President Bush is off the hook then, because nobody on this blog has had to make the same choices. That’s good to know.
Bill Mulligan: I wonder why and how they settled on 1808 and what they thought would happen by then. I also notice, after reading the actual article, how they didn’t use the word slavery
Neither was accidental. Georgia was concerned (and possibly the Carolinas were also) that they wouldn’t have enough slaves to maintain their plantation economy if the faucet were immediately shut off. 1808 was 20 years after the ratification was expected, and they thought that might be enough time. The reason for both the circumlocution and the fear that the trade might be banned was the presence of proto-abolitionists. Members of the drafting committee (including Alexander Hamilton) were founding members of NY’s first abolition society. The word “slave” appears nowhere in the Constitution until slavery is abolished. Abolition movements began around 1776– at least some people took the “all men are created equal” language in the Declaration seriously. (Not its author, of course.) Curiously, there’s a theory that modern racism began around the same time as a mental defense mechanism to try to justify slavery’s continued existence. (That theory is by no means an historical consensus, and xenophobia in some form is probably as old as humanity.)
As it happens, the Georgians were right. The slave trade was abolished in the United States effective 1/1/1808. It’s hard to understand why people would have a problem with the slave trade but not slavery itself, but it’s probably because the middle passage was just so insanely gruesome that even people who had no objection to whipping or working slaves would draw the line.
(I’m assuming here that Thurmond was, like it’s being suggested of Obama, just palying to the mob, that his personal actions make it clear he did not believe his own words.)
I wouldn’t make that assumption. It’s not inconsistent with racial bias to use a member of the despised minority and dispose of her, which is a plausible (if unkind) interpretation of what Sen. Thurmond apparently did with the maid. (He did have some sort of relationship with his daughter, so you never know.) Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was a raging racist and misogynist, but most likely fathered children with one of his slaves.
Bill Myers: David the lawyer, please use more care when paraphrasing me. Your sentence construction makes it sound as though I, like you, think Obama is a fraud. I do not.
Noted, but you’d actually have to misread what I said to interpret it that way. I’ll concede that it’d be a relatively easy mistake to make, though. (You can just call me David, by the way.)
PJP: Second guessing a man’s choices, unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances, is easy. But not necessarily accurate or fair.
Well, I guess President Bush is off the hook then, because nobody on this blog has had to make the same choices. That’s good to know.
Faith is a form of reasoning you may apply to a predicament. Success or failure does not validate nor disqualify reason as reason. By definition. They only make the reasoning in question faithful or unfaithful to reality.
Has Obama mentioned why he is against gay Marriage?
I know he has said that history may prove him wrong on that stand, which points to the possibility that Obama recognises that the reason why he is against it is based in fear.
I’m disappointed in him for allowing that fear, but I do recognise that he does seem to be a mild opponent.
I do think he chooses not to challenge that aspect because it would be political suicide.
Blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly supported prop 8. Obama seems to have known how these segments stood on this and wanted to keep their votes.
Blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly supported prop 8. Obama seems to have known how these segments stood on this and wanted to keep their votes.
I believe both of you are overstating your case.
That’s certainly your right, but as I think Bill and David have both rebutted the statement well, I’ll refrain from adding to it.
TWL
You can always refuse whatever universal health-care Obama manages, being too good to take it from someone who expressed indifference to a legitimate cause to win an election.
You can always refuse whatever universal health-care Obama manages, being too good to take it from someone who expressed indifference to a legitimate cause to win an election.
“Not necessarily” and “not under any circumstance” aren’t phrases that can be applied interchangeably. You must have missed that day in law school when they covered conditional qualifiers.
David, I thought for sure you were wrong when you said that slaves and slavery was never mentioned but I went and looked it up and you were quite correct–the part I swore said that slaves were only 3/5 of a person was very carefully worded not to actually say slaves.
The impression I almost get is that we were actually close to eliminating slavery or that at the very least it was reasonable to assume that it was soon to be eliminated…and then things went in the opposite direction (invention of the cotton gin usually gets the blame).
Imagine how different things would have been if they had managed to find some way out–maybe a set date for the elimination of slavery, some 40 or 50 years from ratification (enough to satisfy those who would have seen anything sooner as a loss of property). A different world, for sure. Anyway, thanks for the chance to correct an old assumption on my part.
David, I thought for sure you were wrong when you said that slaves and slavery was never mentioned but I went and looked it up and you were quite correct–the part I swore said that slaves were only 3/5 of a person was very carefully worded not to actually say slaves.
The impression I almost get is that we were actually close to eliminating slavery or that at the very least it was reasonable to assume that it was soon to be eliminated…and then things went in the opposite direction (invention of the cotton gin usually gets the blame).
Imagine how different things would have been if they had managed to find some way out–maybe a set date for the elimination of slavery, some 40 or 50 years from ratification (enough to satisfy those who would have seen anything sooner as a loss of property). A different world, for sure. Anyway, thanks for the chance to correct an old assumption on my part.
Dude, you can’t put a clock on addiction. If you could kick an addiction without hitting bottom, it wouldn’t be an addiction.
The impression I almost get is that we were actually close to eliminating slavery or that at the very least it was reasonable to assume that it was soon to be eliminated…and then things went in the opposite direction (invention of the cotton gin usually gets the blame).
That’s certainly a common theory, both among historians and people at the time. (Actually the standing-but-not-precisely-true joke is that Eli Whitney caused the Civil War by inventing the cotton gin but then made sure the North would win by inventing replaceable rifle parts.) Every state north of Maryland abolished slavery by 1804. Admittedly, there weren’t a whole heck of a lot of cotton or tobacco plantations north of Maryland, so none of those states took a financial hit in the process. The standing theory at the time was that slavery wasn’t self-sustaining; that’s one reason the expansion of slavery into the territories was such a live issue up until the Civil War, as it was assumed that the institution would die out if it were confined geographically. There are good reasons to think that was actually wrong (exhibit 1: viable tobacco fields in the Upper South right now), but they acted based on their beliefs. A fair number of people (including Abraham Lincoln) were gradual emancipationists– they were willing to wait it out.
Sheesh. This thread has me blabbing about law and history. Heaven help us all if I find a way to work medieval England into this somehow. I might never shut up. Maybe I should go read that Lord Chief Justice Mansfield biography I got for Christmas last year…
The impression I almost get is that we were actually close to eliminating slavery or that at the very least it was reasonable to assume that it was soon to be eliminated…and then things went in the opposite direction (invention of the cotton gin usually gets the blame).
That’s certainly a common theory, both among historians and people at the time. (Actually the standing-but-not-precisely-true joke is that Eli Whitney caused the Civil War by inventing the cotton gin but then made sure the North would win by inventing replaceable rifle parts.) Every state north of Maryland abolished slavery by 1804. Admittedly, there weren’t a whole heck of a lot of cotton or tobacco plantations north of Maryland, so none of those states took a financial hit in the process. The standing theory at the time was that slavery wasn’t self-sustaining; that’s one reason the expansion of slavery into the territories was such a live issue up until the Civil War, as it was assumed that the institution would die out if it were confined geographically. There are good reasons to think that was actually wrong (exhibit 1: viable tobacco fields in the Upper South right now), but they acted based on their beliefs. A fair number of people (including Abraham Lincoln) were gradual emancipationists– they were willing to wait it out.
Sheesh. This thread has me blabbing about law and history. Heaven help us all if I find a way to work medieval England into this somehow. I might never shut up. Maybe I should go read that Lord Chief Justice Mansfield biography I got for Christmas last year…