All-purpose news and politics thread

[dupont2005]

Considering that within the hour they had panicked and walked back Biden's statement, no I don't.

Huh? I don't get that. The VP said he's completely comfortable with gay marriage. He said he couldn't speak for the administration, but later

"On Twitter, Obama strategist David Axelrod echoed that sentiment.

"What VP said--that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights-is precisely POTUS's position," Axelrod tweeted."

It doesn't sound like it's a 100% guarantee he'll pick up the cause in his reelection, but to me it's looking like something he might not want to be attacked on during the campaign (plenty of bigot swing voters, and even Democrats) and could potentially fight for after he has nothing left to prove or lose. At least that's what I'm hoping. Your link doesn't seem to convince me otherwise either.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Considering that within the hour they had panicked and walked back Biden's statement, no I don't.

I don't see how this is even a walk back, let alone a "panic!"

"The Vice President was saying what the President has said previously – that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights. That’s why we stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it. Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country."

Let's break this down into bullet points.

- Committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections as all Americans.
- They oppose any efforts to rollback those rights.
- As an example, they stopped defending DOMA
- He too is evolving on the issue after meeting with so many same sex couples.

This is a rollback? This is PANIC?

[Matt Algren]

I don't see how this is even a walk back, let alone a "panic!"



Let's break this down into bullet points.

- Committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections as all Americans.
- They oppose any efforts to rollback those rights.
- As an example, they stopped defending DOMA
- He too is evolving on the issue after meeting with so many same sex couples.

This is a rollback? This is PANIC?

First, there is no "rolling back" of rights that are not currently recognized. Federally, gay and lesbian Americans do not have the same rights as straight Americans in regard to marriage. This is a fact.

Recognizing the right to privacy that all Americans enjoy under our Constitution is important. The decision to marry, not civil-unionize or domestic-partner, in equal terms as straight people do is fundamental, and the president does not publicly support it. This morning, the Vice-President did support the right of gay and lesbians to marry in America. Less than an hour later, his office and the White House said that he did not.

I understand that the distinction between marriage and other terminology seems trivial to some, but it is not. In New Jersey, for example, they have found that corporations use the "separate but equal" terminology of civil unions to deny health insurance for partners of lesbians and gays, but if those same partners were married using the same terminology as their straight counterparts, their health insurance eligibility would not even be questioned. In Washington, 2009's "Everything But Marriage" law is being replaced with full equality this year (currently waiting for anti-gays to get a petition together to challenge it) because "domestic partnership" is inadequate and leaves holes in coverage.

And yes, when David Axelrod fires off a statement less than an hour after the vice-president says something on a Sunday morning, it's panic. Those of us paying attention to this sort of thing are very aware of how gingerly the Obama Administration and the Obama Campaign treat the subject of equal rights in marriage. His walking back of the veep's statement is as expected as it is disappointing.

[mikekerrIII]

First, there is no "rolling back" of rights that are not currently recognized. Federally, gay and lesbian Americans do not have the same rights as straight Americans in regard to marriage. This is a fact.

Recognizing the right to privacy that all Americans enjoy under our Constitution is important. The decision to marry, not civil-unionize or domestic-partner, in equal terms as straight people do is fundamental, and the president does not publicly support it. This morning, the Vice-President did support the right of gay and lesbians to marry in America. Less than an hour later, his office and the White House said that he did not.

I understand that the distinction between marriage and other terminology seems trivial to some, but it is not. In New Jersey, for example, they have found that corporations use the "separate but equal" terminology of civil unions to deny health insurance for partners of lesbians and gays, but if those same partners were married using the same terminology as their straight counterparts, their health insurance eligibility would not even be questioned. In Washington, 2009's "Everything But Marriage" law is being replaced with full equality this year (currently waiting for anti-gays to get a petition together to challenge it) because "domestic partnership" is inadequate and leaves holes in coverage.

And yes, when David Axelrod fires off a statement less than an hour after the vice-president says something on a Sunday morning, it's panic. Those of us paying attention to this sort of thing are very aware of how gingerly the Obama Administration and the Obama Campaign treat the subject of equal rights in marriage. His walking back of the veep's statement is as expected as it is disappointing.

I think Obama will likely still be Evolving when he leaves office even if he wins.

[dupont2005]

First, there is no "rolling back" of rights that are not currently recognized. Federally, gay and lesbian Americans do not have the same rights as straight Americans in regard to marriage. This is a fact.

Recognizing the right to privacy that all Americans enjoy under our Constitution is important. The decision to marry, not civil-unionize or domestic-partner, in equal terms as straight people do is fundamental, and the president does not publicly support it. This morning, the Vice-President did support the right of gay and lesbians to marry in America. Less than an hour later, his office and the White House said that he did not.

I understand that the distinction between marriage and other terminology seems trivial to some, but it is not. In New Jersey, for example, they have found that corporations use the "separate but equal" terminology of civil unions to deny health insurance for partners of lesbians and gays, but if those same partners were married using the same terminology as their straight counterparts, their health insurance eligibility would not even be questioned. In Washington, 2009's "Everything But Marriage" law is being replaced with full equality this year (currently waiting for anti-gays to get a petition together to challenge it) because "domestic partnership" is inadequate and leaves holes in coverage.

And yes, when David Axelrod fires off a statement less than an hour after the vice-president says something on a Sunday morning, it's panic. Those of us paying attention to this sort of thing are very aware of how gingerly the Obama Administration and the Obama Campaign treat the subject of equal rights in marriage. His walking back of the veep's statement is as expected as it is disappointing.

This still doesn't contradict what I have said. I agree he's avoiding using the term "Gay Marriage" but his strategist said "All married couples should have the same rights" speaking on behalf of the POTUS. It sounds to me like he's in support of gay marriage, full 100% equal gay marriage, but doesn't want it to be THE issue this election because it WILL cost him the election, which will put someone in the oval office who does not think they deserve the same rights.

[Iangould]

New Democracy and PASOK should jointly win 150 seats of 300 in the Greek Parliament (under a system where the largest single party is automatically awarded additional seats to make it easier to form a majority government).

That may allow them to form a coalition government or there may have to be a new election.

[FalconX2000]

Hollande's won the French election.

I know nothing. Is Hollande's win a good thing?

[the4thpip]

Essentially Greece has voted for banruptcy, poverty and a generation or more of lost opportunities.

Yes, but it sure felt good that day.

[the4thpip]

European markets are opening deep in the red as a reaction to the French and Greek elections.

[the4thpip]

Bees. My god.

At least 19 Indian paramilitary troops were swarmed and badly stung by bees while on a counter-insurgency operation against Maoist rebels in Chhattisgarh state.

The troops were clearing landmines in the dense forests of Narayanpur district when they were attacked.

Four of the soldiers were in "a real bad state" with serious swelling on their faces and hands, police said.

[Iangould]

Yes, but it sure felt good that day.

They were outraged that you selfish German bastards only gave them E100 billion. You should have made it E200 billion and E50 billion a year in perpetuity.

[the4thpip]

They wetre outraged that you selfish German bastards only gave them E100 billion. You should have made it E200 billion and E50 billion a year in perpetuity.

Also, a free silver pony for every Greek girl under the age of 85!

[Iangould]

I'm actually surprised European stocks are only down 1-2%.

[the4thpip]

And trending upward.

But they had gone down a bit on Friday already. I think they may have priced the not completely surprising eleciton results in partly.

[Iangould]

Just so we're clear what the Greek politcal party Golden Dawn stands for:

In December 1980, Nikolaos Michaloliakos, and a group of his supporters launched Chrysi Avgi magazine. Michaloliakos (a mathematician and a dishonourably discharged former commando reservist officer) had been active in far right politics for many years, and he had been arrested several times for politically motivated offences, such as beating attacks and illegal possession of explosive materials, which led to his discharge from the military.
...

Golden Dawn remained largely on the margins of far right politics until the Macedonia naming dispute in 1991 and 1992.[10] The Greek newspaper Eleftherotypia reported that on October 10, 1992, about thirty Golden Dawn members attacked left-wing students at the Athens University of Economics and Business during a massive demonstration against the use of the name Macedonia by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.[14] Around the same time, the first far right street gangs appeared under the leadership of Giannis Giannopoulos, a former military officer who was involved with the South African Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) during the 1980s.
...
A few Golden Dawn members participated in the Bosnian War in the Greek Volunteer Guard (GVG), which was part of the Drina Corps of the Army of Republika Srpska. A few GVG volunteers were present in Srebrenica during the Srebrenica massacre, and they raised a Greek flag at a ruined church after the fall of the town.[19] Spiros Tzanopoulos, a GVG sergeant who took part in the attack against Srebrenica, said many of the Greek volunteers participated in the war because they were members of Golden Dawn.[20] Golden Dawn members in the GVG were decorated by Radovan Karadžić,
...

in 2005 after party members distributed homophobic fliers during an Athens gay pride parade
...