EVERYBODY Gets a seat at the table

[WeDidIt]

I noticed that Rick Warren's seat is right there up front at the adult's table.

So why the fuck am I being shuffled into the other room for my seat at the kids table?

[DebJ]

1. I think Obama will come out strong for GLBT rights, in ACTIONS

that matter, and will make change. And then none of this will matter.

[WeDidIt]

2. I don't n/t

[DebJ]

3. There seems a similarity to me in this with the issue of talking to

leaders of countries like Iran and Cuba and North Korea.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. I guess we will have to see about that too.

[chascarrillo]

9. So why didn't Obama select Ahmadinejad to give the invocation?

[stillcool]

11. I don't think he has a big following..

amongst the religious right.

[jonnyblitz]

37. I don't think he will either. nt

[thewiseguy]

60. These I think, I bet you, I am certain posts do not do any good

Obama has fucked up. He needs to fix this quick.

[katandmoon]

62. I don't. He won't rock the boat or piss off conservatives -- and it's started already

[madmadmad]

70. LIKE THIS ACTION? PLEASE. HIS ACTIONS HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN MUCH LOUDER THAN HIS WORDS.

[Marrah_G]

74. I'm not going to hold my breath

I am hoping he perform far better in other aspects of his presidency.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. The progressive left liberal democratic wing of the democratic party

is not mature enough to occupy a seat at the table. The grownups, the ones who have wrecked the planet, bankrupted the nation, the ones who would create a theocracy out of a secular republic, the ones who would deny basic human rights to entire classes of people, the ones hopelessly stuck with biblical and/or economic fundamentalist ideologies divorced from reality, those are the people who deserve seats at the table.

It is all about appearances and inclusion. We appear to be not included.

[RichGirl]

7. boo hoo

[kath]

66. "the ones who would create a theocracy out of a secular republic" -speaking of which, did y'all know

that Warren is a Dominionist, in addition to being a homophobic misogynistic asshole:
http://dogemperor.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/18/2226748-rick-warrens-dirty-dominionist-secrets
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4686419


a 2006 article:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/1/112441/6431

LOVELY...

[RichGirl]

6. Contemplate the meaning of...

UNITY for a long time, until you "get it". When you wake up and grow up you'll choose to sit at the adults table.

[mondo joe]

8. Oooh, "Unity"?

Where is Rick Warren's unity?

[stillcool]

13. His 'unity' is the religious right, isn't it?

[WeDidIt]

14. His Unity is "agree with me or you;re just an incestuous, polygamist, pedophile." n/t

[RichGirl]

24. And you are...

...agree with me or you can't be part of this administration or inauguration...etc.

[WeDidIt]

35. When it comes to basic human rights

you bet your sweet ass I am.

There can be no compromise in the cause for basic human rights.

None.

[katsy]

54. RichGirl, if someone and his flock happen 2 B working to

annul your marriage to your spouse... they are working to deny you your basic human rights.

You would not be okay with that. I would not be okay with that. Why would anyone defend this position?

This isn't a childish game like you are portrying it 2 B.

[stillcool]

34. Isn't that the 'religious right'?

[RichGirl]

19. No...that would be YOU....

you're unity is the liberal left. He's willing to be amonst those who disagree with him.

[mondo joe]

23. One more thing: Where is the racist invocation? They're part of America too, right?

[Liberal Veteran]

25. Where's the Muslim invocation and the Raelian invocation.

I thought silly season was back during the primaries.

[mondo joe]

27. Don't know. Where are they?

[JohnnieGordon]

40. Consistency isn't "silly" it's FAIRNESS

You know damn well no avowed racist would ever give the invocation at an Inaugural. Even the Republicans couldn't get away with that.

[Liberal Veteran]

42. And Billy Graham was a beacon of tolerance?

Selective outrage is a fascinating thing.

[JohnnieGordon]

43. Did he campaign and raise money in opposition to civil rights?

And your interior comment right back atcha.

[RichGirl]

28. That's the beauty of having Rick Warren....

You have all those evil factions rolled up in one person. With one person, Obama could check off a lot of catagories of AMERICAN CITIZENS that needed to be brought in.

[mondo joe]

31. What's Rick Warren's racist stance?

[stillcool]

32. I don't wear a label...

my unity is with the human race.

[madmadmad]

72. NO BIGOTS SHOULD BE GIVEN A SEAT AT ANY TABLE. THAT'S NOT UNITY, THAT DIVISION.

ENCOURAGING THE PERSECUTION OF LESBIANS AND GAY MEN IS NOT UNITY. WOULD A KLAN MEMBER BE AN APPROPRIATE SPEAKER? A MUSLIM WHO ESPOUSES THE KILLING OF JEWS? A CRAZY FUNDIE WHO ADVOCATES KILLING DOCTORS WHO PERFORM ABORTIONS?

WHAT ABOUT THIS DO YOU NOT GET?

SADLY, I THINK YOU GET IT ALL TOO WELL, RICHGIRL- GAY RIGHTS AREN'T YOUR ISSUE, SO YOU JUST DON'T GIVE A FUCK. NEVER FEAR THOUGH, IF OBAMA IS WILLING TO THROW US GAYS UNDER THE BUS BEFORE HE'S EVEN IN OFFICE, I GUARANTEE HE'LL EVENTUALLY DO THE SAME WITH A CAUSE YOU ACTUALLY DO BELIEVE IN.

[avaistheone1]

75. Having a seat at the table does NOT equal having a postion of honor and history at the inauguration.

Warren certainly could be made a member of some government committee or task force, but he has done nothing to deserve a position of honor at the inauguration.

[RichGirl]

16. Glad you asked....

When he was asked to speak...he didn't say...:"No way, I won't say prayers for a bunch of liberals who believe in pro-choice and gay marriage, I will only pray for those who think and believe EXACTLY what I do!" I disagree with him on every point...but he obviously, understands inclusion and that unity is NOT exclusion.

If liberal/progressives hadn't of started whining from day one about the Clinton picks and every pick that followed, I would be more sympathetic. But it's getting really old and tiresome. I listened to Obama for four years, read both is books and understood his running theme was UNITY. How did you all think he would accomplish that. What do you think he meant when he said "no blue states or red states...but the United States? What did you think he meant when he said that he couldn't do it alone, WE had to do it. Who is the WE...just liberals and progressives???? Our reward for our support and work was election night. Anyone who thinks he's suppose to spend eight years kissing our asses heard something that I must have missed.

Obama has huge problems ahead of him that will require huge solutions. He needs as many people as possible ON HIS SIDE. THAT is what he is doing now...bringing people in. My own republican friends and family have softened toward him because of the Warren pick. Anyone who feels that their face has been slapped is experiencing a self-inflicted wound that you can heal as soon as you put your own ego aside and look at the big picture.

One of the reasons a lot of us voted for Obama was his good judgement. Now so many of you seem to think that your judgement is so much better. Hey...that's great. But, instead of wasting you genius qualities whining on a daily basis, get out their and start fundraising so that YOU CAN RUN FOR PRESIDENT!

[WeDidIt]

18. No, he doesn't understand unity at all

Unuity to this bigotted bastard is EXCLUDING p[eople from his own fucked up church based upon whom they love.

[Liberal Veteran]

22. Generally speaking, except for the Unitarians, ALL CHURCHES EXCLUDE....

....in one form or another.

It's only been that way for several thousand years.

[Bluenorthwest]

69. Except that none of that is true

Tons of chruchs are inclusive. The Methodists up my street. The Episcopals I visit in MI. Lots of them are not excluding anyone.
And 'several thousand years'? The entire history of the church is less than two thousand.

[RichGirl]

33. He excludes people...

and you want to exclude people. Two sides of the same coin. Obama doesn't exclude any one, even the excluders.

[mondo joe]

20. But if he's showing UNITY how is it he's also seeking to disenfranchise a segment

of the population, and slandering them to boot?

Is that UNITY?

[RichGirl]

38. This isn't about Rick Warren...

it's about Obama. Obama is all inclusive and excludes NO ONE. You are doing exactly what the republicans did during the election with Ayres. Obama knew Ayres = Obama agrees with Ayres. Obama knows Rick Warren = Obama agrees with Rick Warren.

Warren is an intolerant bigot....Obama IS NOT. He is not even intolerant of the intolerant bigots.

[mondo joe]

39. "Obama is all inclusive and excludes NO ONE."

Well that's not really true, is it?

Where are the out racists he's inviting to participate in the inauguration?

[chascarrillo]

10. Hey, you're the one that's saying you wanted to be united with bigots, not me.

[WeDidIt]

12. Great "Unity" there.

If you're on Rick Warren's bad side, your an incestuous, polygamist, child molester.

Very unifying message there.

[RichGirl]

46. Here's the thing....

I don't give a fuck about Warren and have no desire to be on his good side or bad side...he's a non-entity to me. Practically all the democrats I know who supported, worked for, and voted for Obama...are asking "who is Rick Warren". They aren't political junkies having a hemorage over this stuff. They mostly think that having a minister say a prayer is a meaningless formality that seems to please some people so it doesn't matter to them who the minister is.

It's simple: If you are a person who thinks it is really important to have a minister say a prayer, then you are probably pleased with Rick Warren. If you don't think a minister is necessary, then...WHO CARES!!!

[katsy]

17. Unity. Like the kind of...

"unity" that denies our fellow human their basic human rights?

Am I awake enough now to "get" what the fuck this is about?

[mondo joe]

21. Notice, it's always the gays who are supposed to suck it up for UNITY. Where's the racist

invocation?

[katsy]

48. No one should have to suck it up when it comes to human rights.

"Unity" is a meaningless word when used to deny any person their human rights. Be they black, hispanic, athiest, gay, the powers to be see fit to chop us peons up into little manageable, defeatable little bits. I'm outraged whenever human rights are to be denied a group of people.

FYI - I'm not gay. I just hate these authoritarian fuckers to death when they unite to deny people basic human rights.

[RichGirl]

49. Obama does not deny anyone their basic human rights.

He denies no one the right to have their own beliefs and opinions regardless of how wrong he may think they are. An Inauguration belongs to all Americans. Obama would not exclude those Americans he disagrees with.

Imagine that McCain Palin won. Let's say that they only picked people in their administration that were like-minded, only had people at the inauguration that were pro-choice, anti-gay marriage, etc. Would that be the right thing to do? The Bush republicans took over the country, owned the flag and patriotism. Are you suggesting that now that we won, we should do the same thing????

If you exclude people that have different beliefs and opinions than you, you are still asleep to the concept of unity.

They exclude, you exclude, what's the difference?

[katsy]

53. "They exclude, you exclude, what's the difference?"

The difference is that I don't seek to deny warren and his fucking groupies any of the human rights we all enjoy.

I just don't feel it appropriate that he and his perverted, divisive opinions are given a voice at the people's inaguration.

This is a great resume booster for warren... it legitimizes his message in a big way. He's giving the fucking invocation at Obama's inauguration. That is not some insignificant event.

And YES - now that WE won, I do expect that all human rights will be respected for all human beings bar none. I expected a liberal pastor, with a message of love and goodness, to give the invocation.

I expected that Obama would meet with conservatives like warren to discuss whatever it is they wish at some other time. I don't expect him to represent only Democrats or liberals or progressives. I just expected better of Obama than this slapping millions of feminists and gays in the face at the inauguration.

[mondo joe]

55. Other than that marriage right. NT

[Cronus Protagonist]

67. UNITY is another word for FASCISM

Particularly because it's always someone else's version of UNITY that's supposed to be supported.

[Liberal Veteran]

15. So let's recap

Couple of minute invocation > Appointment to an important position in the administration

I wish you give me a list of exchange rates on these things so I'll know when I should be properly outraged.

[WeDidIt]

26. Do tell

I had no idea I was appointed to an important position in the administration.

Will Obama call me before he makes this announcement I am unaware of?

[Liberal Veteran]

29. Oh, now I get it. This is a personal slight against YOU.

YOU personally weren't invited to speak at the inauguration so you are pissed.

Glad we cleared that up.

[WeDidIt]

30. Actuall, it's a personal slight against several million people

who worked hard for, donated to, and phone banked for Obama.

[Liberal Veteran]

36. Well please don't speak on my behalf. You don't have that right.

And I haven't ceded it to you.

My hubby and I worry about more important things than who casts the magical opening spell at a public spectacle.

[WeDidIt]

41. I'm not speakign for you, you obviously could give a shit about the issue

But make no mistake, this was a direct slap in the face to millions of supporters.

[Liberal Veteran]

44. And who ceded you the right to speak on behalf of millions?

[WeDidIt]

45. The fact that these people are already saying the same thing I am.

Pick up a newspaper. Lots of people are very pissed off about this. Literally millions of GLBT people and hetrerosexual people who support GLBT people being recognized as human beings feel betrayed.

[Liberal Veteran]

47. I see. Well then for the millions of people who don't really give a shit about this....

.....and think that raising a big stink over something that is going to have zero impact on your life, I'd like to say, if you want to wallow in outrage, do it to your heart's content, but don't expect me to have your back on this.

I'll save my energy and passion for things that really matter.

(And yes, I hereby appoint myself the speaker for those who think this is much ado about nothing)

[crappyjazz]

50. Rick Warren was part of a huge movement that DID impact on people's lives

I realize it may be an inconvenient truth for some, but it is still the truth.

[Liberal Veteran]

51. I'm more concerned about who will be driving policy than who casts the magic inauguration spell.

.....which I'm pretty sure Warren won't be doing that either.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that Obama is going to swear an oath on the Bible which has been historically used to oppress people.

Should I raise a big stink about that?

[crappyjazz]

58. It's up to you to be concerned about whatever you want to be concerned about

Raise a stink about whatever you want

I'll do the same.

[RichGirl]

52. "Appointment to an important position in the administration"

So apparently you have run out of things to whine and complain about...you are now pulling stuff out of your ass to get worked up over. Why not just start banging your head against the wall...it's the same thing.

[Liberal Veteran]

56. That's how I see it. I can disapprove without making a huge stink.

I don't like Warren, but in the final analysis, in a few weeks time, I think many will realize just how unimportant this dubious honor really was.

[AZBlue]

57. Well, you were offered a seat at the adult's table but you wouldn't sit there unless everyone else

at it thought 100% exactly like you do.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

59. Win.

:thumbsup:

[WeDidIt]

71. Bullshit

I was cast aside in favor of somebody who wants me dead.

[AZBlue]

76. You weren't cast aside for anyone. You threw a temper tantrum and stomped off

to the children's table. Your seat at the adult's table is actually still waiting for you if you want to act mature and take it now.

And please supply me with a quote that Rick Warren wants you dead. I'm honestly asking here - I'm not a fan of Warren at all but I've seen quite a few "quotes" from him on DU lately that no one can seem to back up. Now, if he did indeed say that, I'd like to know, I really would. And if he didn't say that and you can't provide a quote/link, I'd rather that we stick to facts.

[Yotun]

61. Why can some people just not fucking see it!!!

Just imagine for a second that the person at Warren's place was:
- a member of the KKK
- a neo-nazi white supremacist
- an anti-Semite


Would there be outrage or not? Isn't the ONLY difference the fact that the groups that Warren attacks the rights of apparently less important for mainstream America?

It's not a case of 'Obama doesn't agree with his positions, but he is inclusive'.

Don't you fucking get, that its the inclusiveness argument that is WHY you must be against this?

Obama says he is willing to talk with people he disagrees and be inclusive. By including Warren in the list, he is LEGITIMIZING his form of discrimination, by saying that we can be inclusive about it, that it is something we may disagree with but is a legitimate position to hold, and one that we could talk about or discuss.

He is NOT treating Warrens view as an absolute negative as he should, and as they are. He is legitimizing him by treating him as the equal of people with VALID differences in opinion.

We are not 'inclusive' of murderers. We are not 'inclusive' of child molesters. We put them in jail for violating the fundamental human right to life! We also shun racists, neo-nazis and other similar scum who want to remove fundamental rights to equality. In many cases we legally bar them from holding state positions. There are laws that prohibit white-supremacists for example from entering the armed services. We consider that kind of discimination to be so absolutely wrong, that we have laws against it. No president would allow one such to speak for him, or at an event dedicated to him. No president would ever say that their views are legitimate enough to be 'included' in the public discourse. A president is inclusive, and listening to everybody, on issues that everybody has a legitimate point of view. In cases that involve absolutes, you do not listen to people who want to take away fundamental human rights.

Why is it so fucking hard for people to understand?

Just answer this simple question:

-Would you allow a KKK member to have Warren's place? If your answer is no, what legitimate difference do you find between this scenario and Warren's? Is it just for cheap political gain, because there are fundies out there who value that sort of opinion? If that is so, then can you not see that the reason why minority protection is so important is EXACTLY so that they are not made the victims of political games and the dictatorship of the majority? If Obama really wants to cater to the tyranny of the majority for political gain, it means he has a view on politics that directly contradicts the logic of having fundamental human rights in the first place.

And secondly, do you ever think for a second that the people who would value Warren's views are EVER going to vote for Obama anyway?

[QC]

63. They don't "get it" because getting it would inspire some serious cognitive dissidence. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

64. Apparently there's greater evil and lesser evil in their minds. Nazis = Greater evil, Warren =Lesser

if even that. Some, I suppose, don't see his views as an evil at all. And that's just sad. x(

[polichick]

65. They don't want to see it. After the last 8 years, there's a great need...

...to believe in a savior. Instead, we got a regular human being who makes mistakes.

[LibraLiz1973]

68. If everyone gets a seat, where is David Duke?

Seriously. This is insane.

[cooolandrew]

73. To my mind he doesn't have to convince us that he is president but he does them and >

I wouldn't expect kumbyah but I at least would be happy with their side acknowledging he is president and let's all work in those terms at the very least. Most of the Republican party have done things we don't agree with but I'm sure lots will be there too as it's a national day not a Democratic day. Nothing I am saying on Rick is in anyway an attempt to try and upset people it's just a point of view take it or leave it that he is just there as an American that day not to promoate anything other. I know there are hard feelings at there but it take one side being the better erson to mend fences even if just a few fances.

First and foremost Barack is a father and if having Rick there improves their security and his own then by god I am for it. Plain and simple.