Barack Obama should be forced to apologize for his incest crack.

[BuyingThyme]

That is all.

[hlthe2b]

1. WTF?

Geez.... I spend half a day at work and apparently missed the apocalypse. :wtf:

[BuyingThyme]

2. His Justice Department legally equated gay marriage and incest.

[Deja Q]

8. Link?

[BuyingThyme]

11. ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5834759&mesg_id=5834759

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. He didn't.

A lawyer in the case cited a case involving incest as precedent.

Claiming Obama compares incest with gay marriage is the worst, most immature sort of intellectual dishonesty.

[BuyingThyme]

47. It's simple truth.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. Not at all.

If I'm in court over an insurance claim over a car crash and I cite as precedent a case involving a team of circus midgets setting fire to an elephant, I am not actually comparing a car crash to circus midgets setting fire to an elephant, I'm only comparing legal arguments used therein.

This is not a difficult issue to understand, and I doubt any fully functioning adult human being would be unable to understand it, unless they're doing so intentionally for malicious purposes.

[BuyingThyme]

55. Why can't you stick to the issue at hand?

Do you not understand that most of your posts are aimed at running away from the facts?

From global warming to circus midgets? Wow!

[konnichi wa]

77. Yeah, well "I got mine so fuck you" is pretty easy to grasp too.

:shrug:

[Maru Kitteh]

80. It's simple alright - but it's quite far from the truth.

[struggle4progress]

86. The word "incest" does not seem to occur in the brief -- which Obama did not write

[havocmom]

90. Don't go spoutin facts

Gets in the way of the story. :banghead:

[dionysus]

3. the DOJ refused to hear a DOMA case, and there was a shitty brief that somehow compared being

gay with incest...

everyone is acting as if obama personally wrote the brief.

the end.

[BuyingThyme]

5. Whether he wrote it, approved it, or wore it as a hat, he's the one who needs to apologize.

[Bluebear]

6. 'everyone is acting as if obama personally wrote the brief.' - that seems to bother you

far, far more than the actual brief. Why?

[dionysus]

10. the ruling bothers me. as you know from the other thread, i question if he has the power to make

the guys writing these briefs do what he wants.

some in the thread think he does, some think he doesn't.

what bothers me isn't that people are angry, but that it was instanly blamed on obam as if he were behind the decision. i'm not flaming anyone.

[joeybee12]

17. The Buck Stops Here...

...Bush was at fault for what his FEMA did (rather, didn't) do...when you're president you take responsibility.

[Luminous Animal]

20. "Obama's DOJ"

Would that make you happy?

[BuyingThyme]

27. He's the chief executive officer. This is what his job REALLY is.

(Not fighting terrorism.)

[Luminous Animal]

9. Tony West, Obama appointee wrote it.

Matt Miller, Obama appointee and DOJ spokesperson defends it.

[nichomachus]

35. The lead counsel on the case is a Mormon -- so what do you expect?

Next up -- white supremacist to handle affirmative action case.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. Ironic that you'd bring up white supremacy.

Because your comment is strikingly similar to Wright's comment about Jews keeping him from Obama.

[nichomachus]

67. Not at all. And your comparison is offensive

One of the stated missions of the Mormon church is to destroy gay marriage. This guy is an uber Mormon -- even has a web site flogging the cult and its bizarre beliefs.

There is no evidence that Jews kept Wright from Obama, but there is plenty of evidence that (a) Simpson is a prominent Mormon and (b) that the Mormons have declared war against the GLBT community.,

So, besides being offensive, your comment is just stupid.

[hlthe2b]

16. Ahhh... . Thank you for the explanation.

[nichomachus]

42. Sorry, kiddo, it's his administration

He doesn't personally write about -- oh, 100% -- of the stuff that goes out in his name. So, this dodge is not only old, it's weak.

[vaberella]

56. Are you sure? Everyone is saying that Obama lawyers defended DOMA

by using incest.

Dionysus could you make a thread like this on the Presidential section. I don't get the case and I don't know what to believe.

[Bluebear]

62. The brief argues that incest and marrying children are also not "public policy" for marriage

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.

[vaberella]

68. Thanks. n/t

[nosmokes]

4. link?

[BuyingThyme]

12. ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5834759&mesg_id=5834759

[Deja Q]

7. WTFF? Explain your belief or everybody alert this allegation until it gets deleted.

That is all.

[BuyingThyme]

13. I'll take the alert option.

[Cant trust em]

14. Is that "What the Fucking Fuck"?

Any time you can add in an extra F-Bomb it has my blessing. :)

[Bluebear]

22. Brief argues that incest and marrying children are also not "public policy" for marriage:

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.

[Catherine Vincent]

15. Explain yourself, Spongey!

When did President Obama make this crack?

[dionysus]

21. he didn't, he's refering to language in a DOJ court brief

[BuyingThyme]

24. In his hateful legal briefs on gay marriage.

Strange how so many people have read my post, but ignored all the others.

Edited "Supreme Court."

[Catherine Vincent]

45. Ignored what others?

I haven't been paying attention to any Supreme Court briefs.

[BuyingThyme]

61. Sorry. Fixed that.

[earth mom]

18. Whoa! This shit is going from bad to worse!

:wow:

[BuyingThyme]

28. Do you not think an apology would be appropriate?

I think it's a requirement.

[earth mom]

38. I agree with you. I just can't believe how bad things are getting-across the board with the O admin

Just when you think things can't get any worse...they do.

[WeDidIt]

19. It is WRONG for the president to interfere in the filings of the DOJ

It was a DOJ briefing.

Ya'll are so used to Bush violating ethics when it came to the DOJ that ya'll expect Obama to do the same.

The DOJ MUST operate without undo influence from the president.

So Obama had nothing to do with the brief, as it should be.

Holder, on the other hand, SHOULD apologize for it.

[dionysus]

23. well, most of the people here thinks he can dictate what the DOJ does, we seem to be in the

minority in this opinion...

[Bluebear]

25. We all expect that the DOJ is Obama's own department and we all think Obama should be in charge

[Luminous Animal]

26. It is Obama's DOJ.

The DOJ is part of the executive branch. Obama owns this.

Holder won't apologize but rather he sent his PR flack Matt Miller (Obama appointee) to defend the brief.

[WeDidIt]

29. The DOJ is supposed to be autonomous

Nixon fucked with that.

Bush fucked with it even more.

Obama has let it be autonomous again.

[BuyingThyme]

30. Why would Obama's apology threaten autonomy?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. If it's autonomous, what should he apologize for?

[BuyingThyme]

36. For his administration's open support for hate?

[Zynx]

37. Well that was a circular argument.

[BuyingThyme]

43. You're confusing circular with blatant.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. It's a blatant argument?

Actually, no.

It was a non sequitor.

[BuyingThyme]

50. Like global warming?

You're killing yourself here.

[jgraz]

33. And who appointed the head of the DOJ?

If Obama appointed an AG who agrees with this shit, he' got some 'splainin to do.

[vaberella]

72. Well would you say the same about the Supreme Court?

You know Obama is appointing Sotomayor---her words were found to be racist (by fools) so then Obama is to blame for her actions.

If she tries a case and it is not up to par with your views---so we will hold everything the Supreme Court as a slight on Obama because they are under his admin. If the Supreme Court is autonomous, no matter whom a President appoints does not reflect on him overall. It reflects on the decision of the DOJ.

Is the president even briefed on EVERY single case the DOJ is arguing?

[jgraz]

79. Really bad analogy.

The fact that race-baiters called Sotomayor a racist has nothing to do with anything.

Here we have the Obama DOJ supporting a far-right anti-gay argument. If this came before Sotomayor and she sided with this hateful argument, you're damn right I'd want some explanation from Obama as to why he appointed her.

[glitch]

40. Undo is the word you are ignoring in your own statement.

"The DOJ MUST operate without undo influence from the president."

[girl gone mad]

31. Really starting to feel like this administration copies the right.

Giving money to banks and corporations, trashing human rights, talking about adding more taxes on the middle class while cutting entitlements. What the hell did we just work so hard for?

[glitch]

46. The environmental actions aren't looking too good either. nt

[Zynx]

51. How about nationalizing two care companies and making one union owned?

Also, what in God's name are you talking about when you say "talking about adding more taxes on the middle class while cutting entitlements"?

As for the banks, I don't see the big "giveaways" you are talking about. In fact, we have imposed so many constraints and restrictions, the banks are itching to give money back that they paid dividends on. We are actually going to see a nice net return on a lot of that money.

[Individualist]

85. In case you wonder why,

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," - Dennis Kucinich
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. BuyingThyme should be forced to reiterate his position on global warming.

That is all.

[BuyingThyme]

41. Oops, your colors are showing. Why don't you stick to the issue?

Getting a little warm?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought your loose grip on reality was the issue here.

Disregard.

[BuyingThyme]

49. Why don't you just explain why you support the likening of incest go gay marriage?

Please. Try.

[spoony]

53. Because Obama did it.

And that poster is on duty to snark out any flames of dissent. That he isn't particularly good at it doesn't seem to matter.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Why don't you explain how often you beat your wife?

[BuyingThyme]

57. You're still running away from the issue.

Why do you support the likening of gay marriage to incest?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Actually, no, I'm pointing out that you're still lying.

"Why do you support the likening of gay marriage to incest?"

If you actually read the brief, gay marriage was not compared to incest.

[BuyingThyme]

60. Yes, it was.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. No, it wasn't. Anybody can just read it and see that it isn't.

Also, global warming is actually happening.

[dsc]

69. Yes it was

the cases sited on public policy grounds were of incestous relationships (uncle/niece and two first cousins) and underage relationships (16 year old female).

[redqueen]

59. Yeah.

OK

[cali]

65. YOU should be forced to apologize for your OP

It's flamebait and it's not accurate. Obama made NO crack about incest, dear.

And no, I sure as fuck am not defending the horrendous DOJ brief or Obama, but facts matter- well, not to you, as anyone familiar with your posting knows, but they do matter.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluerthanblue]

91. it is flame bait -

and does more to harm the cause than help I believe.

:shrug:

[Fire1]

66. President Obama doesn't have a damn thing to apologize for

and anybody waiting for THAT is going to be waiting a mighty long time.

[Mari333]

71. people seem to have to wait a mighty long time for him to do anything

when it comes to the civil rights of gay folks. in other words, hes a flipflopper who doesnt say anything and hopes it goes away (it wont) and doesnt seem to have any control over the briefs that are sent out. weak weak weak.

[konnichi wa]

78. Wow, that's amazing. You really believe that, it appears.

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

92. wow

[anigbrowl]

70. What a heap of dishonest BS.

[Zenlitened]

74. I agree.

That brief really is dishonest on so many levels. As is the excuse-making by some of the respondents in this thread. Very disappointing, very disheartening all around.

[anigbrowl]

81. I'm talking about the OP, not the brief.

[Zenlitened]

82. Too subtle, huh?

I probably should have used the :sarcasm: tag. Or at least the :eyes: smiley.

[cali]

73. does BT even know what a "crack" is. Typical that she can't even get that right.

this is ugly bullshit flamebait. And I say that as someone who thinks the DOJ brief is horrendous and flat wrong, and that Obama does have to take responsibility for it.

[Jester Messiah]

75. *sigh* *close tab* [nt]

[NorthernSpy]

83. He made no such "crack".

And he's not going to struggle along on bended knee in a futile effort to appease you as though he had.


Got it?

[dionysus]

84. cool post

:thumbsup:

[Bluebear]

88. OMG hitching your wagon to that star? Say no more.

[BuyingThyme]

87. kcik

[Name removed]

89. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.