Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
My mom went to the same high school as Wayne Gretzky (major hockey player) for a couple years. It wasn't a big school, but she never met him or talked to him or anything. Not because of any bias or anything, just because their social circles didn't overlap.
My cousin was in some classes with Ben Barnes (Prince Caspian in the Narnia movies) in university. They never talked, because they had different social circles.
A school or university is usually big enough that there is a legitimate chance that two people or two groups of people might never interact beyond purely superficial niceties. Also, the people interviewed may have seen him, but have no memory of it. Unless he was specifically pointed out, they would most likely have just though of Obama as some black guy and put absolutely not more thought to it.
edited 15th Mar '13 9:27:35 AM by Zendervai
Why do I have the sinking feeling that the Republican Far Right are going to lambaste Portman for not disowning his son...
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
"How dare you not hate your son for not being the perfect stereotypical Republican kid." It's stories like this that make it really clear how some politicians don't care if they're ruining things that are harmless at the very least and making people miserable.
And good for Portman.
Seriously, I'm starting to think the Tea party republicans were replaced by badly programmed robots or something.
edited 15th Mar '13 10:50:24 AM by Zendervai
To throw Burress a bone, I do think it's pretty hypocritical to support a given position up until it affects you personally, and then reverse position.
But I guess a cynical victory is still a victory, and we're not so progressive as a society that we can afford to be above taking whatever we can get.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Yeah but if you change your opinion of what is right and what is wrong based on new information you shouldn't be lambasted for that. If you think the information is bad or you think your only doing it to appease the majority even if you the person doesn't really agree than that can be different.
edited 15th Mar '13 11:01:15 AM by Wildcard
Well done Marc. And yes, you can change your mind on moral questions. I posit you can't be a rational human being without allowing for change in moral positions.
But suddenly calling a morally thing right or wrong because a certain person does or doesn't do it is a fallacy. Morality knows no preference of people, therefore who's doing what is irrelevant to the question of is this right or wrong.
If my son got a divorce, I'd love him dearly, but I'd still think him wrong for divorcing.
It was an honorPerhaps more empathy with a certain group or action would help people see it in a different light. To flip your example around a bit what if it was you Maxima? If your married life turned out to be miserable and even after you tried you couldn't find it within yourselves to love each other anymore would you find it immoral for one of you to divorce?
This kind of reminds me of when the Great Stink caused Parliament to build a sewer system in London, because the stink was actually getting into the Parliament building. London needed a sewer system, but I'm not giving the Parliament of the time any credit either; they were acting for purely selfish (and not even political-selfish) motives.
This is pretty much the same thing; a politician jumping positions because, suddenly, homosexuality affects him personally. Thank you for being enlightened, but don't expect any kudos, Mr. Portman.
Frankly, it tells me that he never held his anti-gay position all that strongly. I mean, I'd be willing to consider the idea that he had a personal moral epiphany, but I'm skeptical of those sorts of things from politicians.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"How much of the Republican Party is represented by people who think "whatever, I don't really care about gays, but hell if I'll tell the primary voters that", I wonder?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.You mean the ones who adopt their positions from expediency rather than belief? Hard to say, but I'd wager more than a few.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm not sure what you're going on about. I'm just thinking, if someone realizes that his party's dogma could be wrong, maybe he shouldn't be with that party anymore.
Oh, and by the way, I was not morally opposed to gays. My position was arguably more horrible. But my past opinion is hardly related.
I'm with Karkadinn and Hodor. I mean, yes, it's great this guy has come around to being pro-gay rights, but... he says that it's because he put himself in their shoes, so to speak, and I'm just thinking "why did you not do that before your son came out as gay?"
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryWhile I'm glad it's one less politician who has to be fought with over gay rights, I can't exactly say why he changed his mind is particularly admirable.
It's one thing to revise ones position based on new information, discussion and reflection.
It's different when you refuse to consider the opposing side of an issue until it's your problem. The person who laughed at the homeless until the got themselves an eviction notice isn't a particularly good person in my eyes.
I think it's more saddening than anything. How many problems do people ignore, go unaddressed, view points unconsidered, people ignored until it comes to their doorstep?
It's just as dubious as the Republicans who are suddenly oh so sympathetic toward immigrants, blacks and the poor...now that they're seeing they can't maintain power without them.
Yeah but he still could've gone to a gay rights group and asked one of them.
It reminds me of Mitt Romney and how he told a lesbian family "I didn't know you people had families."
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryYeah it's possible that he did come round due to new information, it's jsut that he never had access to that information until his son came out. Starship I think you've often made the argument that if people realised how badly gays are oppressed then many of them would flip their position, to me this looks like exactly that. He didn't actually realise what banning gays from getting married meant until his son came out, then he finally understood what it meant and realised that it was wrong.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
He's a senator. I find it hard to believe that he never had a conversation/email/letter/phone call with a pro-LBGT constituent or never talked about the potential harm of banning gay marriage with a lobbyist. I find it hard to believe access to information was the problem.
He has no excuse to be ignorant. Part of his job is being well educated on how things effect his constituents. And this is the information age. Anyone with internet access can find out very easily about the problems any group faces. I can only assume that the problem was not access to information, but willingness to hear it.
Well I believe that's exactly what happened Silasw. I'm simply saying that while it's tempting to accept all the views and deeds of those we love and care about, we can't be intellectually honest if we do so.
And to answer a question a few posts up, yes, if I got a divorce it would still be wrong. I've been "the other woman" in an affair. It was wrong. It was wrong and there's nothing I can do to undo what I did.
I'd like to think that doesn't make me a card-carrying dog rapist, but it does mean I was a whore, and no matter unpalatable that truth is, it's the truth I have to live with.
NOTE: I am NOT trying to draw a parallel between gays and whores.
Not quite true Confuse. Education, intelligence, and station don't guarantee knowledge. Sometimes they work against you.
Partly because I lived in NYC where being gay is actually considered....trendy, for lack of a better word, I had no idea just how rough life as a gay could be.
edited 15th Mar '13 12:37:20 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor

Thought I'd post this here since it annoyed me, especially because I would have thought the paper was better than this kind of thing.
I read this story from Haaretz (a left-leaning Israeli paper) where Israelis who were at Columbia during the same period as he was are interviewed to the effect that none of them have any recollection of ever meeting him/seeing him there (I think the article was published in relation to Obama visiting Israel).
One person does concede that in Obama's "defense", it was hard being one of the few black (or Israeli) students there at the time, so maybe he was just secluded.
Still though, without saying it outright, the article seems to be advancing that stupid conspiracy theory (is there any other kind?) that Obama didn't actually attend Columbia. Or at best, encouraging readers to draw conclusions about how this proves something about his feelings toward Israel/Jews because of the fact that he wasn't friends with the people interviewed for the article.
edited 15th Mar '13 9:05:51 AM by Hodor
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki