Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » January?

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: January?
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So what will be on the agenda come January? Pelosi has said that in the first 100 hours of her speakership she will push for action implementing all 9/11 Commission recommendations on national security, raising the minimum wage to $7.25. eliminating corporate subsidies for oil companies, allowing the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices, imposing new restrictions on lobbyists, cutting interest rates on college loans and supporting embryonic stem-cell research."

Cnn.com

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm more curious about what the lame-duck Congress might try to ram through as a last gasp before January. The mind boggles.

(and what a motley package suggested by Pelosi...one wonders what are considered the priorities)

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What the hell happened to repealing the military commissions act?
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fer starters.
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I expect to see zero things passed, and a lot of congressional hearings. Hope I'm wrong.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmm... Nothing gay marriage related out of the dems? How does that not surprise me.

Guess I was right about holding my nose and voting republican then. The dems only care about gay people before they vote.

Wonder if they'll give us another whacky defence of marriage act like the one Clinton signed.

Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd prefer some nice insincere indifference to having new anti-me laws actually passed, personally. [Smile]
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funean: I'd like some equal rights. The dems keep promising and instead we get mierda like "Don't ask don't tell"
Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, I certainly don't disagree with that characterization! However, given a choice between "indifference" and "marked antipathy," I will reliably choose the former. [Big Grin]
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"(and what a motley package suggested by Pelosi...one wonders what are considered the priorities)"

I can't STAND the woman.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
re SSM - I would think that allowing gay rights to continue along its current evolutionary path would be preferable to picking fights with a plurality willing to take up arms against you if its poked with a sharp stick.

Do you really want a re-invigorated fundamentalist religious base willing to re-fight this battle just in time to sweep the next George Bush into power for another 8 years?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Dems won't be able to move on any social issues (IMO) for the simple reason that I don't think they have a majority on social issues. The stem cell stuff may be an exception, but for stuff like SSM and abortion, many of their new caucus members are against this sort of stuff. I mean, the only reasons the Dems would bring this stuff up is if they really wanted to lose their congressional majority in two years' time.

Other things the Dems won't touch: the tax cuts they've railed against for years, troop levels in Iraq (change on this has to come from the White House), and NCLB.

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll give her credit on the 9/11 commission stuff.

However, regardless if they follow what they claim they will - which is pretty rare, what they end up doing will be a lot of fluff. I'm having deja-vu from yesterday when I said they'd focus on hot button issues that'll keep the electorate all riled up, but do little of consequence.

Other than the 9/11 commission stuff, these issues have zero to do with the top 10 or so issues facing the nation. That means all of us collectively, not just specific demographics and interest groups. Minimum wage is the bone thrown to the auto unions for example. That should get us a nice ripple effect of closing some more US factories.

Any idiot can see what effects us all - the WOT, government spending, fiscal policy, education policy, domestic security, immigration, social spending, the deficit, and trade just off the top of my head.

And they want to focus on Pelosi's list? [Roll Eyes]

Anticipating a veto as a reason to never begin talking about important issues is a BS copout.

[ November 09, 2006, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: jm0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If they won't take a stand on SSM, I will continue not to vote for them.

If I really thought they'd fight for equal rights instead of run their mouths in an attempt to lie their way into our vote (a very successful attempt in general, I might add) I would vote for them.

Then again, they obviously don't care about my particular vote as they have managed to win without it.

Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just hope they have the sense to get to work on the contract fraud and overcharges in Iraq and New Orleans.

Forget who gamed what intelligence. When I ask Republicans who I work with why things are going badly in Iraq, the two answers I get are "theft" and "The Media".

The next two years needs to be "Corruption Busting". It also needs to be done by someone other than Pelosi, perferably a Western or Mid-Western Blue Dog.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suspect that dems will only fight for SSM quietly through judge picks. You may have to wait until 2008 or later to see any action there.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that equal rights (and I don't understand why proponents are allowing this debate to be framed in more divisive terms) will require a greater impetus at a social level.

Things will change--because the boomers can't live forever--but a politician can't grab the center and then scurry back to the extreme wings to please zealots in their base (or rather, they can, but folks will catch on after--oh, say--six years).

Every day people raised in a less tolerant world die, and people with broader minds turn 18. It's a question of time, Pixiest. It slows down the evolution when authorities legitimize bigotry--so supporting folks who will attack your cause in order to prod potential allies to action is nothing more than self-destructive.

This battle will be won when enough support has been garnered. The center is the key. Don't scare them off with sudden movements--consolidate support from within, then make the final push when it can succeed.

[ November 09, 2006, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
pixiest - I'm for you in principal, but there are so many more important things right now, and so little chance to pass what you want, that any attempt to do so, merely to be on record, will achieve the exact opposite. If the any Dem so much as floats a bill legalizing ssm in this term, you'll have hate laws passed in 25-40 states in 2008. You really want that?

Much better to refrain from the word marriage and work on the benefits thereof. Medical decisions, inheritance, custody. Isn't that more important than the semantics?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ricky: pretty much every state already has multiple laws against gay marriage. Threatening us with more won't go far.

Instead, what the dems should do (if they really cared, which they don't.) is put the otherside on the defensive. We're fighting against laws that target us. Make them fight against laws that protect us.

For example: First off, give it a good name. "Faith and Marriage Protection Act" Who's against Faith? Who's against Marriage? Another good name would be to find a child who died because her mother's same sex partner couldn't share her insurance with her family and name the bill after her. Bills named after children always pass.

Second, phrase it in such a way that you can sell it to the faithful.

"No individual, faith or church shall be required to bless or recognize any union that is inconsistant with their interpretation of God's law." This explicitly protects churchs from getting sued for not marrying gay people. This is the part you sell to conservatives.

But then you continue... "The legal institution of marriage, both in the states and at the federal level, shall be opened to partners of the same sex so long as they meet the other legal requirements." (no incest, no NAMBLA stuff.)

Now THEY have to fight against both equal rights AND faith to oppose this. They're on the defense. We can try to pass it every year and it only has to get through once.

And if they try to fight us with an amendment, we fight back with one. Eventually they'll get tired of fighting because it's not THEIR families on the line. It's ours.


As to there being more important things right now.. I take it you're straight and it's not your civil rights on the line.

Every day that goes by gay families are living without the same rights and responsibilities that heterosexuals have. Children are growing up in these families without the stabilizing effect that marriage has. Young men and women who have struggled figuring out who they are meet the man or woman of their dreams but can't marry them. Can't gain that legally binding promise.

Every day that goes by is too long.

Pix

(edit: clarity)

[ November 10, 2006, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]

Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pix, if you think (in respect to civil rights and issues specific to gays) that there's nowhere to go but up - you haven't been paying attention. You roll the dice, you lose, and suddenly gay sex is no longer just frowned upon, but actively legislated against.

If you think that your opponents don't believe that THEIR families are also on the line, and that they are not just as passionate on the subject as you... again, not paying attention. And guess what? There are currently 5-to-10 times as many of them as there are of you.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pelosi gets minimum wage bumped but probably not to $7.25, simply because she has to fight against the fact that 10 states already bumped theirs and can do so again.

She tries to cream the pharms and gets some life lessons Bono already learned. She gets a little something to save face maybe.

Ivan:

No, the liberal Dems have nursed the fantasy that their losses for the last 12 years have been a stupid electorate, "nasty" politics, rigged Diebold machines, and perhaps lunar cycles. So much like "centerist" Clinton, they'll pull their own brand of "gays in the military, universal healthcare" pretty quickly and get slapped by their own members.

Pelosi will probably lose her Speakership in less then three years.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The supreme court has already ruled in our favor on gay sex.

But yes, we could lose and they could pass an amendment against us that prohibits gay sex. But I don't think they could pull that off. They haven't been able to pull off a gay marriage amendment despite numerous attempts.

I don't think enough democrats could lose to allow an anti-gay sex amendment through. I think there would be SOME republicans against that too.

But if it did, then there would be quite a brain drain to canada.

Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They haven't been able to pull off a gay marriage amendment despite numerous attempts.
Which ones? Who are they?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jav: The republicans bring an anti-gay marriage amendment to the floor every election and it always fails. (thank the metaphorical god)
Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pix, you are aware that 21 states (so far) have passed anti-gay-marriage amendments, right?

Interestingly, Wisconsin, one of the recent states to vote for such an amendment also voted to lift its ban on the death penalty. Just an advisory measure, but makes you pause, doesn't it..?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don: I was refering to the federal level. A federal law overrides all the state laws, even if it's in an amendment.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
jav: The republicans bring an anti-gay marriage amendment to the floor every election and it always fails. (thank the metaphorical god)

Can you source that claim? I'm attempting to look it up, but I only see a couple of times where any amendment fitting this description was brought before Congress.

Here's one place to look (though I already failed to validate your claim here): Thomas.gov

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700830.html
Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Here's one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700830.html

Okay, you claimed it happened every election, right? Are you now claiming it has only happened once or twice? I'm assuming it's clear that this was what I was asking for sourcing on, since I already checked and saw two amendments that came up, and mentioned them.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mmmm maybe we both should have been more clear. I saw your link and assumed you found none there and instead went and googled one up that showed they had tried it twice.

I should have said in my original post that they've tried it every election (or in both elections) since 2002 when exit polls showed "values" being what most people were voting on.

I'm not even sure the republicans in office want it to pass. I think they want to continue to bring it up every 2 years and use it to energize the evangelicals. Though it didn't work this time since the most phobic of them out there turned out to be gay themselves.

Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see, so you are saying that this election, and the last, it was brought up? Gotcha.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pixiest, if you hire people to do a job for you, and then they spend their time doing something else, would you be happy?

Democrats did not run on SSM in this election. It's not what the vast majority of their voters want them to spend their energy on. There's almost no-one for whom that issue ranks in the top 5. Furthermore, engaging in this issue is the one thing bound to hinder successful dealing with other issues, and even successful dealing with the actual issues of gay and lesbian households. I ask you again: What's more important - getting medical decision rights, inheritance rights and custody rights, or the semantics of calling it marriage?

I totally agree with the way you phrased your back-door law, although it's superfluous since religions can't be forced to recognize anything due to a little thing called the first amendment.

One last thing: I didn't mean anti-gay marriage measures when I warned of consequences. I meant more like what they tried in Colorado - exempting sexual preference from the list of of forbidden basis for discrimination. I also mean anti-gay sentiment in general. incitement, violence, etc. Here, I saw something today that pissed me off. Want that to become a huge protest movement?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone... except where required by law. How quickly one's point becomes a double-edged sword....
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, I respect their right to do so, even while despising them for choosing to. I would refuse my prfessional service to a nazi, or a christo/islamo/judeo fascist [Smile]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny how Hitler's bureaucratic officialization of anti-Jewishism resulted in the most powerful PR tool I know of.

Can't legislate morality; can;t legislate immorality [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
sorry guys, I dont check this forum every day...

Ricky: I find it delightful how much business those phobes will lose because of their bigotry. I would love to see them bankrupt. However, since this has become a big to-do, I'm sure they'll get all sorts of business from likeminded people.

The whole gay vs christian thing won't end until both sides accept eachother and decide to get along. That means allowing gays to get married (and adopt) and allowing christians to display signs of their faith in public.

Both sides are full of good people. There is *truely* no reason to fight eachother.

You're supposed to be free in this country to pursue happiness and worship your god. Let's get back to both of those rather than messing with other people's lives.

Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ricky: I find it delightful how much business those phobes will lose because of their bigotry. I would love to see them bankrupt. However, since this has become a big to-do, I'm sure they'll get all sorts of business from likeminded people.
Exactly. According to the article, or one article I read on this story, they lost $500 worth of business and picked up 40K worth since this broke.

I hate to break it to ya, bro, but right now the phobes still outnumber gays and gay-friendlies combined. At least in the US. I suspect that's so even in the urban coasts, but most definitely overall. Which is why I'm saying - pick your battles.

I agree with all your sentiments expressed in that last post, but you (still) haven't answered me - aren't the rights more important than the word?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ricky: I'm a woman, actually.

The rights are indeed the most important things. But the semantics are also important. We have to keep refusing to sit in the back of the bus.

We also need to let people know who we are becuase it's easy to deny rights to them-there-queers, but it's hard to deny rights to your gay friends.

But to be their friends, we gotta be friendly.

Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Ricky: I'm a woman, actually."

Oops [Big Grin] Sista, then.

I think I'm plenty friendly, and I certainly don't hide my friendship. However, being someone's friend doesn't mean letting them bang their head against the wall without pointing out the unhelpfulness thereof.

Yes, the semantics are important, but not as important as a host of other issues, and not nearly as important as the rights.

Gay marriage, to me, is less important than drug reform. Hundreds of thousand of americans are in jail, some for very long terms, because of the evil war on drugs. Nobody's in jail because of ssm not being legal.

And yet, I think the Democratic congressional delegation would be remiss to spend much political capital on that either in the next two years. This is a crucial term, and we gotta prove to middle America that we're gonna take care of the business THEY care about, the business they voted us in for.

Now, I think the Dems should work (among other things) on the rights issue, cause that is important and urgent and a reason a nice big bloc of votes go blue every election. But the word? That can wait for more minds to change.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1