No one who works actively to limit anyone's human/civil rights should be part of the Obama team.

[uppityperson]

I've been trying to stay out of this, since I feel I have little to offer beond that, but now am making my offering. That is my opinion, take it for only that.


edited to add that my language may not be exact enough. Civil Rights are those afforded to all, not dependent upon color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or none, and I consider those to be universal rights. Again, my language may not be specific enough, so feel free to blast me and tell my why a word is worng.

[IndianaJones]

1. limiting civil rights is a legitimate viewpoint. give the guy a chance. nt.

[polichick]

2. LOL

[IndianaJones]

3. if we can't find common ground with bigots, who can we find it with? nt.

[polichick]

5. Really, it's THAT absurd. :)

[uppityperson]

7. got the point.

edited to delete question. I thought it was sarcasm, but sometimes can't tell. thanks all for the clarification.

[last1standing]

10. I'll jump in and say that he was just making a sarcastic comment that agreed with yours.

It's been hard on us in the GLBT community lately. We are getting a little morose.

[uppityperson]

15. Thanks, after replying, edited because I thought so but wasn't sure.

as I said, been reading some, but skimming a lot. thank you. I can understand why it is getting a bit much. Sometimes I don't understand a lot of people.

[scarletwoman]

12. I believe the two posters are engaging in a bit of satire -- they support your point of view.

As do I, btw.

sw

[polichick]

14. Absolutely!

[uppityperson]

4. Limiting civil rights is not a legitimate viewpoint. I am and will give him a chance since what else

can I do? I support Obama but feel he fucked up on this choice. Limiting Civil Rights is NOT legitimate.

editing to add, I have not read a lot, been skimming, so maybe I missed the sarcasm there.

[shadowknows69]

11. Why are you trying to start a flame war in the thread of a member who agrees with you?

[IndianaJones]

18. yeah...what a flame war. bwaaahahaha. nt.

[uppityperson]

20. booboohead

:rofl: No problem. However, if you meant it, then I would have blasted you (dang, gust of wind just blew a whole bunch of snow past my window)

[justaregularperson]

6. I don't think anyone disagrees with you on this board

[jody]

8. I agree completely and the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is a basic civil right. n/t

[uppityperson]

9. Don't you mean Constitutional Right? there is a difference.

[jody]

13. No, I mean civil right, e.g., when a person's civil rights are restored after losing them because of

a felony conviction, the right to keep and bear arms is included unless there is a specific exclusion.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. Thank you. I totally agree. You've expressed it perfectly! nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. K & R! nt

[Political Heretic]

19. As far as I know, no one fitting that description is part of the Obama team.

I understand your meaning, and I don't really mean to diminish it. But I do think its important to be clear that Warren isn't accepting a position in this administration - he's giving a two minute prayer. It's still a mistake, I understand that - though I haven't been making good enough point to make that clear every time I write. But in the scope of things its mostly very hurtful symbol, but not impacting on policy.

To make sure policy is impacted, we need to continue riding Obama's ass. HRC has a list of things that could easily be done in the first 100 days and they should be done. You can sign the petition there too.

[uppityperson]

21. I went back and forth on what descriptive word to use, and decided on "team"

"administration" would work, but I meant more than just that. Of course no one on his administration should, but even beyond that. "team" means the whole kit and kaboodle.

And of course Obama will need and needs continuing input from the people he represents, us.

[jody]

22. I believe Rahm Emanuel supports banning firearms and RKBA is a civil right. n/t

[Political Heretic]

23. No, he doesn't support repealing the 2nd amendment if that's what you mean.

The supreme court, which the constitution decrease is the final authority on interpreting the constitution, has already ruled - more than ones - that the government may establish reasonable regulations on arms. So depending on what he advocated, it would not be a civil rights violation.

[jody]

24. Check On The Issues re Rahm Emanuel link below for his anti-RKBA actions.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Rahm_Emanuel.htm#Gun_Control

[Political Heretic]

25. None of those votes are constitutional issues, as already clarified by the SC.

His votes don't have to do with taking away the second amendment. Regulation of the sale and use of firearms has already been determined to be constitutional - a couple of times - by the USSC. Individual laws obviously will need to continue to be clarified, like the DC handgun ban which the SC said went too far by blanket banning all guns. But voting against bans on suing companies has nothing to do with banning a right to bear arms.

[jody]

26. Sorry but he supported the ban of handguns for self-defense. You can spin all you wish but the facts

speak for them self.

Have a nice day.