hai guys

[mr_j]

Okay, so, i got a few things to say.

First, though I did not vote for him, and I do not agree with what I have seen of his philosophies AT ALL, yesterday was a proud day for Obama, and I salute him and wish him the best of luck. Doesn't mean I'll agree with him, but I've discovered in life that Dylan put it best: "don't follow leaders/just watch the parking meters." It's a proud day in civil rights; it could be argued that the racism of the past has been stabbed in the heart--and I am still amazed and impressed to think a black man is in the White House.

Second, I made a quip yesterday that some took offense to. Sorry about that. It wasn't my intention to do so--i just made what I thought was an obvious joke that someone else would have made, and probably would have made, on any other day than yesterday, and were my political leanings different, it might not have been taken as offensive. if any were truly offended by said comment, i am sorry.

Thirdly, please understand--I'm not bothered by the outcome of this election at all. At this point in my life, I'm much more concerned about helping out the world around me and making an impact that way. If I'm bothered about anything, I'm bothered about people sneering about victory and making assumptions about how I feel about it, etc. To me it strikes me as funny, how one side of one's mouth talks about 'unity,' while the other side continues the same ol' divisive 'us vs. them' rhetoric. Was I guilty of that at some point in my life? Yes. But I've matured, realized that is not the way to be, and have grown beyond that. Think back for the past few months: I really didn't have anything to contribute in terms of political discussion. I unintentionally got caught up in it yesterday, but I think that considering the atmosphere of the day, it's understandable why that is.

And I have to say this: that "blue states" letter was really offensive. You may claim it was parody, but, really, some of the things in it were patently offensive, definitely classist, and borderline racist--and the motivations behind it and seething hatred in it were intentional. That's all I want to say about that.

For a bunch of strangers who don't really like me all that much, I like you guys and like yer forum.

Love,
Mr. J

[monet2u]

well I'm glad you came back to say your peace. I don't really have any issue with you or your politics (at least right now). After 8 years of Bush antics that have dragged this county down and out I (and others) finally got the relief we sought. In a split second the US went for desperate and hated throughout the world to hopeful and respected (or at the very least less hated by the world). Your man, tore us down...my man, is gonna pull us out. Sorry that's the way I see it. Having said that, I can also see everyone in this country participating on every level to help rebuild and reshape us. That means by all means continue what you're doing on you local level because it's just as important for the recovery of this nation. But I'm sorry mr j. blame must be made and Bush is the one to blame, I'm angry at a president that would do what he's done to his country and the people that live here (not to mention countless others in other lands). I do blame him and anyone who's actively supported him and his ways. But I'll get over it...and because I'm not a hateful person, I'll happily work side by side with anyone that wants to work with me to help in our nation's recovery.

jackie
xx

[katie]

and the best part is... you don't have to agree with him. you can dissent, you can disagree. you can work for change if you want. that is the beauty of america.

i thought your comment was in rather poor taste and i honestly couldn't tell at first if it was all jokey-jokey or if there was a modicum of truth behind it. you say you were joking, you apologized, so cool.

also, if you were so offended by the "blue states" parody letter (which was a clear gross over-generalization intended to be humorous), why then did you respond with the "red states" version? the blue version was full of statistics and issues with a dash of ribbing, whereas the red version was full of personal attacks and hardcore stereotypical bullshit. for someone who said this:

I'm bothered about people sneering about victory and making assumptions about how I feel about it, etc. To me it strikes me as funny, how one side of one's mouth talks about 'unity,' while the other side continues the same ol' divisive 'us vs. them' rhetoric.

i find it rather ironic. you responded to something you found offensive with something even more offensive in retaliation. if that isn't acting out of an us vs. them mindset, i don't know what is.

also: obama is NOT a socialist or a communist. he may not be a 100% total capitalist, but he is NOT a socialist. there's a difference between socialism or marxism and regulating capitalism so that the richest 5% doesn't exploit the other 95% to the point where the economy imploades. calling him a socialist, a communist, or a marxist is ridiculous propaganda, like a lot of the mccain campaign was, and it's preying on the fear that occurred in america with the mccarthyism. i really want our country to be past that.

and let it be known that the color of obama's skin had nothing to do with why i voted for him. just like the reason i didn't want hillary to win the primary had nothing to do with her being a woman. people oversimplify things because we like to label and put things in categories. obama = marxist, mccain = maverick, palin = washington outsider. if we just believe these things, it's easier to ignore the facts and not make a decision based on the actual issues. that's not directed at you specifically, mr. j, but the majority of people in the united states don't do their research and they just go with what they heard on fox news or on jon stewart. if people in general would delve further into it and make their own decisions without being sucked in by the spin of others, i think we'd be a better nation overall.

Not to worry, though, since we’re sure that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists will be more than happy to reach an accommodation with a society that embraces radical feminism, gay marriage, gun control, hostility to organized religion of any kind, and Salman Rushdie. Good luck with that.

PS: You can keep the marijuana. You're going to need it, since selling it is one of the last stable industries left in Blue counties.

and that is the last fucking straw. i suppose radical feminism includes allowing women to be paid the same amount for equal work? and don't you dare say that republicans did ANYTHING for women by the nomination of palin (who, by the way, killed mccain's campaign, give her a terrorist fist bump for me), because they picked an unqualified "hottie" bimbo in the #2 spot so that they can continue the stereotyping of females and keeping them in a subordinate position. i want to be treated equally. i don't want special treatment, i don't want anything more than men are already getting, i just want it to be FAIR. radical feminism my ass.

and really, i don't think you even want to get me started on gay marriage, but since you opened the can of worms, you get the slimy wiggle that goes along with that. i would be proud to live in a world where two people are given the right to choose their family (as roach rather eloquently put it last night, a statement that left me in tears), regardless of gender. you can talk about the sanctity of marriage all you want, but if britney spears can marry a man for 54 hours or a trash heap she'd known for three months, then i think my best friends at home who have been together for FIVE YEARS should be able to make the same committment to each other. they deserve the same rights and treatment as straight couples in the same situation. i don't see how anyone has the right to tell someone else who they can love, who they can share their life with, who can visit them in the hospital, who can have children, or any number of other rights that gays are denied simply because they love someone with the same parts.

i have NO hostility to you being part of an organized religion. i DO have hostility towards religion being an inherent part of politics and influencing political decisions. we are supposed to have freedom of religion here. if i choose to not have religion a part of my life, i feel i deserve to have that respected and not have someone else's religion shoved down my throat. i have had enough of that after 12 years of catholic school, thankyouverymuch. and honestly, i probably know more about the christian faith than most of the people who call themselves christians. (you wouldn't want to go up against me on jeopardy in the bible category.)

and i will never apologize for thinking whackjobs shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns. you shouldn't have the right to bear arms if you have proven that you cannot safely handle the responsibility. i'm personally against guns on almost every level, but it's in the constitution plain as day, and i'm not going to argue with that.

tl;dr: i'm proud to be from a "blue state," the home of john f. kennedy, a place where gays can get married, and where i can now smoke a joint without having it affect my ability to get a job or get into college or get financial aid.

and now i've spent too much time on writing this and am going to lay on the futon with my domestic partner.

[Phyllis]

that wasn't tl;dr. i read it all. well said, katay.

i don't like how feminism has such negative connotation. in my history class, our group is doing a presentation on the feminist movement, how it has evolved over the years and who are key members of the feminist movement, etc. when it was announced to the class what topic each group was doing, i noticed that when ours was announced a lot of people groaned.

like, what the hell. i guess when people think of feminists they picture hairy lesbians who hate men and want to take over the world or some shit.

[monet2u]

amen Katie.

This is where I was last night: a rally for Prop 8 and Gay Marriage. This is a civil rights issue and I predict that before this is over, this issue will be heard by the US Supreme court and with precedent (Brown vs. the Board of Education aka separate but equal, which we know doesn't work) we will see change throughout the country. So those right-wing religious zealots have screwed themselves this time. All we need to do is exercise a bit of patience while the legal system works.

[mr_j]

amen Katie.

This is where I was last night: a rally for Prop 8 and Gay Marriage. This is a civil rights issue and I predict that before this is over, this issue will be heard by the US Supreme court and with precedent (Brown vs. the Board of Education aka separate but equal, which we know doesn't work) we will see change throughout the country. So those right-wing religious zealots have screwed themselves this time. All we need to do is exercise a bit of patience while the legal system works.

Actually, the decisions rendered in Brown Vs. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 overturned the "separate but equal" ruling of Plessy vs. Ferguson; they were not the same thing at all.

I have a question, and I ask this in sincerity. I know you're a supporter for Gay Marriage. But when it's brought up to the popular vote, the people say "no," and vote it down. If Obama is elected, it's "the will of the people" and we should recognize that. If the people constantly vote down something like gay marriage, how come some say the people are "wrong" and their decisions must be overturned? Democracy doesn't work like that; it doesn't seem like it should be declared "broken" if someone doesn't get their way. (And yes, I heard a lot of 'democracy is broke' in 2004 when Bush was elected.)

Not trying to start a fight or anything--just wanting to understand another person's POV.

[aquaphase]

Well, Democracy is indeed broken. The percentage of "of-by-and-for-the-people" representatives shrinks with every election: national and local. We live in a theocratic oligarchy. If you have money and are a friend of jeebus then you have yourself an invitation bid to the "big league" draft where you, too can take your crack at hating fags and brown people for a living.

[mr_j]

Well, Democracy is indeed broken. The percentage of "of-by-and-for-the-people" representatives shrinks with every election: national and local. We live in a theocratic oligarchy. If you have money and are a friend of jeebus then you have yourself an invitation bid to the "big league" draft where you, too can take your crack at hating fags and brown people for a living.

ignoring the overgeneralizing statements, i can understand the POV if it were Texas...but California? i mean, i'm not understanding how it keeps getting shot down over and over....

[aquaphase]

Well, Democracy is indeed broken. The percentage of "of-by-and-for-the-people" representatives shrinks with every election: national and local. We live in a theocratic oligarchy. If you have money and are a friend of jeebus then you have yourself an invitation bid to the "big league" draft where you, too can take your crack at hating fags and brown people for a living.

ignoring the overgeneralizing statements, i can understand the POV if it were Texas...but California? i mean, i'm not understanding how it keeps getting shot down over and over....

uhh, you didn't read it correctly. and are a friend of jeebus. Poor religious people hate fags just as much as rich religious people, and are hella easy to scare into voting for things from the pulpit. Just reference Kevin Farrell and Kevin Vann.

[mr_j]

i guess i'm kind of in an oddball position when it comes to this issue--i don't support goverment sanctioning gay marriage..but understand, i also don't support goverment sanctioning heterosexual marriages, either. i don't think the goverment has that responsibility, and, frankly, i don't like the state's intrusion into what has long been a private, religious matter.

[aquaphase]

i guess i'm kind of in an oddball position when it comes to this issue--i don't support goverment sanctioning gay marriage..but understand, i also don't support goverment sanctioning heterosexual marriages, either. i don't think the goverment has that responsibility, and, frankly, i don't like the state's intrusion into what has long been a private, religious matter.

Does that mean we are non-religious, squeezle and I aren't "officially" married? Marriage is, historically, way more about the concepts of government than religion. Religion only entered into it when religion became governmental.

[mr_j]

i guess i'm kind of in an oddball position when it comes to this issue--i don't support goverment sanctioning gay marriage..but understand, i also don't support goverment sanctioning heterosexual marriages, either. i don't think the goverment has that responsibility, and, frankly, i don't like the state's intrusion into what has long been a private, religious matter.

Does that mean we are non-religious, squeezle and I aren't "officially" married? Marriage is, historically, way more about the concepts of government than religion. Religion only entered into it when religion became governmental.

no...that means that marriage is an individual right/choice, not the state's.

[aquaphase]

i guess i'm kind of in an oddball position when it comes to this issue--i don't support goverment sanctioning gay marriage..but understand, i also don't support goverment sanctioning heterosexual marriages, either. i don't think the goverment has that responsibility, and, frankly, i don't like the state's intrusion into what has long been a private, religious matter.

Does that mean we are non-religious, squeezle and I aren't "officially" married? Marriage is, historically, way more about the concepts of government than religion. Religion only entered into it when religion became governmental.

no...that means that marriage is an individual right/choice, not the state's.

gone libertarian on us?

[mr_j]

gone libertarian on us?

in some ways i have, yes. but politics is such a fuzzy grey area.

[monet2u]

it's never ok to deny someone something that a large portion of the population is allowed. People being married doesn't hurt or impact anyone else...gay or not gay. It's a simple fact. If someone tells me I cannot do something because of my race because they don't want me to do it because they think it's wrong, evil etc., that is purely discrimination. I see this issue exactly the same.

If someone decides to get married in the church then that is a religious act (of sorts) however, many many many people decide to just have a civil ceremony at their local courthouse etc. Marriage in this country also means that proverbial "piece of paper" and that "piece of paper" doesn't come from your church it comes from your government. Therefore our government should NOT DISCRIMINATE! If your church wants to deny someone basic rights, then I don't feel they're very christian. It's the separation of church and state. It is the responsibility of State to ensure equality.