Jump to bottom

984 comments
1 freetoken  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:32:08pm

If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn’t need LGF.

2 legalpad  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:32:31pm

I didn’t know he said that! Cool!

3 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:33:36pm

If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?

— Albert Einstein

Now, how great a quote is that? I’m going to go research it!
(Einsteins daughter married David Fairchild, a famous plant explorer. Founded the Fairchld Botanic Gardens in Florida. If you are botanically inclined, you can get a lot of his books still. He introduced plants like the tomato, avocado, and his journies of exploration are wonderfull reading).

4 Fenway_Nation  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:36:21pm

re: #3 Floral Giraffe

He introduced plants like the tomato, avocado, and his journies of exploration are wonderfull reading) eating.

Thought I’d fix that for ya!

5 Gus  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:38:40pm

re: #1 freetoken

If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn’t need LGF the government.

FTFY

6 wiffersnapper  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:40:43pm

Good quote.

7 iceweasel  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:41:12pm

re: #1 freetoken

Hey freetoken— do you ever include RedState in your tours of rightwing blog craziness? There’s usually some piping hot fresh crazy over there.

8 freetoken  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:41:44pm

re: #5 Gus 802


If we knew what we were doing that men wouldn’t do evil, we wouldn’t need LGF the government.

FT”FTFY”FY

9 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:43:14pm

re: #4 Fenway_Nation

The journals of his travels are also wonderful reading.
They sailied the China Seas on a custom built junk for the trip.
Those were the days! They also ate EVERYTHING. I’m not sure I’d have been as adventurous! Who ate the first lobster?

10 Gus  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:44:56pm

re: #8 freetoken

FT”FTFY”FY

Argh matey!

/True.

11 Fenway_Nation  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:44:58pm

re: #9 Floral Giraffe


Heh….back in the day, wasn’t lobster considered overgrown vermin?

Going back to all those Canadian Geese that were gassed in NYC this month, how many people do you think they could’ve fed?

12 SixDegrees  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:46:42pm

re: #9 Floral Giraffe

The journals of his travels are also wonderful reading.
They sailied the China Seas on a custom built junk for the trip.
Those were the days! They also ate EVERYTHING. I’m not sure I’d have been as adventurous! Who ate the first lobster?

If you like that sort of thing, try Attending Marvels, by George Gaylord Simpson, the accounts of a paleontologist working in South America around the turn of the century, beset by bandits and an insane, murderous camp cook, among other things. Great reading.

13 SixDegrees  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:47:23pm

re: #11 Fenway_Nation

Heh….back in the day, wasn’t lobster considered overgrown vermin?

Going back to all those Canadian Geese that were gassed in NYC this month, how many people do you think they could’ve fed?

The early settlers fed lobsters to their livestock. It wasn’t considered fit for human consumption.

14 Gus  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:47:54pm

re: #11 Fenway_Nation

Heh….back in the day, wasn’t lobster considered overgrown vermin?

Going back to all those Canadian Geese that were gassed in NYC this month, how many people do you think they could’ve fed?

Liberals don’t eat geese.

15 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:48:20pm

re: #11 Fenway_Nation

Heh….back in the day, wasn’t lobster considered overgrown vermin?

Going back to all those Canadian Geese that were gassed in NYC this month, how many people do you think they could’ve fed?

They gassed some Canadian Geese? I didn’t hear about that. Must have been an airport thing. I remember my dad sweating bullets because he accidentally shot one while duck hunting.

16 SixDegrees  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:51:22pm

re: #11 Fenway_Nation


Going back to all those Canadian Geese that were gassed in NYC this month, how many people do you think they could’ve fed?

Didn’t here about NYC, but they’re a plague around here, flocking up by the hundreds and never quite leaving come winter. The problem with eating them is they spend all their time free-ranging on lawns that have been soaked with pesticides and who know what else; I’d be reluctant to make them part of my diet, although I’d cheer if they marched them off to some goosey Auschwitz.

17 pink freud  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:51:59pm

Hi everyone!

18 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:53:36pm

re: #17 pink freud

Hi everyone!

Hi Pink. What’s up?

19 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:53:43pm

re: #12 SixDegrees

I’ll let you know. I just ordered your book through Amazon, so Charles gets a piece. David Fairchild’s adventures were very genteel. I read the Teddy Roosevelt story of Up the amazon, and it wasn’t pretty. I like the civilized version of olde time adventures better.

20 TheMatrix31  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:53:47pm

Hey Pink!

21 pink freud  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:55:33pm

Not a lot, PBJ, god to see you. Very quiet in here tonight, isn’t it? I saw your story earlier about your husband at the store ….wow. I have a similar one. Civil behavior doesn’t seem to be commonplace these days, does it? Makes me sad.

22 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:56:00pm

re: #16 SixDegrees

Didn’t here about NYC, but they’re a plague around here, flocking up by the hundreds and never quite leaving come winter. The problem with eating them is they spend all their time free-ranging on lawns that have been soaked with pesticides and who know what else; I’d be reluctant to make them part of my diet, although I’d cheer if they marched them off to some goosey Auschwitz.

Da*n. Back in the sixties I thing they were on the endangered list. That’s why my dad was so freaked out about shooting one. It would have been a huge fine if the game warden would have caught him.

23 pink freud  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:56:10pm

re: #20 TheMatrix31

Hey Matrix! How’s classes? What’cha taking this semester?

24 gmsc  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:56:39pm

re: #17 pink freud

Hi everyone!

Hi, pink!

25 SixDegrees  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:56:57pm

re: #19 Floral Giraffe

I’ll let you know. I just ordered your book through Amazon, so Charles gets a piece. David Fairchild’s adventures were very genteel. I read the Teddy Roosevelt story of Up the amazon, and it wasn’t pretty. I like the civilized version of olde time adventures better.

Let me know what you think. I’ve read River of Doubt, if that’s the Roosevelt book you’re referring to; Attending Marvels isn’t so gritty.

The Voyage of the Beagle, by Charles Darwin, might be to your liking as well. It’s a bit of a slog, thanks to language differences, but it was written for the general public and is quite approachable.

26 pink freud  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:57:16pm

Hi Pi guy! Nice to see you. :-) The website’s looking _really_ nice!

27 gmsc  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:58:11pm

re: #26 pink freud

Hi Pi guy! Nice to see you. :-) The website’s looking _really_ nice!

Thanks! I’m in the process of updating the non-blog pages now (Mental Gym, Presentation, etc.). I’m currently getting hung up on a site search, but I’m plowing through.

28 Fenway_Nation  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:58:12pm

re: #16 SixDegrees

Why do you hate AFLAC?

//

29 SixDegrees  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:58:59pm

re: #22 Pvt Bin Jammin

Da*n. Back in the sixties I thing they were on the endangered list. That’s why my dad was so freaked out about shooting one. It would have been a huge fine if the game warden would have caught him.

Around here, you can’t shoot them without a license. Doing so will get you slammed by the DNR for messing with game animals, or some such.

Planting tree discourages them. They like wide open spaces, and trees make them nervous.

So do dogs.

30 Gus  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:59:02pm

LNDT Where the Obama boot licking is minimal.

;)

31 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:59:11pm

Good night, Lizards of the evening.
My eyes are getting very heavy.
PBJ, I liked your story about your husband & the older folks at the store. I hope you & he will follow though. Six Degrees, thanks for the book recommend. I’ll give it a try!

Good night, all.

32 pat  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:59:52pm

Nite, FG.

33 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:00:00am

Today in History, June 29th:

Highlights of this day in history: The U.S. Supreme Court effectively voids state death penalty laws; Jerusalem reunified under Israeli control after the Six-Day War; Singer Rosemary Clooney and actress Katharine Hepburn die.

Other notable June 29th events include:

1534 – Jacques Cartier makes the European discovery of Prince Edward Island.

1613 – The Globe Theatre in London, England burns to the ground.

1888 – First (known) recording of classical music, Handel’s “Israel in Egypt,” made on a wax cylinder.

1956 – The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 is signed, officially creating the United States Interstate Highway System.

34 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:00:01am

re: #23 pink freud

Hey Matrix! How’s classes? What’cha taking this semester?

Bleh….I got an A-, B+, B- in Spring….

Summer session started last Tuesday, should be interesting. Foreign Policy of US after 1945, and Persuasive Communication.

As for Fall, well, I got screwed out of a couple of classes (because discussion section times were all filled up, and thank CA for the amount of times available to the students). Right now, I’m signed up for “International Law” which I don’t want to take just yet because the teacher is somewhat difficult and it’s a TON of work. I’m also signed up for something else, but I forgot what, lol.

Wanted to sign up for a Social Psych class because it’s interesting, professor got great reviews, etc. Psych classes are closed off to non-psych majors until next week. Boo!

35 SixDegrees  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:00:04am

BBIAB.

36 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:00:05am

re: #27 gmsc

Thanks! I’m in the process of updating the non-blog pages now (Mental Gym, Presentation, etc.). I’m currently getting hung up on a site search, but I’m plowing through.

Your dedication and effort are evident in its appearance. Very personable, interesting, and friendly site.

37 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:01:04am

re: #31 Floral Giraffe

Goodnight!? But I just got here!

G’nite, FG, sleep well! :-)

38 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:01:30am

re: #31 Floral Giraffe

G’nite, spiral skunk!

39 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:01:39am

re: #25 SixDegrees

Yes, It was River of Doubt. Quite a slog.
I enjoyed Voyage of the Beagle.
David Fairchild’s books are easier to read.
And, more positively focused.

‘Night

40 freetoken  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:02:24am

re: #7 iceweasel

On rare occasion I get to RedState. I limit my time on the crazy farm, for my own sanity. My quick take is that RedState has some posters who want to be more serious than, say, either the FreeRep or HotAir, though that doesn’t mean that the crazies don’t hide in the rafters there too.

Really, my touring of the far-right/rabid-right/crazy websites is coming to an end.

I first came across LGF during the 2004 elections, with all the news of Rathergate…. I tried to register then but living overseas my hours were quite a bit different than Charles’. I finally registered in 2006, though also overseas, I caught a window.

LGF was one of the few political/opinion blogs I read… along with WindsOfChange, and a smattering of other sites. I never knew of sites like VDARE, FreeRepublic, etc. until I saw them mentioned on this website. FWIW, I also never bothered with DailyKos or any similar site.

There is a lot of noise in the world. Frankly it is not worth my time to try and digest it.

My touring of the right-o-sphere has been to verify what others have claimed, and to see for myself what has become of the “conservative” portion of the web. I can get from talk radio pretty much a feel for where that crowd is… I was wondering what the more technologically minded crowd that inhabits the web are up to.

During my life there has been a shift in dialogue, but not greatly so, between people who are competing for the attention of Americans. The tools have changed but the topics not so much, and certainly the ingrained world views with which we Homo sapiens wrap ourselves have barely changed during my lifetime.

Real change in human society takes place over centuries.

Right now my belief is that the great Culture Wars are not abating but simply morphing to cover new topics (such as climate change). There is a very great disconnect between highly educated specialists and the general public.

My thought has been for sometime that the US is transitioning from a representative democracy to a meritocracy. During periods of Chinese history that country has been described as being run by a meritocracy - basically, the skilled and knowledgeable people, who pretty much controlled society for the masses.

From the ranting and raving on websites, especially the so called, self-described, “right”, I’ve concluded that the American populace is pushed to the limits of its ability to change and handle new ideas and situations.

What this means for me and my own life I do not know… I’m old enough to realize that even if I live to an old age (as many in my ancestral line) that human nature will not change during my life. It is with some trepidation that I look at my “golden years” before me, wondering to where I should move (if I want to leave California) and if I desire/am able to start a second (actually third) career in the hopes of weathering better the financial storms that likely are in our not-to-distant future.

So no, I don’t plan on spending much time at RedState.

/probably more than you asked

41 Pvt Bin Jammin  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:02:33am

re: #21 pink freud

Not a lot, PBJ, god to see you. Very quiet in here tonight, isn’t it? I saw your story earlier about your husband at the store ….wow. I have a similar one. Civil behavior doesn’t seem to be commonplace these days, does it? Makes me sad.

Good to see you too. Wasn’t that craziness over at the grocery store? That poor older couple must have been scared to death. Hubby said he didn’t even have to say much, the guy was on a complete rant, hanging his own self.

42 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:03:13am

re: #38 Fenway_Nation

Hah. I tried to load an avatar today.
FAIL!
But, I will conqueror.
And, maybe scare some lizards ;)

43 Gus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:04:24am

re: #33 gmsc

Today in History, June 29th:

[Video]

Highlights of this day in history: The U.S. Supreme Court effectively voids state death penalty laws; Jerusalem reunified under Israeli control after the Six-Day War; Singer Rosemary Clooney and actress Katharine Hepburn die.

Other notable June 29th events include:

1534 – Jacques Cartier makes the European discovery of Prince Edward Island.

1613 – The Globe Theatre in London, England burns to the ground.

1888 – First (known) recording of classical music, Handel’s “Israel in Egypt,” made on a wax cylinder.

1956 – The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 is signed, officially creating the United States Interstate Highway System.

1956 — Highway Welfare Bill is signed. Soon after other Federal Mandates are attached to said Highway Welfare Bill.

44 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:06:31am

re: #34 TheMatrix31

That foreign policy class sounds right down my alley. I took one similar a few years ago …..started with the lead-up to WWII and went all the way thru Vietnam. Global picture, intricate detail. Very nice, I loved it.

Social psych, huh? Go to Amazon, buy Aronson’s The Social Animal and you’re done. That book covers it all. The social psych profs are some of the worst libs out there. Read up on Kitty Genovese if you get the class; let the prof know there’s new literature out debunking their closely and tightly held theories on the bystander effect. He’ll either respect you or pick on you for the rest of the semester. LOL

45 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:07:07am

re: #38 Fenway_Nation

G’nite, spiral skunk!

Nice one.

46 Pvt Bin Jammin  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:07:47am

I hate to leave, lizards, but can’t keep my eyes open. Take care, everyone.

47 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:08:17am

re: #46 Pvt Bin Jammin

G’nite PB&J!

48 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:09:00am

re: #44 pink freud

That foreign policy class sounds right down my alley. I took one similar a few years ago …..started with the lead-up to WWII and went all the way thru Vietnam. Global picture, intricate detail. Very nice, I loved it.

Social psych, huh? Go to Amazon, buy Aronson’s The Social Animal and you’re done. That book covers it all. The social psych profs are some of the worst libs out there. Read up on Kitty Genovese if you get the class; let the prof know there’s new literature out debunking their closely and tightly held theories on the bystander effect. He’ll either respect you or pick on you for the rest of the semester. LOL

LOL. I’ve heard it’s a pretty light load in that class, and the tests are multiple choice. I perform much better on multiple choice, which sucks considering the major. Eh, I’d just be taking that class for units anyway.

49 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:09:21am

re: #36 pink freud

Your dedication and effort are evident in its appearance. Very personable, interesting, and friendly site.

Thanks.
:)

It’s always good to hear when good work is appreciated.

50 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:09:52am

re: #46 Pvt Bin Jammin

I hate to leave, lizards, but can’t keep my eyes open. Take care, everyone.

Good night, PBJ.

51 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:10:33am

re: #41 Pvt Bin Jammin

Down here, that sort of thing (since the election) has a lot of racial undertones to it. (Not just undertones, either ….overtones.) Nastiness like I’ve not ever seen in my life here.

52 Gus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:11:02am

re: #44 pink freud

That foreign policy class sounds right down my alley. I took one similar a few years ago …..started with the lead-up to WWII and went all the way thru Vietnam. Global picture, intricate detail. Very nice, I loved it.

Social psych, huh? Go to Amazon, buy Aronson’s The Social Animal and you’re done. That book covers it all. The social psych profs are some of the worst libs out there. Read up on Kitty Genovese if you get the class; let the prof know there’s new literature out debunking their closely and tightly held theories on the bystander effect. He’ll either respect you or pick on you for the rest of the semester. LOL

Kitty Genovese is a good example as to how the lower classes respond to a plea for help.

53 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:11:31am

re: #46 Pvt Bin Jammin

G’nite PBJ!

54 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:14:29am

re: #52 Gus 802

Kitty Genovese is a good example as to how the lower classes respond to a plea for help.

In formulating their theory, they left out some important factors such as the fact that she was already a pariah and known troublemaker in the neighborhood. But yes, you’re correct.

55 Pvt Bin Jammin  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:18:42am

re: #51 pink freud

Down here, that sort of thing (since the election) has a lot of racial undertones to it. (Not just undertones, either ….overtones.) Nastiness like I’ve not ever seen in my life here.

Going on here as well in Los Angeles County.

I am really going to bed now. “Nite all.

56 Gus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:20:09am

re: #54 pink freud

In formulating their theory, they left out some important factors such as the fact that she was already a pariah and known troublemaker in the neighborhood. But yes, you’re correct.

Ouch, didn’t know that.

The factor regarding the “poor” is the “don’t snitch factor. They’re a sad lot. It’s a lot like not “snitching” on Iran or Honduras.

If that makes any sense. ;)

57 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:20:53am

re: #40 freetoken

That wasn’t too much information at all! Fascinating!

LGF was one of the few political/opinion blogs I read… along with WindsOfChange, and a smattering of other sites. I never knew of sites like VDARE, FreeRepublic, etc. until I saw them mentioned on this website. FWIW, I also never bothered with DailyKos or any similar site.
My touring of the right-o-sphere has been to verify what others have claimed, and to see for myself what has become of the “conservative” portion of the web. I can get from talk radio pretty much a feel for where that crowd is… I was wondering what the more technologically minded crowd that inhabits the web are up to.

Interesting….I don’t have time for Kos or HuffPo either (in the sense that no matter how much time I had, I wouldn’t read them). It’s especially interesting that you can get a feel from talk radio where the conservative portion of the web is. Just as the right dominates talk radio, the left dominates the net, and I’ve often observed that the right on-line is very like right talk radio— and this is one of the reasons why the online right isn’t as successful. Talk radio is a very top-down process: one person controlling the dialogue, talking selected calls. The right tries to run their blogs like that too; it doesn’t work. Online is one area where the squabbling and divisiveness that infect the left actually turns out to be fertile, resulting in many blogs and many voices.

During my life there has been a shift in dialogue, but not greatly so, between people who are competing for the attention of Americans. The tools have changed but the topics not so much, and certainly the ingrained world views with which we Homo sapiens wrap ourselves have barely changed during my lifetime.
Real change in human society takes place over centuries.

Also true.

Right now my belief is that the great Culture Wars are not abating but simply morphing to cover new topics (such as climate change). There is a very great disconnect between highly educated specialists and the general public.

I have to think about that; it’s a good point. The conventional wisdom is that the culture wars are over and the religious right lost— but maybe you’re right and they’re just morphing slightly. The climate change debate is an excellent example.

From the ranting and raving on websites, especially the so called, self-described, “right”, I’ve concluded that the American populace is pushed to the limits of its ability to change and handle new ideas and situations.
Which is very dangerous. A lack of flexibility in thinking and in the ability to respond to changing conditions is a bad thing for us.
The inflexibility I’ve observed, especially on the hardcore right of late, makes me worry.

Thanks for the reply!
(PS— RedState is a boatload of crazy and you’re not missing much, believe me)

58 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:21:03am

re: #51 pink freud

Down here, that sort of thing (since the election) has a lot of racial undertones to it. (Not just undertones, either ….overtones.) Nastiness like I’ve not ever seen in my life here.

I’m late into this. What happened with PBJ (PBJ’s husband?) and the grocery store?

59 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:21:37am

re: #54 pink freud

In formulating their theory, they left out some important factors such as the fact that she was already a pariah and known troublemaker in the neighborhood. But yes, you’re correct.

How was she a pariah and known troublemaker? Honest request for info; I’d never heard this.

60 freetoken  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:21:55am

One peek at the culture of our time…

Making the rounds of right-o-sphere is this article from the British rag The Daily Mail:

The shocking picture of a white boy aged 11 being ‘converted’ to Islam by radical preacher:

This is the shocking picture of a young, white schoolboy being converted to Islam by a cleric linked to a radical Muslim hate preacher.

[…]

Why is it important that the boy is “white”? I can see running a story on a forced-conversion/religious-abuse event… but why emphasize “white”?

There are plenty of people in the UK from African and east Asian descent. Would it be different if they were the targets of the forced conversion attempt?

Bad ugliness… everywhere. It was most prescient of LGF to start emphasizing this last year.

61 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:23:16am

re: #56 Gus 802

Ouch, didn’t know that.

The factor regarding the “poor” is the “don’t snitch factor. They’re a sad lot. It’s a lot like not “snitching” on Iran or Honduras.

If that makes any sense. ;)

It does. IIRC, she was connected to the mob Genovese’s, was a prostitute and was involved in drugs. Add to that the SES factor and it’s no wonder people didn’t want to get involved. All in all, not a very good example to shore up a theory that has been taught for years in psych classes.

62 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:24:13am

re: #60 freetoken

One peek at the culture of our time…

Making the rounds of right-o-sphere is this article from the British rag The Daily Mail:

The shocking picture of a white boy aged 11 being ‘converted’ to Islam by radical preacher:

Why is it important that the boy is “white”? I can see running a story on a forced-conversion/religious-abuse event… but why emphasize “white”?

There are plenty of people in the UK from African and east Asian descent. Would it be different if they were the targets of the forced conversion attempt?

Probably not, because British racists also include South Asians in the category of “black” — pakistanis, bengalis, etc.

British racism is different from US racism and no less virulent.

63 Gus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:26:07am

re: #60 freetoken

One peek at the culture of our time…

Making the rounds of right-o-sphere is this article from the British rag The Daily Mail:

The shocking picture of a white boy aged 11 being ‘converted’ to Islam by radical preacher:

Why is it important that the boy is “white”? I can see running a story on a forced-conversion/religious-abuse event… but why emphasize “white”?

There are plenty of people in the UK from African and east Asian descent. Would it be different if they were the targets of the forced conversion attempt?

Bad ugliness… everywhere. It was most prescient of LGF to start emphasizing this last year.

The Daily Mail is the right-o-sphere now?

64 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:27:36am

re: #58 gmsc

Her post (just to make sure I didn’t mis-relay):

OMG my hubby just came back from the grocery store. Some crazy guy was harassing a couple in their seventies so hubby placed himself between the couple and this creep. Turns out the couple had been talking between themselves about how much groceries are up and how it was going to get worse under Obama. OMG it really got ugly. The dude was screaming that it was all Bush’s fault, Obama was our savior and all whites were going to go to hell. My hubby is a big dude but he’s got balance problems and also in a neck brace after spinal surgery. The creep tried to knock my hubby down with his grocery cart. It took security forever to come over there & they really didn’t do anything. The manager said security was there for their employees & not to get involved with customers. WTF?

65 freetoken  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:29:19am

re: #57 iceweasel


The conventional wisdom is that the culture wars are over and the religious right lost— but maybe you’re right and they’re just morphing slightly.

In my opinion restricting the Culture War to only the effort of Evangelical Christians to influence national policy on a few key issues (e.g., abortion) is too limiting.

The history of the US is that there have always been plenty of very religious people here and that struggles over fitting society into religious restrictions/beliefs was a part of politics. Abolition, Prohibition, etc.

66 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:29:37am

re: #63 Gus 802

The Daily Mail is the right-o-sphere now?

It’s a tabloid and rightwing.

67 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:29:55am

re: #59 iceweasel

One of my later posts gives a bit of detail. An investigative reporter did some digging a few years back and came up with more details of the story. It shouldn’t be too hard to dig up online.

68 freetoken  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:30:17am

re: #63 Gus 802

The Daily Mail is the right-o-sphere now?

No, but that article is getting play in the right-o-sphere. That is what I meant.

69 Gus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:32:10am

re: #66 iceweasel

It’s a tabloid and rightwing.

Right. But the last time I checked. Our president is left wing and a complete idiot. Regardless of the right wing analogies.

70 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:32:27am

re: #64 pink freud

Her post (just to make sure I didn’t mis-relay):

OMG my hubby just came back from the grocery store. Some crazy guy was harassing a couple in their seventies so hubby placed himself between the couple and this creep. Turns out the couple had been talking between themselves about how much groceries are up and how it was going to get worse under Obama. OMG it really got ugly. The dude was screaming that it was all Bush’s fault, Obama was our savior and all whites were going to go to hell. My hubby is a big dude but he’s got balance problems and also in a neck brace after spinal surgery. The creep tried to knock my hubby down with his grocery cart. It took security forever to come over there & they really didn’t do anything. The manager said security was there for their employees & not to get involved with customers. WTF?

W…T…F

71 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:33:48am
72 ShanghaiEd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:34:00am

Interesting article critiquing the original NY Times report on the Genovese murder, but no mention of mob, drugs, or prostitution.

73 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:35:40am

re: #64 pink freud

Her post (just to make sure I didn’t mis-relay):

OMG my hubby just came back from the grocery store. Some crazy guy was harassing a couple in their seventies so hubby placed himself between the couple and this creep. Turns out the couple had been talking between themselves about how much groceries are up and how it was going to get worse under Obama. OMG it really got ugly. The dude was screaming that it was all Bush’s fault, Obama was our savior and all whites were going to go to hell. My hubby is a big dude but he’s got balance problems and also in a neck brace after spinal surgery. The creep tried to knock my hubby down with his grocery cart. It took security forever to come over there & they really didn’t do anything. The manager said security was there for their employees & not to get involved with customers. WTF?

Thanks for the catch-up.

I have noticed there’s a whole attitude about “You can’t criticize 0bama” that is omnipresent today.

I like to remind people that there are only a few world leaders in all of history whom people weren’t allowed to criticize, and I suggest they look up who they are.
;)

74 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:36:49am

re: #67 pink freud

One of my later posts gives a bit of detail. An investigative reporter did some digging a few years back and came up with more details of the story. It shouldn’t be too hard to dig up online.

I’ll check, thanks. I ask partly because some of what you’d said is contrary to what I’ve read about it— the Mafia connection, for one. Her brother (?) testified that they weren’t related to or involved with the Genovese crime family.

I don’t know much about the soc-psych conclusions that have been drawn about the By-Stander effect— it seems to me that they’d be at least partially confirmed by the experiments Stanley Milgram did about bystanders, even without anything hypothesised about Genovese in particular— (not talking about the Obedience to Authority “Milgram Experiment” stuff—this is something different)

I’ll check it out. Thanks.

75 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:37:22am

re: #72 ShanghaiEd

Interesting article critiquing the original NY Times report on the Genovese murder, but no mention of mob, drugs, or prostitution.

Exactly.

76 Gus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:37:23am

re: #73 gmsc

Thanks for the catch-up.

I have noticed there’s a whole attitude about “You can’t criticize 0bama” that is omnipresent today.

I like to remind people that there are only a few world leaders in all of history whom people weren’t allowed to criticize, and I suggest they look up who they are.
;)

To be honest, I’m kind of stumped.

77 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:38:34am

re: #64 pink freud

Let me guess…..Mr PBJ is looking at hate-crimes charges.

I think it’s only a matter of time before something like that happens to me. I can’t see myself keeping quiet and nodding politely while This assclown @ 1600 Pennsylvania Ave keeps fucking up the country every hour of every day for the next 3 and a half years.

78 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:39:42am
79 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:39:49am

re: #69 Gus 802

Right. But the last time I checked. Our president is left wing and a complete idiot. Regardless of the right wing analogies.

Which doesn’t have anything to do with the question of the Daily Mail’s editorial stance— which is, as I said, rightwing.

Here’s wiki:

The Daily Mail considers itself to be the voice of Middle England[29] speaking up for “small-c” conservative[30] values against what it sees as a liberal establishment. The Mail takes an anti-EU, anti-mass-immigration, anti-abortion view, based upon “traditional values”, and is pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy, as well as, in some cases, advocating stricter punishments for crime.

So there’s your answer as to why the right-blogosphere is all over that story.

80 Gus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:40:48am

re: #79 iceweasel

So there’s your answer as to why the right-blogosphere is all over that story.

Yeah, I know. I’ve heard. About a dozen times now. But that’s not the issue.

81 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:41:56am

On another topic entirely, yet another famous person has passed away this week:

82 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:42:23am

re: #76 Gus 802

To be honest, I’m kind of stumped.

Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini …

83 Gus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:43:19am

re: #82 gmsc

Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini …

Are we allowed to mention that?

84 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:44:01am
85 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:44:02am

re: #83 Gus 802

Are we allowed to mention that?

Probably not.

86 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:44:37am

re: #78 Iron Fist

We had something like that happen to an instructor in the area. Dude was a big man to start off with, but he was also a 5th Degree Black Belt. You’d think the thug woulld have thought better of it when he saw the [Redacted] School of Karate T-shirt, but no. Criminals a a class are usually pretty dumb, but this guy set up a whole new definition.

So dumb.

87 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:44:51am

re: #77 Fenway_Nation

Let me guess…..Mr PBJ is looking at hate-crimes charges.

I think it’s only a matter of time before something like that happens to me. I can’t see myself keeping quiet and nodding politely while This assclown @ 1600 Pennsylvania Ave keeps fucking up the country every hour of every day for the next 3 and a half years.

His election has empowered an unsavory element of society in some very unhealthy ways. The whole thing is sitting on a foundation of shifting sand.

88 Gus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:45:20am

re: #85 gmsc

Probably not.

Yeah. Probably not. I keep forgetting. It’s all the “right wingers fault.” Even though we have President Alinsky in office sucking his thumb. Better watch out for the “Ron Paul” connection while we’re at it.

89 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:45:24am
90 Gus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:46:42am

re: #89 Iron Fist

Move away from the computer. Special units are already at this moment speeding your way to take you to Joy Camp.

Oops, my fault. Maybe I should read a Huffington Post link.

91 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:48:32am

re: #90 Gus 802

Oops, my fault. Maybe I should read a Huffington Post link.

Or, you could wade into the really deep end of that pool and go directly to media matters or think progress.

92 ShanghaiEd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:49:30am

re: #75 iceweasel

I also found a reference that an acquaintance revealed publicly for the first time in 2004 that Kitty Genovese was a lesbian who shared an apartment with her girlfriend at the time of her murder. KG apparently worked full-time as manager of a bar.

Would her lesbianism have made her a pariah in 1960s NYC? To the extent that people wouldn’t have responded to her cries for help? I’m still searching for the drugs and prostitution angle, but nothing in her profile so far to suggest it.

93 Gus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:50:47am

re: #91 pink freud

Or, you could wade into the really deep end of that pool and go directly to media matters or think progress.

It’s getting that way. Heck, I might as well sign up to the Democratic Underground.

//

/Look! Ron Paul!

94 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:51:27am

re: #89 Iron Fist

Move away from the computer. Special units are already at this moment speeding your way to take you to Joy Camp.

On the first offense, they usually just make you watch this video until you can sing along:

95 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:52:13am

re: #84 Iron Fist

I see nothing overtly bad on that list. Some of the anti-immigration types might be racist, but I’d say most of them just don’t want the population of half the third world moving into their back yard.

That seems a reasonable position to me.

Oh yeah— I’m not condemning the paper or its editorial stance; in fact I suspect it would be popular with a lot of people here.

It’s not as if it’s teh newsletter for stormfront or anything! — I can’t think of a good analogy with a US paper for what it would be like. Maybe the NY Post and their editorial stance? But the Mail is less tabloid-y than the NY Post.

96 Gus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:53:02am

re: #94 gmsc

On the first offense, they usually just make you watch this video until you can sing along:

[Video]

How dare you!

//

More about Bush.

/

97 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:54:02am

re: #91 pink freud

Yea…….lord knows when I want even-handed and thought provoking insight, media matters id the first place I head.

98 Syrah  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:54:29am

re: #60 freetoken

One peek at the culture of our time…

Making the rounds of right-o-sphere is this article from the British rag The Daily Mail:

The shocking picture of a white boy aged 11 being ‘converted’ to Islam by radical preacher:

Why is it important that the boy is “white”? I can see running a story on a forced-conversion/religious-abuse event… but why emphasize “white”?

There are plenty of people in the UK from African and east Asian descent. Would it be different if they were the targets of the forced conversion attempt?

Bad ugliness… everywhere. It was most prescient of LGF to start emphasizing this last year.

Its a problem in translation and in different histories.

European nations were formed as ethnic enclaves. For them, ethnicity is nation. The “White” in this context means “one of us” in a way that does not translate well into an American worldview.

To an American, such ethnic nationalism is offensive. We, because of how we were formed as a nation and because of how we evolved since our founding, cannot tolerate such ethnic nationalism. It would tear us apart if we were to even entertain the idea of permitting it to go un-rebuked.

To a European, such “race” based nationalism is fundamental to their concept of what their nations are about.

99 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:55:46am

Hero of the Day

Most-decorated Marine pilot dies at 89

CLACKAMAS (AP) — Retired Marine Corps Col. Kenneth L. Reusser, called the most decorated Marine aviator in history and was shot down in three wars, has died at age 89.

Reusser flew 253 combat missions in World War II, Korea and Vietnam and was shot down in all three, five times in all.

His 59 medals included two Navy Crosses, four Purple Hearts and two Legions of Merit.

Read the rest …

RIP.

100 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:56:05am

re: #92 ShanghaiEd

I also found a reference that an acquaintance revealed publicly for the first time in 2004 that Kitty Genovese was a lesbian who shared an apartment with her girlfriend at the time of her murder. KG apparently worked full-time as manager of a bar.

Would her lesbianism have made her a pariah in 1960s NYC? To the extent that people wouldn’t have responded to her cries for help? I’m still searching for the drugs and prostitution angle, but nothing in her profile so far to suggest it.

Yes, that’s right. I found this NPR listing here:
[Link: www.npr.org…]

I know I read an article back at the time of the anniversary that mentioned her being gay, but I can’t remember where. It didn’t suggest that this would have made her a pariah in the neighbourhood though, because she was far from “out”. The suggestion was that it might have hindered the investigation though in some way.

Also, the neighbourhood itself, Kew Gardens, wasn’t a scary neighbourhood. It was a perfectly decent blue-collar/working class/lower middle neighbourhood.

101 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:57:37am

re: #97 Fenway_Nation

Yea…….lord knows when I want even-handed and thought provoking insight, media matters id the first place I head.

That’s what passes for insightful and thoughtful commentary for those of the leftist persuasion. Hard to believe.

102 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:00:06am

I’d often wondered what it would be like to grant the 0bama supporters their protection of him from criticism.

Just say, “Yep. 0bama can’t be criticized. No matter what he does, he’s always right, and you will probably be severely punished if you criticize him publicly in any way. True, most world leaders can be and are criticized, but you have to understand that 0bama can’t take criticism …”

…and just continue until they people saying 0bama can’t be criticized get the point.

103 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:00:34am

re: #97 Fenway_Nation

Yea…….lord knows when I want even-handed and thought provoking insight, media matters id the first place I head.

Media matters and Think progress are a lot better than HuffPo.

Media Matters could be a very useful source for people here, as they always provide videos, transcripts, and links to the real sources, so you can fact check everything they’re saying.

You’d want to avoid their editorial or opinion columns, that’s all. Those are totally different.

104 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:00:45am
105 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:02:04am

re: #103 iceweasel

Does that mean they’re going to get White House press credentials like HuffPo?

106 ShanghaiEd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:04:24am

re: #75 iceweasel

The plot thickens! It seems that the writers of the Watchmen series wrote the Genovese killing into the backstory of character Rorschach. The Genovese murder is what triggered his becoming a crime-fighter.

And Rorschach’s mother was…a prostitute, killed by her pimp. I can see the details getting confused by someone reading the fiction. But still no evidence, that I can find, that KG was anything but a law-abiding citizen.

107 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:04:44am

re: #104 Iron Fist


Silly! That’s only for republican politicians, all of whom I’m sure have Argentine mistresses or solicit total strangers for sex in the men’s room…..

108 freetoken  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:04:51am

re: #98 Syrah

Couldn’t your argument apply equally as well to the BNP, or the VB, as it does to the DailyMail?

109 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:04:56am

History Isn’t Racial

I don’t understand something. I’m supposed to be overjoyed because America has a (half) black President, and it’s a historic occasion. I’m supposed to water down my criticism of this new President because of the historic nature of the occasion. Presumably, to do otherwise is racist.
But I am convinced this President will take us down the wrong path. I am certain this his policies of over-the-top government spending, socialized medicine and pacifism towards the most dangerous enemies in human history will be destructive. These policies were not effective under his predecessor, so intensifying them clearly does not seem like a good idea.

Given my positions, wouldn’t it be racist NOT to oppose this new President? To support him, or to water down my criticism, because of his race would … well, it would be racism. Racism consists of elevating race to the top of an appraisal. If you give someone undeserved praise because of their race, you’re no less racist than if you give them undeserved condemnation.

I’m no racist. I couldn’t care less what the race of the President is. I only care what his ideas are—and whether or not he will seek to implement them. I sure hope this one doesn’t.

110 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:05:33am

Hostility to Criticism

People who can’t be criticized—and who react with great hostility at any hint of criticism—are revealing something important about themselves.

They reveal that they don’t hold their convictions and viewpoints about various matters through carefully reasoned out, fact-based judgments. Instead, they form conclusions based on emotions. Naturally they feel threatened when one of these irrationally based conclusions is questioned by a thinking mind. In a sense, they expect you to respond to their emotions as they already do: By treating them as equivalent to truth.

111 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:05:53am

re: #109 gmsc

Zimbabwe had a black president for the last 30 years….how’s that working out?

112 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:08:27am

re: #110 gmsc

Nice. Succinct. Bullseye.

113 Syrah  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:09:17am

re: #108 freetoken

Couldn’t your argument apply equally as well to the BNP, or the VB, as it does to the DailyMail?

Explicitly so.

The race-based foundation of the European nations states is what make them so susceptible to the racialist arguments of the ethnic nationalist.

114 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:09:33am
115 ShanghaiEd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:14:52am

re: #61 pink freud

It does. IIRC, she was connected to the mob Genovese’s, was a prostitute and was involved in drugs. Add to that the SES factor and it’s no wonder people didn’t want to get involved. All in all, not a very good example to shore up a theory that has been taught for years in psych classes.

Pink, do you have a link about any of those? I can’t find anything. It’s good to see the record set straight, as there were apparently some exaggerations in the NY Times story. But it would be a shame if Kitty Genovese’s character got unfairly trashed in the process.

116 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:17:11am

re: #105 Fenway_Nation

Does that mean they’re going to get White House press credentials like HuffPo?

I don’t see why MMA would, or why they would even apply for a pass. They don’t do reporting, they fact check the reporting of others (and btw, they drop the hammer on people like the NYT when they f-up too.)

BTW, the HuffPo coverage of Iran has been widely acknowledged to be the best being done—- by people on both the left and the right.

117 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:17:52am

re: #110 gmsc

Hostility to Criticism

I suspect that’s why so many on the right loathe Media Matters.

118 freetoken  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:18:50am

re: #113 Syrah

So if we judge the BNP and VB as undesirable because of their ethno-nationalism, shall we not also judge the DailyMail likewise as undesirable?

How are we as Americans to look at the rest of the world?

Charles caught lots of grief for not cheering on Wilders’ … to me CJ was just consistently applying his American tradition of what constitutes liberty as understood in the US…

Is it wrong to judge others by our standards?

119 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:19:12am

re: #102 gmsc

I’d often wondered what it would be like to grant the 0bama supporters their protection of him from criticism.

Just say, “Yep. 0bama can’t be criticized. No matter what he does, he’s always right, and you will probably be severely punished if you criticize him publicly in any way. True, most world leaders can be and are criticized, but you have to understand that 0bama can’t take criticism …”

…and just continue until they people saying 0bama can’t be criticized get the point.

People who don’t want to criticise Obama for anything are just as dangerous and wrong as those who didn’t want to criticise Bush for anything.

Personality cults have no place in a democracy.

120 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:19:38am

109 & 110….

Fucking awesome.

121 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:20:06am

Let’s see:

1- Cap & Trade is going to cripple the economy because

A) It was hastily written and approved with an artificial sense of urgency by politicians more interested in collecting money

B) It aims to artificially cut us off from domestically available energy sources and replace them with less effective and quasi-experimental means of generating energy

C) Those crazy right-wingers

2- Card Check is a bad idea because

A) It eliminates the private ballot in union elections, leaving members open to threats and intimidation if they don’t vote ‘properly’

B) This will also damage the economy by driving up the cost of goods and services to accomodate everyone having union wages

C) Those crazy right-wingers.

3- Afghanistan (the ‘good’ war) has become less tenable thn Iraq because

A) An emboldened and reconstituted Taliban is counterattacking
and harrassing the supply lines of Coalition forces

B) Aside from the United Kingdom and Canada, the other NATO nations don’t seem to be offering more than a token presence in the reigon.

C) Those Crazy right-wingers.

Also would’ve accepted ‘Ron Paul’….

122 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:23:24am

re: #121 Fenway_Nation

Who is arguing that “those crazy rightwingers” are responsible for any of that? Nobody here, that I can see.

(But i’d like to write in “Ron Paul!” just for the hell of it. )

123 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:23:47am

re: #116 iceweasel


BTW, the HuffPo coverage of Iran has been widely acknowledged to be the best being done—- by people on both the left and the right.

HuffPo had White House press credentials since 0’s first press conference…..so did Ed Shultz.

124 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:24:40am

re: #115 ShanghaiEd

No, sorry.

125 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:28:05am

re: #123 Fenway_Nation

HuffPo had White House press credentials since 0’s first press conference…..so did Ed Shultz.

Ah ok— i thought you were referring to the flap over Nico Pitney of the HuffPo getting to ask a question.

I don’t personally have any use for the HuffPo, until this recent Iran coverage. But it’s worth nothing that they’re a major online source of news and that even members of the GOP have chosen to post there to get their news out. It’s not so odd that they have WH press credentials.

Like it or not, they’re a big part of the New Media.

126 Syrah  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:36:08am

re: #118 freetoken

So if we judge the BNP and VB as undesirable because of their ethno-nationalism, shall we not also judge the DailyMail likewise as undesirable?

How are we as Americans to look at the rest of the world?

Charles caught lots of grief for not cheering on Wilders’ … to me CJ was just consistently applying his American tradition of what constitutes liberty as understood in the US…

Is it wrong to judge others by our standards?

The Daily Mail is a newspaper, not a party. If it becomes a defacto party organ of the BNP, it would deserve our contempt and disdain.

We Americans should look at the rest of the world as Americans looking at the rest of the world. We are very different from much of it, but we cannot wholly disconnect our selves from any of it. We are stuck on this lovely little blue ball with all of those nuts, we will have to make the best of it.

Charles caution with regards to Wilders was wise. Wilders is a product of his nation, its history and his view of how the world works. We can hope for a European Politician to finally arise with sensibilities that we can identify with, but it would be foolish of us to rush to embrace any of them without some caution.

And lastly, it is always right to judge others by our standards. It is the measure that we have at our disposal. It would be silly of us to use someone else’s measure. (Kind of like drinking from the far side of the cup, both impossible and messy to try.)

127 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:38:26am

re: #125 iceweasel

I remember it well because

-It was carried live on the Lars Larson show, with Larson pointing out some of those in attendence

-The HuffPo ‘reporter’ had a hard-on for Leahy’s ‘Truth comisson’ and bringing up Bush Admin. officials up on criminal charges

-I had a job when this took place.

128 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:39:08am

re: #126 Syrah

The Daily Mail is a newspaper, not a party. If it becomes a defacto party organ of the BNP, it would deserve our contempt and disdain.

“…the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;”

129 SixDegrees  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:40:09am

re: #64 pink freud

Her post (just to make sure I didn’t mis-relay):

OMG my hubby just came back from the grocery store. Some crazy guy was harassing a couple in their seventies so hubby placed himself between the couple and this creep. Turns out the couple had been talking between themselves about how much groceries are up and how it was going to get worse under Obama. OMG it really got ugly. The dude was screaming that it was all Bush’s fault, Obama was our savior and all whites were going to go to hell. My hubby is a big dude but he’s got balance problems and also in a neck brace after spinal surgery. The creep tried to knock my hubby down with his grocery cart. It took security forever to come over there & they really didn’t do anything. The manager said security was there for their employees & not to get involved with customers. WTF?

If the creep pushed the husband - at all - he can be charged with assault and battery in every jurisdiction I’m aware of. I would file charges and see if a police investigation turns anything up, from security tapes or from the store’s employees recognizing a regular customer.

For what it’s worth, a halfway decent lawyer could make a case against the store for failing to keep it’s customers from obvious, preventable harm if security was aware of the situation and failed to respond, not even notifying local police. The store probably has deep pockets, and would offer a settlement just to avoid a lawsuit it would almost certainly lose.

I’ve long since given up on simply rolling over when shit like this happens, and prefer to press forward with all my legal rights. The instant the creep started yelling at me or otherwise threatening me, I would have told him to knock it off or he would be going to jail - and I would have backed that threat up with action, as outlined above.

130 Syrah  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:42:21am

re: #128 gmsc

“…the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;”

[Video]

I briefly thought of linking to that.

English papers are much more overtly political than American papers. (American papers just deny their partisanship.) I could not recall the Daily Mail’s specific party bias. I doubt if it is BNP, but with the way things are going and are bound to go in the UK, I would not be too terribly surprised if it started to lean in that direction.

131 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:43:02am

Are the figures in this Heritage Foundation article correct?

132 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:43:09am

re: #127 Fenway_Nation

I remember it well because

-It was carried live on the Lars Larson show, with Larson pointing out some of those in attendence

-The HuffPo ‘reporter’ had a hard-on for Leahy’s ‘Truth comisson’ and bringing up Bush Admin. officials up on criminal charges

-I had a job when this took place.

?
I was talking about the Nico Pitney question this week. Is that the same thing?

(Like I said, I’m not invested in defending HuffPo, believe me. To me it’s meet the new boss, same as the old boss— that is, I consider them no better than the old MSM.)

(with the sole exception of their Iran coverage of late.)

133 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:43:51am

I can honestly say I’ve learned something from the first six months of the 0bama Administration.

The smug, overreaching left in power is much more dangerous to America’s long-term viability than the angry, reactionary right that’s out of power.

134 pink freud  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:46:48am

Goodnight, everyone. Eyes won’t stay open to wait for fruitcup.

Warm greetings to littleoldlady; you are in my thoughts.

135 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:47:41am

re: #132 iceweasel

No…this was back in January or Febuary. I’m not sure if the reporter who was cheerleading for Leahy’s ‘Truth comission’ was Nico Pintey or not, but the HuffPo reporter sounded like he wouldn’t be satisfied until everyone in the Bush Admin. was dangling from piano wire…..

136 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:48:05am

re: #130 Syrah

I briefly thought of linking to that.

English papers are much more overtly political than American papers. (American papers just deny their partisanship.) I could not recall the Daily Mail’s specific party bias. I doubt if it is BNP, but with the way things are going and are bound to go in the UK, I would not be too terribly surprised if it started to lean in that direction.

It’s not BNP and I really can’t see the Mail ever explictly going for the BNP unless someone in the BNP buys it and guts it. The Mail is conservative with a small c.
I can imagine some people who vote BNP might buy it for the anti-immigration slant— but that’s sort of like a paedophile looking at pictures in a children’s clothing catalogue to get his fix.

137 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:48:26am

re: #134 pink freud

G’nite pink!

138 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:49:05am

re: #135 Fenway_Nation

No…this was back in January or Febuary. I’m not sure if the reporter who was cheerleading for Leahy’s ‘Truth comission’ was Nico Pintey or not, but the HuffPo reporter sounded like he wouldn’t be satisfied until everyone in the Bush Admin. was dangling from piano wire…..

Oh, ok. Yeah, those are the sort of people who are part of the reason I don’t read the HuffPo. :)

139 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:49:08am

re: #134 pink freud

Goodnight, everyone. Eyes won’t stay open to wait for fruitcup.

Warm greetings to littleoldlady; you are in my thoughts.

G’Nite, pink.

Sleep well.

140 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:49:43am

Good night, Pink!

141 Syrah  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:52:15am

re: #136 iceweasel

It’s not BNP and I really can’t see the Mail ever explictly going for the BNP unless someone in the BNP buys it and guts it. The Mail is conservative with a small c.
I can imagine some people who vote BNP might buy it for the anti-immigration slant— but that’s sort of like a paedophile looking at pictures in a children’s clothing catalogue to get his fix.

That was my impression. Conservative with a small c seems to match what I recall.

I expect racial tensions to rise in Europe over the next twenty years. It has me a bit worried. The BNP and VB are I think early signs of what is to come. (I would very much like to be wrong about this.)

142 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:52:38am

One of my friends commented on the Heritage link a few posts up that I posted on FB…


“it’s dangerous when 85% of the credits that were SUPPOSED to be auctioned were given away. this bill was not strong ENOUGH.”

I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean….not the cap/trade expert.

143 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:58:11am

re: #131 TheMatrix31

Are the figures in this Heritage Foundation article correct?

Matrix, I’m no cap and trade expert (fenway can tell us all a lot about the harm its doing to the transportation industries).

I do know that the estimates of the impact vary widely. The figures the Heritage Foundation (which is a conservative think tank, not a nonpartisan one) are disputed at least in part by the EPA, which says:


[t]he cap & trade policy has a relatively modest impact on U.S. consumers assuming the bulk of revenues from the program are returned to household[s],” and it estimates the average cost per household to be between $98 and $140 per year.

[Link: www.epa.gov…]

But the heritage foundation is talking about costs in 2032, and I don’t know about that. (I also don’t know if the epa study is looking that far ahead)

144 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:59:52am

re: #136 iceweasel

but that’s sort of like a paedophile looking at pictures in a children’s clothing catalogue to get his fix.

What the fuck? Can we get through one fucking thread without talking about Micheal Jackson?

//

145 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:00:03am

Good morning, afternoon, evening *everyone*!™

Fruitcup is on the buffet ———————————->
Help yourselves!

146 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:02:04am

re: #145 littleoldlady

Good morning, afternoon, evening *everyone*!™

Fruitcup is on the buffet ———————————->
Help yourselves!

Good morning! Yummy - Thank you!

When talking to my mom today, I mentioned LGF and she said, “Oh, be sure to say hello to fruitcup for me!”

Because I think she meant to say “littleoldlady”, I’m saying hello from my mom.

Just in case she actually meant what she said, I’ll say hello to my fruitcup, too.
;)

147 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:02:55am

re: #141 Syrah

That was my impression. Conservative with a small c seems to match what I recall.

I expect racial tensions to rise in Europe over the next twenty years. It has me a bit worried. The BNP and VB are I think early signs of what is to come. (I would very much like to be wrong about this.)

Agree with you on all counts, including the hope that we’re wrong.
A friend of mine was assaulted in London not long after 7/7 and told to “go home’. Never mind that he’s born in Devon, went to Oxford, and is C of E— and is half Anglo.

148 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:03:19am

E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming

Excerpt:

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

149 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:05:18am

gmsc! :-)

ROTFL! Give my thanks to mom! I needed that laugh…

150 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:05:43am

re: #144 Fenway_Nation

What the fuck? Can we get through one fucking thread without talking about Micheal Jackson?

//

Haha— ok, you got me. I can’t stop talking about MJ!

151 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:05:49am

re: #145 littleoldlady

Good morning, afternoon, evening *everyone*!™

Fruitcup is on the buffet ———————————->
Help yourselves!

Thanks, LoL…


re: #143 iceweasel

[Link: www.epa.gov…]

But the heritage foundation is talking about costs in 2032, and I don’t know about that. (I also don’t know if the epa study is looking that far ahead)

Hmm…interesting

152 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:09:29am

re: #145 littleoldlady

Hi littleoldlady. I’ll say hello to the fruitcup too, because gmsc’s story was too cute for words…

153 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:10:01am

re: #148 gmsc

FACTS?! We dunn need no steenkin’ FACTS!

154 Syrah  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:10:38am

re: #147 iceweasel

Your friend might be more “at home” here than there.

155 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:11:36am

Matrix! :-)

My daughter is sitting next to me writing a paper for Anthropology. She’d log on and say “hi” but she forgets her password.

/yup! she’s MY kid, alright! ;-)

iceweasel! :-)

156 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:12:15am

re: #149 littleoldlady

gmsc! :-)

ROTFL! Give my thanks to mom! I needed that laugh…

You got it!

157 freetoken  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:13:33am

re: #148 gmsc

Because the report was of very low quality and depended up poor (and highly biases) sources. It was rightfully dismissed.

158 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:14:22am

re: #154 Syrah

Your friend might be more “at home” here than there.

He lived in the US for a while and loved it. Partly because while we have racism in some places in the US, it is vastly different than the kind in the UK.

He was in NYC for 9/11, come to think of it, and no-one in NYC assaulted him or even thought of him as anything but “English.”

159 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:15:18am
160 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:16:22am

re: #155 littleoldlady

Matrix! :-)

My daughter is sitting next to me writing a paper for Anthropology. She’d log on and say “hi” but she forgets her password.

/yup! she’s MY kid, alright! ;-)

iceweasel! :-)

Woohoo! Use the “Forgot Password?” ;)

161 Syrah  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:17:13am

re: #158 iceweasel

Ironic is it not that the only place that he can really be “English” is in America?

Of course he could just as easily be an American here as well.

162 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:19:50am

re: #160 TheMatrix31

Woohoo! Use the “Forgot Password?” ;)

WOW! You’re a genius! :-)

163 jewpublican  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:21:18am

hello world.
:)
is anybody as upset about billy mays passing as i am?

164 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:22:31am

re: #163 jewpublican

hello world.
:)
is anybody as upset about billy mays passing as i am?

I think I’m the only other one on here who has even mentioned it. (See #81.)

165 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:23:15am

re: #161 Syrah

It was completely ironic. He’d always felt somewhat like an outsider in the UK, despite being born there, because of the UK’s attitudes about race and nationalism.

He loved NYC and SF, because of the diversity— and in the US he’s primarily thought of as “English”, no matter what.

166 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:23:38am

For the hard to awaken lizard

Most Effective Alarm Clock In The World

wear helmet.

With that, off to work early to get some reports printed out.
/the earlier the quieter.

I bid you all a good day.

167 Alberta Oil Peon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:25:55am

re: #157 freetoken

Because the report was of very low quality and depended up poor (and highly biases) sources. It was rightfully dismissed.

Actually, you are full of shit on that.

I think your avatar is constricting blood flow to your brain.

168 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:25:58am

re: #164 gmsc

It was in the spinoff links a couple of times.

Oh… thanks a lot gmsc! Now she’s crying.

We’re sitting shiva here.

169 jewpublican  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:26:12am

re: #164 gmsc

i tried listening to the mighty puty commercial and i got upset.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH ME?!

170 Syrah  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:26:16am

Goodnight Lizards,

It is way past bedtime.

See y’all way past bedtime tomorrow.

171 haakondahl  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:26:16am

re: #109 gmsc

History Isn’t Racial

Why is this guy still harping about this? Unless he has found some nest of idiocy still calling him racist for on-the-level criticism of the President, it sounds like he’s knocking down straw men. He sets them up with “I’m supposed to…” twice. By whom is he supposed to think these thoughts?
It sounds like victim posing. Worse, it sounds like making an issue where there isn’t one.

CAVEAT: if he has relayed specifics, then his criticism is certainly valid. I can’t follow the link from where I am.

172 rightside  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:26:55am

Morning Lizards.

173 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:26:58am

‘Night, Syrah! :-)

174 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:27:11am

rightside! :-)

175 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:29:57am

re: #170 Syrah

Goodnight Lizards,

It is way past bedtime.

See y’all way past bedtime tomorrow.

G’Nite, Syrah.

176 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:30:32am

re: #168 littleoldlady

It was in the spinoff links a couple of times.

Oh… thanks a lot gmsc! Now she’s crying.

We’re sitting shiva here.

Sorry, shiva!

177 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:30:51am

re: #142 TheMatrix31

Well….like some have said; I’m looking at this from the point of view of transportation companies (particularly railways) that have coal or oil as their primary traffic base as well as those that have found new revenue hauling petrolium and natural gas exploration equipment.

Make no mistake, the ‘Big 6’ railways- Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Union Pacific, CSX, Canadian Pacific, Canadian National, Norfolk Southern- will survive this, but there are scores of smaller short-haul and reigonal railways already hurting from the credit crisis that will be reeling or cut to ribbons from this.

Every time I think some railway might dodge the bullet, I’m suddenly reminded of other provisions in the cap & trade legislation that would put them back at square one.

For example- I’d think Soandso and Atlantic railway might make it out of this okay, because most of their traffic comes from a paper mill. But cap and trade will likely dictate what that mill can use for energy and it’s carbon output for a year. The mill’s owner might decide it’s more cost effective to simply shut down or move elsewhere…..

Or Whatchamacallit and Western primarily hauls anthricite coal. Even though 0 made no secret he’d like to put the coal industry out of business, in this case the coal’s final destination is actually a steel mill in Canada- so it looks like the W&W RR avoided the guillotine. But not so fast! There’s provisions on there that also include foreign trade….I think we’re supposed to start dictating how much carbon output there is from other countries as well as our own….

Not to mention the whole proposed carbon offset credit market would be even less regulated than the sub-prime lending markets (and we all know how that turned out).

178 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:31:00am

re: #169 jewpublican

i tried listening to the mighty puty commercial and i got upset.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH ME?!

Who says anything is wrong with you? It may just be a reaction.

179 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:31:34am

re: #178 gmsc

Who says anything is wrong with you? It may just be a your reaction to his passing.

PIMF

180 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:31:59am

re: #163 jewpublican

hello world.
:)
is anybody as upset about billy mays passing as i am?

Hellooooo littlelittleoldlady :)

I was just surprised when I heard. I usually turned it off when his infomercials came on because I’m a fatty and I don’t recall any of the products he promoted being food-oriented.

Now…if Ron Popeil died….then I’d be sad.

/set it and forget it!

181 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:32:39am

re: #163 jewpublican

Sort of….

182 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:33:30am

re: #167 Alberta Oil Peon


Hey there AOP! Are the Canadians as eager to cripple their own energy industry as we are here?

183 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:34:16am

re: #177 Fenway_Nation

Well….like some have said; I’m looking at this from the point of view of transportation companies (particularly railways) that have coal or oil as their primary traffic base as well as those that have found new revenue hauling petrolium and natural gas exploration equipment.

Make no mistake, the ‘Big 6’ railways- Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Union Pacific, CSX, Canadian Pacific, Canadian National, Norfolk Southern- will survive this, but there are scores of smaller short-haul and reigonal railways already hurting from the credit crisis that will be reeling or cut to ribbons from this.

Every time I think some railway might dodge the bullet, I’m suddenly reminded of other provisions in the cap & trade legislation that would put them back at square one.

For example- I’d think Soandso and Atlantic railway might make it out of this okay, because most of their traffic comes from a paper mill. But cap and trade will likely dictate what that mill can use for energy and it’s carbon output for a year. The mill’s owner might decide it’s more cost effective to simply shut down or move elsewhere…..

Or Whatchamacallit and Western primarily hauls anthricite coal. Even though 0 made no secret he’d like to put the coal industry out of business, in this case the coal’s final destination is actually a steel mill in Canada- so it looks like the W&W RR avoided the guillotine. But not so fast! There’s provisions on there that also include foreign trade….I think we’re supposed to start dictating how much carbon output there is from other countries as well as our own….

Not to mention the whole proposed carbon offset credit market would be even less regulated than the sub-prime lending markets (and we all know how that turned out).

Interesting post. This stuff confuses the heck out of me. What do you make of the comment my buddy made?

it’s dangerous when 85% of the credits that were SUPPOSED to be auctioned were given away. this bill was not strong ENOUGH.

184 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:36:04am

re: #178 gmsc

That’s what happens when you’re a Marketing major. Billy Mays becomes a hero. ;-)

185 jewpublican  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:36:07am

re: #180 TheMatrix31

hi matrix ;)

186 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:38:37am

re: #185 jewpublican

hi matrix ;)

You only have 18 comments!

187 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:39:44am

re: #171 haakondahl

Why is this guy still harping about this? Unless he has found some nest of idiocy still calling him racist for on-the-level criticism of the President, it sounds like he’s knocking down straw men. He sets them up with “I’m supposed to…” twice. By whom is he supposed to think these thoughts?
It sounds like victim posing. Worse, it sounds like making an issue where there isn’t one.

CAVEAT: if he has relayed specifics, then his criticism is certainly valid. I can’t follow the link from where I am.

No, you’re spot-on.
He relayed no specifics. gmsc quoted that guy’s post in full. It included no links either to people telling him what to do or claiming that he’s supposed to support Obama no matter what or he’s ‘racist’.

Frankly, I call bullshit on this. Criticism of Obama is alive and well on the left — I don’t know of a single reputable source that has seriously suggested that he shouldn’t be criticised, still less that it’s racist to criticise him.
(He has cultists, for sure— but they’re not arguing that he shouldn’t be criticised because he’s black, but because he’s Obama!)

I do see a lot of people on the fringe right claiming that “we can’t criticise Obama or we’re called racists” — but as far as I see, the only criticisms of Obama that get called racist are the racist criticisms.

188 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:41:00am

re: #183 TheMatrix31

Isn’t the worst part of this legislation (I mean, aside from the hugeness and taxness of it) is that it will NOT reduce carbon emissions by any measurable amount?

189 rightside  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:41:28am

re: #174 littleoldlady

lol!

190 jewpublican  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:41:39am

re: #186 TheMatrix31

i’m in college and i have a stressful job … i know that’s a bad excuse. from what i hear you’re in college too!

191 gmsc  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:43:27am

I’m drifting off, so now it’s time to day goodbye …

Good night, all!

192 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:44:37am

re: #183 TheMatrix31

it’s dangerous when 85% of the credits that were SUPPOSED to be auctioned were given away.

I’m not so familiar with this part…but I think he’s referring to the carbon offset market, which is basically a tax for any company that exceeds some emissions quota. I think companies are supposed to be able to trade credits if one is over and one is under…

this bill was not strong ENOUGH.

Sounds a little like he thinks the United States should give up fossil fuels cold turkey (even though we have significant natural gas reserves).

Also worth noting that there are some railways in the Midwest who might actually benefit from this, since they’ve seen a significant spike in ethanol production. I’m not sure where exactly cap and trade comes down vis a vis ethanol, but if there are provisions in favor of increased ethanol production, than that should be proof to even the most dense 0bama cheerleader that this is about squeezing more money form the taxpayers and businesses, since burning ethanol produces carbon just like gasoline diesel or jet fuel……

193 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:44:44am

re: #188 littleoldlady

Isn’t the worst part of this legislation (I mean, aside from the hugeness and taxness of it) is that it will NOT reduce carbon emissions by any measurable amount?

Noooo idea.

re: #190 jewpublican

i’m in college and i have a stressful job … i know that’s a bad excuse. from what i hear you’re in college too!

Yep, I’m in college. Physically, not mentally ;)

194 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:45:10am

re: #191 gmsc


G’nite gmsc!

195 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:45:22am

‘Night, gmsc! :-)

/great find!
//you’re too young to remember that! ;-)

196 jewpublican  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:48:09am
197 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:50:49am

re: #192 Fenway_Nation

Sounds a little like he thinks the United States should give up fossil fuels cold turkey (even though we have significant natural gas reserves).

It’s interesting, because the guy has been staunchly anti-spendulous and all that. I wonder why he thinks this bill doesn’t do enough.

198 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:51:06am

GN, GM!

199 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:56:41am

re: #197 TheMatrix31

Hmm……

Maybe he thinks the proposed ‘credits’ are being given out as political favors and that if the purpose of all this legislation would be for the environment’s benefit (instead of career pols handing out kickbacks) then it wouldn’t do enough.

/I know….completely beyond the pale with a bunch of Chicago pols running the show

200 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:57:43am

re: #199 Fenway_Nation

I think that’s a given.

/but who knows for sure since nobody has read the damn thing?!

201 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:59:14am

re: #199 Fenway_Nation

Hmm……

Maybe he thinks the proposed ‘credits’ are being given out as political favors and that if the purpose of all this legislation would be for the environment’s benefit (instead of career pols handing out kickbacks) then it wouldn’t do enough.

/I know….completely beyond the pale with a bunch of Chicago pols running the show

Could be, who knows. I don’t know a damn thing about it and I can tell that it’s to stiff people and businesses.

202 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:00:38am

re: #200 littleoldlady

Well…to be fair, they keep tacking on another 300+ pages every time it goes up for a vote

203 rightside  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:01:51am

re: #200 littleoldlady

I’d propose a law by which no one could vote on a bill, unless you have the entire bill read to you in the chamber. Miss some, and reschedule. Every member.

204 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:03:24am

re: #203 rightside

Works for me!

205 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:04:34am

re: #203 rightside

I’d propose a law by which no one could vote on a bill, unless you have the entire bill read to you in the chamber. Miss some, and reschedule. Every member.

What if no one read that bill?

:-/

206 rightside  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:05:20am

re: #205 TheMatrix31

Then it doesn’t get voted on. Good things happen when congress does nothing. Less intrusion into our lives.

207 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:09:00am

re: #183 TheMatrix31

it’s dangerous when 85% of the credits that were SUPPOSED to be auctioned were given away. this bill was not strong ENOUGH

I don’t know at all what your buddy is talking about here, because as far as I know (which isn’t much), the credits are still being auctioned off— not given away.

The 2010 United States federal budget proposes to support clean energy development with a 10-year investment of US $15 billion per year, generated from the sale of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions credits. Under the proposed cap-and-trade program, all GHG emissions credits would be auctioned off, generating an estimated $78.7 billion in additional revenue in FY 2012, steadily increasing to $83 billion by FY 2019


President’s Budget Draws Clean Energy Funds From Climate Measure

Maybe your friend thinks, as Fenway suggested he might, that more needs to be done to tax carbon and fossil fuel emissions?

Sounds to me like your friend is probably very pro-environment and doesn’t believe that the measures being put in place will do enough to help the environment, rather than politicians.

208 spinmore  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:10:26am

Good Morning from Philly. This is my weekend - don’t want to rub it in (0605 hrs). Got my DD med. coffee, the garden looks good (tomatoes, zucchini, cucumbers - all doing well) all is well with the world.

If we knew what we were doing … we wouldn’t have defaulted on our student loans and had our wages attached

209 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:12:14am

re: #208 spinmore

Howdy Neighbor! :-)

/from Delaware County

210 spinmore  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:13:50am

re: #209 littleoldlady

Good Morning … looks like it’s gonna be a beautiful day (we need it). Forgot the sky was blue.

211 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:14:38am

re: #210 spinmore

No…rain…?

/confused

212 jewpublican  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:18:22am

alright, it’s been swell but i think it’s time i work on my homework.

have a good day everybody! :)

213 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:18:40am

re: #207 iceweasel


President’s Budget Draws Clean Energy Funds From Climate Measure

Maybe your friend thinks, as Fenway suggested he might, that more needs to be done to tax carbon and fossil fuel emissions?

Sounds to me like your friend is probably very pro-environment and doesn’t believe that the measures being put in place will do enough to help the environment, rather than politicians.

Awesome…thanks for that link!

214 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:19:09am

re: #212 jewpublican

alright, it’s been swell but i think it’s time i work on my homework.

have a good day everybody! :)

Good night JP :) Good luck on your paper

215 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:19:40am

re: #212 jewpublican

Bye MNTS Jewpublican!

216 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:23:37am

THE DEATH OF BILLY MAYS IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO GOD.

/and how are you this evening? :c

217 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:23:39am

re: #215 Fenway_Nation

I just got beat for that.

/MNTS
//the perils of sitting next to her while on LGF… ;-)

218 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:26:36am

Oh….as for the damages done to the transportation sector by cap & trade, I was simply thinking in terms of commodities hauled and how this would affect various shippers….

Imagine if there were some far-reaching provisions where the government dictated what type of trucks, locomotives, barges or aircraft a shipper should use.

219 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:29:47am

re: #216 laZardo

Why couldn’t it have been the Sham-Wow guy?

/Famous last words- “you gettin’ this, camera guy?”

220 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:30:10am

re: #213 TheMatrix31

Awesome…thanks for that link!

No problem, I hope it helps!

I just found this which looks good. Looks like it does a really good job of explaining what the basics are, for people like me who don’t know anything about it:

What Cap and Trade Programs Are About

It just explains the basics of what a cap is, what the ‘trade’ is. It doesn’t get into whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing (although it’s obvious the author does think it’s a good thing). Anyway it helped me get an idea of what the terms mean and what the system is supposed to be in general.

221 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:36:06am

I have to get moving, too. :-(

Good day, ALL!™

222 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:37:51am

re: #220 iceweasel

You probably weren’t around when I first posted this, but I saw this anime recently that revolves around a cliche-cute teenage chick and her transgendered friend leading a post-apocalyptic resistance against a tyranny running on…carbon credits.

I’m really not making this up!

223 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:39:39am

Good Morning LGF.
BUT WAIT!

224 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:43:42am

re: #223 Spare O’Lake

POST NOW AND I’LL DOUBLE THE OFFER!

/whatever offer that was, i forgot in my sorrow ;_;

225 mamacares  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:45:42am

re: #172 rightside

Good morning Lizards.

226 spinmore  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:47:53am

re: #225 mamacares

Morning (young lizard offers up dead cricket)

227 rightside  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:48:11am

re: #225 mamacares

morning mamacares.

228 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:48:51am
229 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:50:43am

re: #222 laZardo

You probably weren’t around when I first posted this, but I saw this anime recently that revolves around a cliche-cute teenage chick and her transgendered friend leading a post-apocalyptic resistance against a tyranny running on…carbon credits.

I’m really not making this up!

I. LOVE. IT. LOVE!
!
I have to watch all of it now. Wheee!

/so long as it’s not hentai or lolicon it’s all good as far as I’m concerned—

230 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:03:55am

Well….slumber beckons-

G’nite/morning, lizards!

231 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:05:41am

re: #229 iceweasel


/so long as it’s not hentai or lolicon it’s all good as far as I’m concerned—

Nothing says loving like tentacle lovin!

/sarc

232 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:11:01am

Wow.

Who would have thought that a comment about tentacle loving would have killed an open thread :P

233 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:13:04am

re: #228 Spare O’Lake

I’ll see him again when I get to the bottom of the slide called life.

234 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:15:35am

re: #232 Mithrax

Wow.

Who would have thought that a comment about tentacle loving would have killed an open thread :P

Ha!

Yes, i didn’t mention tentacles for exactly that reason….

This onion story always makes me laugh

Japan Pledges To Halt Production Of Weirdo Porn That Makes People Puke

235 3 wood  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:16:55am

Good morning.

Look for the market to open on the upside as the market bounces back from some losses last week. Never the less, the unemployment numbers to be released later this week are probably going to show that unemployment is still growing. It will be interesting to hear how the blind Obama worshipers deal with that, probably will just ignore it or accuse those who mention it as slurring the President.

Two words on the economic impact of Cap and Trade — train wreck.

236 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:17:58am

re: #234 iceweasel

Ha!

Yes, i didn’t mention tentacles for exactly that reason….

This onion story always makes me laugh

Japan Pledges To Halt Production Of Weirdo Porn That Makes People Puke

Yeah yeah, mention tentacles and everyone gets a little panicky

237 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:18:46am

re: #234 iceweasel

Woops— WARNING to all: it’s The Onion and SFW, but you probably don’t want to read that if you’re eating breakfast.

238 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:19:39am

re: #236 Mithrax

Yeah yeah, mention tentacles and everyone gets a little panicky

Culture minister Nakai told members of the press Wednesday that his office would continue working to understand what other nations find objectionable about his country’s pornography.

“So just to be clear: even the cartoon tentacle-rape stuff?” Nakai asked. “Even though it’s only animated and the probing tentacles are clearly not real?”

heh.

239 TheMatrix31  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:21:37am

re: #220 iceweasel

No problem, I hope it helps!

I just found this which looks good. Looks like it does a really good job of explaining what the basics are, for people like me who don’t know anything about it:

What Cap and Trade Programs Are About

It just explains the basics of what a cap is, what the ‘trade’ is. It doesn’t get into whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing (although it’s obvious the author does think it’s a good thing). Anyway it helped me get an idea of what the terms mean and what the system is supposed to be in general.

Wow, reallly good link!

240 3 wood  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:22:32am

Here’s an amazing article, the NYT is decrying the compromise of journalism in covering news from Iran:


Journalism Rules Are Bent in News Coverage From Iran

“Check the source” may be the first rule of journalism. But in the coverage of the protests in Iran this month, some news organizations have adopted a different stance: publish first, ask questions later. If you still don’t know the answer, ask your readers.

Iran? Iran! Iran!?

How about first trying to develop some journalistic integrity on reporting news from Washington?

All you people do is put in a cheerleaders outfit and shake pom-pons for the Messiah. Try looking in the mirror first.

241 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:23:30am

re: #236 Mithrax

Yeah yeah, mention tentacles and everyone gets a little panicky

Almost everyone. :3

/us hormonal 21-year-old nerds need something to keep us awake. q:

242 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:24:00am

re: #238 iceweasel

You know, the fact that I laughed at that article, and knew what the hell it meant makes me think I need help.

nah.

243 yochanan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:24:02am
244 3 wood  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:28:39am

New taxes are on the table:

Taxing Employee Benefits to Pay for Obama Health Care Plan Still an Option


The White House left open the possibility Sunday that President Obama could tax employer-provided health insurance to pay for his $1 trillion universal health care plan, a violation of the president’s campaign pledge to not raise taxes on middle-class families.

White House adviser David Axelrod said the administration wouldn’t rule out taxing some employees’ benefits to fund a health care agenda that has yet to take final form. The move would be a compromise with fellow Democrats, who are pushing the proposal as a way to pay for the massive undertaking without ballooning the federal deficit.

“There are a number of formulations and we’ll wait and see. The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going,” Axelrod said. “We’ve gotten a long way down the road and we want to finish that journey.”

Taxing employer provided benefits will effectively terminate them. Also, as the cost of employing people is increased due to these payroll taxes, there will be a growing move toward contracting people out an exporting jobs overseas.

Also an option is to have employers who don’t provide coverage to pay an 8 percent payroll tax. Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she believes the economy won’t be affected negatively by that cost.

245 Ateam  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:29:23am

re: #240 3 wood

Troubled (NY)Times

246 yochanan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:30:07am

lso an option is to have employers who don’t provide coverage to pay an 8 percent payroll tax. Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she believes the economy won’t be affected negatively by that cost. YEAH RIGHT

247 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:31:30am

re: #241 laZardo

Almost everyone. :3

/us hormonal 21-year-old nerds need something to keep us awake. q:

I laughed too, and knew what it meant. Mostly. Uh-oh….

248 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:32:23am

re: #240 3 wood


All you people do is put in a cheerleaders outfit and shake pom-pons

Wait, what?

Sorry, thought we were talking about anime again. My bad.

249 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:32:27am

re: #247 iceweasel

I laughed too, and knew what it meant. Mostly. Uh-oh….

it’s ok, your secret is safe with us!

250 3 wood  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:36:43am

Obama’s plans to save housing are not working out as advertised:

Housing in Peril as Obama Fails to Get Financing Breakthrough


June 29 (Bloomberg) — Driving through Riverside, California, Bruce Norris pointed to a half-dozen empty houses with “For Sale” signs stuck in untended lawns that he said investors might buy if banks would just extend some credit.

“People today look at us as the enemy,” said Norris, 57, head of Riverside-based Norris Group, which purchases and renovates homes to rent or sell. “That’s a big problem for housing because if we can’t get the financing we need, a lot of these properties are going to sit vacant.”

Four months after President Barack Obama pledged $275 billion to shore up home sales, the engine that powered every U.S. recovery since 1960 is stalled. Bankers’ reluctance to finance buyers who won’t live in properties is one barrier to a turnaround. Stricter qualifying rules and a rise in the cost of residential loans to 5.42 percent have impeded new mortgage lending, which is at a 13-year low. An inventory of 2.1 million unoccupied houses on the market, created

by the fastest foreclosure pace in history, may be a drag on a revival.

The $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit in the U.S. economic stimulus package and a government program to subsidize some mortgage payments have had little effect, according to Eric Belsky, executive director of Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“It hasn’t been much more than a see-sawing of data,” Belsky said in an interview. “Housing has led the U.S. economy out of every recession for at least 50 years, and for that to happen again more stimulus is going to be needed.”


The key is employment, or the lack thereof. You have to have a long term confidence of employment before people will undertake that long term liability.

And just about everything Obama has done has hurt the prosepects for long term employment, not helped it.

It will be interesting to hear how he and his worshippers blame this on Bush.

251 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:37:10am

re: #248 iceweasel

I think he means that when LGF catches the major news media in a bad moment, it’s like one of those sudden panty/underwear flashes?

252 3 wood  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:40:05am

The WLS radio news just said that Michael Jackson was down to 112 pounds, completely emaciated, no hair, and only pills in his digestive system at the time of death. Apparently he could no longer sing as was preparing to lip-synch all the way through his upcoming concert tour.

253 razorbacker  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:41:29am

re: #252 3 wood

Did you mean to type Nancy Pelosi instead of Michael Jackson?

It would explain a lot, if you did.

254 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:41:34am

re: #249 Mithrax

it’s ok, your secret is safe with us!

Hee!

More seriously, and this is more of a subject for a LNDT, the average person 30 and under has seen WAY more explicit images just as a matter of course than the average person older than that.

It’s the combination of normal adolescent curiosity combined with the wild west of the internet. The average 13 year old now has access to, and has seen, images that even a dedicated pervert once couldn’t find without the internet— unless they wanted to really get into the subculture.

It’s strange and is going to have a far reaching affect on our culture. It already is and has, but it’s only going to accelerate.

255 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:42:04am

re: #254 iceweasel

Oh I know, I’ve been using the internet since I was 16 :P

256 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:42:54am

re: #255 Mithrax

Oh I know, I’ve been using the internet since I was 16 :P

SEE?

:P

257 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:43:04am

re: #250 3 wood

“It’s not just Bush! It’s what decades of Republican-advocated deregulation through people like Phil Gramm have enabled predatory lenders to do!”

/I have an excellent rebuttal to that greenheart’d somewhere…

258 SixDegrees  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:43:18am

re: #252 3 wood

The WLS radio news just said that Michael Jackson was down to 112 pounds, completely emaciated, no hair, and only pills in his digestive system at the time of death. Apparently he could no longer sing as was preparing to lip-synch all the way through his upcoming concert tour.

AIDs, perhaps?

Or simply the result of associating with quacks instead of real doctors?

259 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:43:30am

re: #254 iceweasel

4chan.

/and that’s all I gotta say about that. :x

260 3 wood  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:43:44am

re: #251 laZardo

I think he means that when LGF catches the major news media in a bad moment, it’s like one of those sudden panty/underwear flashes?

No, I mean that the NYT has dropped all pretense of actual reporting integrity and have become a shameless PR arm for Obama and the Democrats. And then they have the gall to question the integrity of reporting coming from Iran?

Please.

By the way long time comedian Freddy Travelina has died of cancer at 66.

261 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:44:01am

re: #259 laZardo

4chan.

/and that’s all I gotta say about that. :x

EXACTLY.

/nuff said.

262 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:44:02am

re: #256 iceweasel

SEE?

:P

I just did the math, I’ve been using the internet for half my life.

damn.

263 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:44:38am

re: #258 SixDegrees

AIDs, perhaps?

Or simply the result of associating with quacks instead of real doctors?

I’d say Quacks. He was surrounded by a lot of odd odd people.

264 jvic  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:44:53am

re: #246 yochanan

lso an option is to have employers who don’t provide coverage to pay an 8 percent payroll tax. Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she believes the economy won’t be affected negatively by that cost. YEAH RIGHT

Sebelius is the daughter of a governor and married to a judge. After attending an upscale private school, she got a Masters in Public Administration.

She has never held a private-sector job.

She is less qualified to blather about the economy than Barney Frank is.

265 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:45:23am

re: #260 3 wood

No, I mean that the NYT has dropped all pretense of actual reporting integrity and have become a shameless PR arm for Obama and the Democrats. And then they have the gall to question the integrity of reporting coming from Iran?

Please.

By the way long time comedian Freddy Travelina has died of cancer at 66.

Please. The NYT hasn’t had reporting integrity since 2000.

266 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:45:54am

To kick off the morning:

Vnv Nation - Genesis

267 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:46:49am

re: #262 Mithrax

I just did the math, I’ve been using the internet for half my life.

damn.

So think of the younger people who have been using it all their lives!

/won’t someone think of the children?

268 3 wood  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:47:37am

re: #258 SixDegrees

AIDs, perhaps?

Or simply the result of associating with quacks instead of real doctors?

My guess is years of dope. Which means you can bet his estate will be suing certain doctors from Jackson’s past.


In an odd way, this reminds me a bit of John Belushi. Talented but twisted guy who retreated into drugs and an enabling group that helped him do it every step of the way.

269 3 wood  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:48:16am

Off to work. Later.

270 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:48:17am

re: #265 iceweasel

Please. The NYT hasn’t had reporting integrity since 2000.


Was that when the Jayson Blair colums occured?

271 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:48:43am

re: #267 iceweasel

So think of the younger people who have been using it all their lives!

/won’t someone think of the children?

Actually, I don’t think it’s any different than about 200 years ago.

Should read about the boatloads of hookers that used to meet ships of the line when they came into port. Sometimes 2 women per man, including the midshipmen who were barely into their teens.

272 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:48:56am

re: #255 Mithrax

OLD FOGEY. :O

/remembers the dial-up sound like his parents remember the oldies

273 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:49:51am

re: #272 laZardo

OLD FOGEY. :O

/remembers the dial-up sound like his parents remember the oldies

Hey I only threw out my 2400 baud a few years ago :P

274 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:49:57am

re: #270 soxfan4life

Was that when the Jayson Blair colums occured?

Blair was busted a little later, IIRC. But the NYT was already crap.

275 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:50:50am

re: #272 laZardo

OLD FOGEY. :O

/remembers the dial-up sound like his parents remember the oldies

And furthermore, I can remember telling my parents quite clearly that this Wolrd Wide WEb thing would never take off because of how slow it took to transfer images.

Usenet ftw!

276 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:52:11am

re: #274 iceweasel

Blair was busted a little later, IIRC. But the NYT was already crap.


Kind of hypocritical of them to fire him than. Had they taken that opportunity to tighten up their ship they could have saved their integrity, so as heartless as it may sound let them go under.

277 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:56:54am

One more video

Vnv Nation Savior (vox) (fan made video from the Anime Voices from a Distant Star)

278 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:57:16am

re: #271 Mithrax

Actually, I don’t think it’s any different than about 200 years ago.

Should read about the boatloads of hookers that used to meet ships of the line when they came into port. Sometimes 2 women per man, including the midshipmen who were barely into their teens.

It is different, in the sense that what’s now acceptable in “the public square” is very different. People have always gotten their freak on, in their own freaky ways. And always will.

And you’re completely right to point out that “public morality” in the US and UK often has this kind of Victorian/Puritan tinge to it. It’s all a little like shutting the barn door after the horse fled. So to speak.

But there’s now this weird combination of public dismay and Puritanism, while the realities of people’s lives are very different— and our consumer culture, media culture, also blasts a message that acts as if all sex all the time is a good thing. We have politicans pontificating that letting gays marry will destroy the institution of marriage— while they’re out there doing enough on their own to destroy their own, hetero marriages.

It’s a weird kind of schizophrenia. I’m all for letting people do whatever they want, but I can’t help being bothered by some of the cultural and political messages the US publicly sends about sex.

279 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:59:18am

Here’s a link for everyone to see how their State Rep voted for Cap and Trade. My Rep Nikki Tsongas is getting a letter from this particular constituent asking to explain the benefits of this manufacturing and utility industry killer. I will print it off of the computer because even doctors sy my handwriting is atrocious, but letters send the strongest message to our elected leaders because they take longer and require some effort to get to the post office and all that, so they carry the most weight with our reps.I don’t expect a response from the commie bitch, but you never know.


[Link: www.govtrack.us…]

280 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 4:59:49am

re: #278 iceweasel

also blasts a message that acts as if all sex all the time is a good thing.


It’s not?!?!? :P

I agree with what you say, now that I’ve turned smartass mode off. Given the current state of “culture” in the west, I don’t know if there will be a single predominant set of cultural mores that will become prevailent, and I don’t know if that would be a good thing either.

281 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:00:40am

re: #276 soxfan4life

Kind of hypocritical of them to fire him than. Had they taken that opportunity to tighten up their ship they could have saved their integrity, so as heartless as it may sound let them go under.

No, they did the right thing in firing him, but at the same time they keep (and defend) a lot of other people who are— if not outright making stuff up— lousy reporters.

Doesn’t sound heartless to me. I was one of those lefty/progs who always read the NYT, and I still do— for the book review.

Like many lefty/progs (though by no means all) I started losing respect for them by 2000 at least.

282 VioletTiger  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:01:55am

re: #279 soxfan4life
I wrote on Friday to my rep. I am doubly disappointed because he was one of the repubs who voted AYE.
Still fuming.

Oh, and good morning lizards.

283 Tigger2005  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:05:14am

So, Chavez has threatened military action over the perfectly legal Honduras “coup.” Doesn’t it comfort you to know that we’re on Chavez’ side in this one?

284 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:05:30am

Alrighty lizardim, I depart for a time.

Big funeral to do today, and they’re calling for severe t-storms to be rolling around all day. Lets hope they hold off until after.

285 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:07:51am

re: #284 Mithrax

Alrighty lizardim, I depart for a time.

Big funeral to do today, and they’re calling for severe t-storms to be rolling around all day. Lets hope they hold off until after.

Take care Mithrax; I’m sorry to hear you have to go to a funeral. Be well.

286 rightside  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:12:02am

re: #282 VioletTiger

Good for you, and good morning.

287 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:12:32am

And speaking of Anime and Communism….

/and you thought Hamas Mickey was bad? They’ve been at this since 1977.

//actually did some fanart of the “imperialist villains,” wanna see? Wolf guy and weasel guy.

288 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:13:30am

re: #286 rightside


Good morning rightside, another rainy day here in central MA, or is it Seattle East?

289 Tigger2005  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:17:50am

I just don’t get the whole “letting gays marry will destroy the institution of marriage” thing. Why? How? I don’t see the logic. Will heterosexual couples take their marriages less seriously because homosexual couples can marry as well? Why?

Some people say if you let gays marry you’ve removed obstacles to every other kind of marriage (the “slippery slope” argument). But there are very sound arguments against allowing multiple wives, multiple husbands, group marriages, people marrying pets, and so on. I cannot think of any sound reason for not permitting two adults to make a legal commitment to one another.

re: #278 iceweasel

It is different, in the sense that what’s now acceptable in “the public square” is very different. People have always gotten their freak on, in their own freaky ways. And always will.

And you’re completely right to point out that “public morality” in the US and UK often has this kind of Victorian/Puritan tinge to it. It’s all a little like shutting the barn door after the horse fled. So to speak.

But there’s now this weird combination of public dismay and Puritanism, while the realities of people’s lives are very different— and our consumer culture, media culture, also blasts a message that acts as if all sex all the time is a good thing. We have politicans pontificating that letting gays marry will destroy the institution of marriage— while they’re out there doing enough on their own to destroy their own, hetero marriages.

It’s a weird kind of schizophrenia. I’m all for letting people do whatever they want, but I can’t help being bothered by some of the cultural and political messages the US publicly sends about sex.

290 rightside  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:18:30am

re: #288 soxfan4life

Hey sox, sunny and warm here for a change.

291 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:18:44am

Here’s my Monday morning rant to get this off of my chest from the weekend.
1. Given the state our county is in now Patrick Henry should have amended his Give me liberty or give me death speech to give me liberty or give me endless government programs.

2. After spending the day in Boston with the missus we stopped at Mickey D’s for a quick bite on the way home and no one working there spoke English very well. I’m 45 years old and a vet, I’ll be damned if I’m going to learn another language to communicate with people in this country. I just won’t.

292 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:21:07am

re: #287 laZardo

I’ve no idea what the hell is going on in there. (But i liked your drawings!)

Have you seen Cat Shit One? Some weird anime about Blackwater mercenaries, apparently?

The Blackwater mercenaries are portrayed as rabbits, because rabbit in Japanese is USAGI— usa, G.I. So the subtitles say.

I haven’t seen Cat Shit One or the series, only the trailer for the movie.

293 BlueCanuck  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:24:59am

re: #291 soxfan4life

Nice rant re:#1.) Big governments are a form of hell, don’t know which circle they belong in. re:#2) I have had the experience dealing with native born Canadians, and I still feel like I am speaking a foriegn language.

294 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:26:05am

re: #289 Tigger2005

I just don’t get the whole “letting gays marry will destroy the institution of marriage” thing. Why? How? I don’t see the logic. Will heterosexual couples take their marriages less seriously because homosexual couples can marry as well? Why?

Some people say if you let gays marry you’ve removed obstacles to every other kind of marriage (the “slippery slope” argument). But there are very sound arguments against allowing multiple wives, multiple husbands, group marriages, people marrying pets, and so on. I cannot think of any sound reason for not permitting two adults to make a legal commitment to one another.


Why not leave it at a civil union then. Marriage between a man and woman has been part of our history for as long as it has been recorded and is ingrained in many religions. Do we force every religion to change their doctrine as well? I could care less what 2 or more consenting adults do, but if someone doesn’t agree with the alternative lifestyle and doesn’t want their children taught it in school or be forced to accept it, don’t they have that right? Much like racism, intolerance to homosexuality cannot be legislated out of existence.

295 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:27:23am

re: #291 soxfan4life

Here’s my Monday morning rant to get this off of my chest from the weekend.
1. Given the state our county is in now Patrick Henry should have amended his Give me liberty or give me death speech to give me liberty or give me endless government programs.

2. After spending the day in Boston with the missus we stopped at Mickey D’s for a quick bite on the way home and no one working there spoke English very well. I’m 45 years old and a vet, I’ll be damned if I’m going to learn another language to communicate with people in this country. I just won’t.

Can’t disagree with you there. Shouldn’t it be mandatory for people in a service job to be able to speak with, well, the public? Meaning at least enough English to work at a fast food place?

It’s not like you really have to be fluent. This doesn’t seem like an onerous requirement.

In re: what Blue Canuck just said— I’ve also had the experience of talking to people who are native to a country, yet can’t speak that country’s language in a way that can be recognised by others outside of their neighbourhood, region, or whatever.

296 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:28:31am

re: #292 iceweasel

Me neither, actually. Apparently it’s supposed to be the 27th episode, but they only other one on YouTube is the 1st (from the other link).

Also… i can haz haliburtn?

297 rightside  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:30:14am

re: #289 Tigger2005

I see your point. However, since when has sound arguments ever stopped anyone from bitching? You can come up with hundreds of them against multiple partners, etc. Personally, I couldn’t care less.

Some group though will claim their civil rights are being denied, because this or that group can marry, but not theirs. It’s going to happen eventually, is what I am saying.

298 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:31:00am

re: #294 soxfan4life

Why not leave it at a civil union then.

Because civil union doesn’t automatically grant all the legal rights that the legal institution of marriage does.

It’s not about forcing religions to recognise gay marriage. They won’t have to.

It’s about extending a form of legal contract that is available to heterosexual partners (and recognised in every state, for heterosexuals— like the right to visit your spouse in hospital) — to same-sex partners.

That’s why civil union isn’t sufficient.

299 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:32:15am

re: #296 laZardo

Also… i can haz haliburtn?

Ha!

300 rustler  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:35:03am

re: #9 Floral Giraffe I’m more impressed with the person who ate the first clam/mussel/oyster.

301 yochanan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:36:06am
302 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:36:48am

re: #298 iceweasel

Because civil union doesn’t automatically grant all the legal rights that the legal institution of marriage does.

It’s not about forcing religions to recognise gay marriage. They won’t have to.

It’s about extending a form of legal contract that is available to heterosexual partners (and recognised in every state, for heterosexuals— like the right to visit your spouse in hospital) — to same-sex partners.

That’s why civil union isn’t sufficient.

Give civil unions the same legal power as a marriage license. While the NH legislation gave clergy protection, the same protection should be granted across the board. If a caterer or florist or some other service industry was opposed to same sex marriage they should have protection from lawsuits for not making their service available. In today’s economy if they feel that strongly and are willing to lose the business they shouldn’t face civil action on top of it.

303 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:37:07am

re: #13 SixDegrees

The early settlers fed lobsters to their livestock. It wasn’t considered fit for human consumption.

Maine used to feed it to prisoners as well, until they rioted.

304 yochanan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:37:22am

re: #301 yochanan

lizards unite!

305 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:37:56am

re: #15 Pvt Bin Jammin

They gassed some Canadian Geese? I didn’t hear about that. Must have been an airport thing. I remember my dad sweating bullets because he accidentally shot one while duck hunting.

Geese taste good, but ducks are better.

306 BlueCanuck  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:38:57am

re: #303 JamesTKirk

Maine used to feed it to prisoners as well, until they rioted.

Funny how things change. Back in the day lobster was considered food for the down and out, along with oatmeal. Now look at what people are willing to pay for some of that stuff.

307 rustler  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:39:28am

re: #289 Tigger2005 The issue is that quite a while back they were offered civil unions with all the benefits of married couples but wanted the word marriage to stick it in hte eye of the religious folks from whom the word originated. There is also the precident that they don’t just want the right to be married they want the right to force Churches to go against their beliefs and have to perform the ceremonies. There have been lawsuits brought against churches for not performing marriages.

308 Gella  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:41:03am

good morning lizards :)

309 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:41:20am

re: #306 BlueCanuck

If you knew what they used for lobster bait, you might not want to eat it either.

310 BlueCanuck  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:43:31am

re: #309 soxfan4life

Lobsters feed on the same stuff like crab and shrimp right? Can’t stand lobster though, love shrimp and tolerate crab. I try to educate myself on my food. I usually know what type of stuff they eat.

/also use it for a gross out factor for some friends. :)

311 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:44:45am

re: #302 soxfan4life

Give civil unions the same legal power as a marriage license.

I often wondered why this wasn’t on the table.

If a caterer or florist or some other service industry was opposed to same sex marriage they should have protection from lawsuits for not making their service available. In today’s economy if they feel that strongly and are willing to lose the business they shouldn’t face civil action on top of it.

That I have to disagree with. Look, if they’re religious based, and/or only have a policy of being hired by members of their own religion, fine.

But if they’re a public(i.e., non-religious) business, open to the public, they can’t just refuse certain clients for that reason.

It’s no different from a wedding florist refusing to work for an interracial couple, or a public caterer refusing to work for a Catholic couple.

Those businesses can be sued for discrimination, and rightly so. Same applies if they discriminate against same-sex couples.

Notice, I’m only talking about businesses, not religious organisations, which already are serving the public, not a niche market. (I couldn’t sue a kosher caterer if she refused to cater a non-kosher spread at a wedding, and no one would try.)

312 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:47:49am

re: #311 iceweasel

Unless a business is operating with government grants or loans they should have the right to do business with whomever they choose without worry of civil action.

313 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:48:46am

re: #306 BlueCanuck

Funny how things change. Back in the day lobster was considered food for the down and out, along with oatmeal. Now look at what people are willing to pay for some of that stuff.

I just saw a report about how lobstermen in New England are selling lobsters on the street for almost nothing:


What has the world come to? A report has come across the newswire telling of misery among the lobstermen of New England. They have too many lobsters, and no one wants to buy them. Remember when lobster was one of the most expensive foods you could buy? Now it’s so cheap that fishermen are hawking lobsters on the street for a few bucks.

[Link: food.theatlantic.com…]

314 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:49:40am

Good morning y’all - from a HOT 977 degrees, going up to 92 degrees) bright and sunny Charloot!
How is everyone doing today?

315 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:50:37am

re: #313 iceweasel

[Link: food.theatlantic.com…]

Lobster cheap? I paid $17.50 for a lobster sandwich at CitiPark last night.Well at least the Yankees won.

316 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:51:05am

re: #314 realwest

Good morning y’all - from a HOT 977 degrees, going up to 92 degrees) bright and sunny Charloot!
How is everyone doing today?

Jesus Christ, I’m surprised you haven’t been vaporized yet.

But yeah, doing okay.

317 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:51:40am

re: #313 iceweasel

Funny how when people are worried about money all of this stuff happens. The price of beef hasn’t dropped at all.

318 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:52:55am

re: #314 realwest

Good morning y’all - from a HOT 977 degrees, going up to 92 degrees) bright and sunny Charloot!
How is everyone doing today?

977? Celsius or Farhenheit?

;)

It was 103F yesterday. I am in the market for some carbon credits … I lost a 5 ton compressor, and the “repairman” accidentally vented all the freon to the atmosphere. Sorry, polar bears and skin cancer patients … $3000 later, I have a shiny new douwnstairs external unit.

319 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:53:13am

re: #315 Nevergiveup


You’re a brave soul. I don’t think I would trust the food service companies at any stadium with seafood.

320 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:54:37am

re: #312 soxfan4life

Unless a business is operating with government grants or loans they should have the right to do business with whomever they choose without worry of civil action.

No way.
I get the appeal of this in principle.

But put it this way: Should a family-owned, run, 100 year old restaurant have the right to refuse service to black people?
How about interracial couples?
How about the Irish?

Without the threat of discrimination lawsuits, there would be some places that would have such barriers in place. That’s wrong.
That’s why we need to have the threat of discrimination lawsuits, unfortunately.

(It should be noted that all businesses always have the right to reject clients, and always will. Discrimination lawsuits can only be filed when it can be plausibly argued that the business has a pattern of discriminating against the group— not because they merely rejected one client.)

321 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:54:38am

re: #318 OldLineTexan


Did you replace the inside airhandler unit too?

322 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:54:39am
323 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:54:53am

re: #316 laZardo
Good morning laZardo! Uh, why are you surprised I haven’t been vaporized yet?

324 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:55:11am

re: #317 soxfan4life

Funny how when people are worried about money all of this stuff happens. The price of beef hasn’t dropped at all.

lobstirz are teh sea kittehs .. teh beef kittehs needz carbun creditz cuz tehy fartz 2 much. teh Wun sez teh see-oh-2 iz bad, k?

325 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:55:23am

re: #317 soxfan4life

Funny how when people are worried about money all of this stuff happens. The price of beef hasn’t dropped at all.

Yes, I’ve noticed that too!

326 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:55:31am

re: #323 realwest

See the boldtext in my quote. (;

327 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:56:31am

re: #321 soxfan4life

Did you replace the inside airhandler unit too?

No, the coil is apparently still good .. please don’t curse me with another 2 grand right this minute …

;)

328 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:56:47am

re: #318 OldLineTexan
PIMF 77 degrees.
Gimme a break here y’all - I’m still operating from a 15” monitor cause my old 20” monitor died and I’m squinting to see this as it is!

329 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:57:40am

re: #326 laZardo

re: #314 realwest
Good morning y’all - from a HOT 977 degrees, going up to 92 degrees) bright and sunny Charloot!
How is everyone doing today?
See the boldtext in my quote. (;

Realwest just missed a period, that’s all.

Does that mean that congratulations will be in order?

330 BlueCanuck  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:57:53am

re: #318 OldLineTexan

977? Celsius or Farhenheit?

;)

Kelvin maybe?

331 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:57:55am

re: #315 Nevergiveup

Lobster cheap? I paid $17.50 for a lobster sandwich at CitiPark last night.Well at least the Yankees won.

Yikes. Like soxfan4life said, what are you doing trusting a stadium with sea food?

And apparently you could buy 2 whole lobsters, or more, for that amount on the streets on New England now. :)

332 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:58:17am

re: #329 JamesTKirk

You’re a cruel man, but fair.

/

333 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:58:25am

Morning all.
My local paper (in an AP article) reported that there was a twenty minute gun battle between Zelaya’s security team and the military yesterday prior to Zelaya’s exile. Hadn’t heard that before. No word on casualties.
It helps me understand why so many Western Democracies initially reacted the way they did. I’ll be interested to see what happens over the next few days.

334 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:58:42am

re: #327 OldLineTexan

No, the coil is apparently still good .. please don’t curse me with another 2 grand right this minute …

;)


I just got quoted $3750 for a 4 ton unit. Seems as though the unit in my home now is too small. Funny how it was adequate when we had 127 days in a row over 100 degrees but now it is too small.

335 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:58:44am

re: #322 Ojoe
Good morning Ojoe - Truly a cool photo! Thanks!
How are you doing today?

336 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:58:54am

re: #331 iceweasel

Yikes. Like soxfan4life said, what are you doing trusting a stadium with  sea  food?

Fixed.

337 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:59:42am

re: #319 soxfan4life

You’re a brave soul. I don’t think I would trust the food service companies at any stadium with seafood.

It really wasn’t bad, and the food at Citipark is better than at the New Yankee Stadium. I am not sure that Citipark has to do with the Mets? It’s all about Jackie Robinson and Brooklyn? Weird. Nice Stadium, but but weird.

338 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:59:44am

re: #280 Mithrax

I agree with what you say, now that I’ve turned smartass mode off. Given the current state of “culture” in the west, I don’t know if there will be a single predominant set of cultural mores that will become prevailent, and I don’t know if that would be a good thing either.

IMHO eventually the Judeo-Christian mores will predominate eventually because they are the rules that actually work, if you mean to have a society that promotes harmony and happiness, and enough to eat, etc. etc.

It may be, and it looks like it will be, rough to get there.

339 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:01:28am

re: #331 iceweasel

Yikes. Like soxfan4life said, what are you doing trusting a stadium with sea food?

And apparently you could buy 2 whole lobsters, or more, for that amount on the streets on New England now. :)

Yeah maybe, but I wasn’t in New England but in Queens- hot, tired, and hungry.

340 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:01:49am

re: #336 JamesTKirk

Fixed.

So true. So, so true. Updinged you, Captain!

341 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:01:52am

re: #335 realwest

Doing OK !

Chasing perhaps a big job with preliminary meetings in the community, and by just acting like I have the job already. Maybe it will work.

342 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:02:14am

re: #334 soxfan4life

I just got quoted $3750 for a 4 ton unit. Seems as though the unit in my home now is too small. Funny how it was adequate when we had 127 days in a row over 100 degrees but now it is too small.

I hate to say it, but oversizing the unit (within reason) is actually good … it works less often. The outside only was $2900 plus tribute to the State of Texas to the tune of 8.25%. It would be about another $2K to get the rest replaced. I also have a four ton unit for the upstairs … only about $150 less for that one. I went ahead and checked, because these things die in threes like celebrities.

343 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:03:34am

re: #342 OldLineTexan

I hate to say it, but oversizing the unit (within reason) is actually good … it works less often. The outside only was $2900 plus tribute to the State of Texas to the tune of 8.25%. It would be about another $2K to get the rest replaced. I also have a four ton unit for the upstairs … only about $150 less for that one. I went ahead and checked, because these things die in threes like celebrities.


I was told oversizing the unit would cause moisture to accumulate and mold would become a problem.

344 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:03:39am

re: #341 Ojoe

Doing OK !

Chasing perhaps a big job with preliminary meetings in the community, and by just acting like I have the job already. Maybe it will work.


I sure hope it does! And you’d be surprised how many times people have been hired………by people who after a while figured that you already had the job by the way you conduct yourself!

345 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:05:08am

re: #343 soxfan4life

I was told oversizing the unit would cause moisture to accumulate and mold would become a problem.

Well, you don’t want to double it or anything wild … I guess I should replace “oversize” with “margin”.

In twenty-plus years of owning these things, I have had to have a drain flushed due to gunk once … a couple of weeks ago!

346 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:07:01am

re: #337 Nevergiveup


I wondered why with the opening of the new Yankee stadium, why the Mets management didn’t hold off 1 year or accelerate by 1 year their new ballpark. Shea was a dump for sure, but to coincide with Yankee Stadium stole all their thunder.

347 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:09:33am

re: #345 OldLineTexan

Well, you don’t want to double it or anything wild … I guess I should replace “oversize” with “margin”.

In twenty-plus years of owning these things, I have had to have a drain flushed due to gunk once … a couple of weeks ago!

More than once I’ve had people ask what was wrong with their A/C unit and after doing a quick inspection find out the directional filter was in upside down. Restricted airflow makes them incredibly inefficient.

348 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:15:49am

So, how about those Hondurans, eh?! As I put in the spinoff links, Honduras has now been condemned by the Obama Administration for following it’s own constitutuion and first AP now Reuters is calling it a “Coup”.

349 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:17:13am

Hmmm, you’re in the middle of a recession, people are losing jobs every day, and your stated goal is to somehow help out the people feeling the pinch. What do you do? Well, if you’re Deval Patrick, you raise the state sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent so that every single one of your constituents has less money, of course.
Mini-Obama in Mass.

350 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:17:16am

re: #348 realwest
PIMF: constitution.
damned old eyes.

351 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:17:28am

re: #347 soxfan4life

More than once I’ve had people ask what was wrong with their A/C unit and after doing a quick inspection find out the directional filter was in upside down. Restricted airflow makes them incredibly inefficient.

The blue arrow points to where you want the cold air, right?

/

352 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:17:35am

re: #348 realwest

BBC World got input from Hondurans this morning on the news. Actually pretty supportive of the ‘coup,’ one said ‘I don’t support the coup but I agree that Zelaya was doing something illegal.’ Hmm.

353 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:17:55am

re: #348 realwest

So, how about those Hondurans, eh?! As I put in the spinoff links, Honduras has now been condemned by the Obama Administration for following it’s own constitutuion and first AP now Reuters is calling it a “Coup”.

Obama, AP, and Reuters are all coup-coup.

354 nyc redneck  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:18:02am

re: #348 realwest

So, how about those Hondurans, eh?! As I put in the spinoff links, Honduras has now been condemned by the Obama Administration for following it’s own constitutuion and first AP now Reuters is calling it a “Coup”.

hey {real}
wow, he sure can meddle when he wants.

355 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:18:16am

re: #349 Lincolntf

Hmmm, you’re in the middle of a recession, people are losing jobs every day, and your stated goal is to somehow help out the people feeling the pinch. What do you do? Well, if you’re Deval Patrick, you raise the state sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent so that every single one of your constituents has less money, of course.
Mini-Obama in Mass.

Helping the poor with the evil, regressive sales tax.

I like it. Must be a Republican, right? Right?

/

356 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:18:50am

re: #354 nyc redneck

hey {real}
wow, he sure can meddle when he wants.

Honduras?

/snort

/no oil

/

357 reloadingisnotahobby  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:20:18am

That’s a great quote!
Still can’t make me feel any better about a
Doctor having a “Medical Practice”………
I’d like one that KNOW’S what he’s doing!

358 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:20:36am

re: #356 OldLineTexan

re: #354 nyc redneck
hey {real}
wow, he sure can meddle when he wants.
Honduras?

/snort

/no  oil  blacks or muslims.

/

359 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:21:10am

re: #349 Lincolntf

Hmmm, you’re in the middle of a recession, people are losing jobs every day, and your stated goal is to somehow help out the people feeling the pinch. What do you do? Well, if you’re Deval Patrick, you raise the state sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent so that every single one of your constituents has less money, of course.
Mini-Obama in Mass.

Why couldn’t 0bama take him like he did Sebelius? MA will be one of the last states to recover and yet the Democrats will win reelection in a landslide, proving once again we get the government we deserve. Moving back to Texas is looking more of a realistic option every day.

360 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:21:58am

re: #358 JamesTKirk

I wouldn’t be too sure.

361 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:22:31am

Further proof that they just don’t get it. California’s Prop 13 is being blamed for the ‘budget mess.’

“People are looking for scapegoats and politicians don’t want to accept blame themselves,” said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, named in honor of the anti-tax crusader who wrote the measure with Paul Gann. “So they’re saying, ‘Oh, it’s Proposition 13’s fault.’ “

Unbelievable. How about don’t spend money you don’t have?

362 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:22:44am

re: #359 soxfan4life

Moving back to Texas is looking more of a realistic option every day.

Not after the Senate passes the domestic drilling ban.

Texas has a good economy; Obama is going to find out what we’re doing (and put a stop to it).

363 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:23:51am

re: #352 laZardo
Well the “excerpt” AP provided yesterday from the Honduran constitution provided that “anyone who attempts to serve as President for more than 10 years or attempts to amend the constitution so as to provide a presidential term(s) of more than 10 years shall be immediately removed from office and not allowed to serve in the Honduran government for 10 years.” (NB-not an exact quote, but an accurate paraphrase). So I reckon he should have been arrested by Honduran troops who decided to uphold THEIR constitution and THEIR Supreme Court and THEIR Congress.
And if in fact Obama is saying that the Hondurans were wrong to “stage this coup” then he is on the wrong side. But at least Daniel Ortega, former terrorist and now president of Nicaragua and Hugo Chavez, current terrorist president of Venezuela will still like Obama.

364 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:24:06am

re: #362 OldLineTexan

Not after the Senate passes the domestic drilling ban.

Texas has a good economy; Obama is going to find out what we’re doing (and put a stop to it).

Well if I’m going to be broke, at least the weather in Texas is more to my liking, the people friendlier, and the fishing better.

365 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:24:13am

re: #349 Lincolntf

Hmmm, you’re in the middle of a recession, people are losing jobs every day, and your stated goal is to somehow help out the people feeling the pinch. What do you do? Well, if you’re Deval Patrick, you raise the state sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent so that every single one of your constituents has less money, of course.
Mini-Obama in Mass.

“Well? It’s not like we have any other options. We were warned that we’d have to tighten our belts anyway.”

/they do say that

366 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:25:22am

re: #354 nyc redneck
Hey {nyc redneck} well he’s not really “meddling” he’s just, apparently, siding with the meddlers, Chavez and Ortega.
I still haven’t heard or read anything issued by Obama’s administration on the issue.

367 reloadingisnotahobby  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:25:33am

re: #365 laZardo

We ALL need to have “skin in the game” right?

368 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:25:37am

re: #364 soxfan4life

Well if I’m going to be broke, at least the weather in Texas is more to my liking, the people friendlier, and the fishing better.

Once we get Global Warming, the shallow seas will return and the fishing will be AWESOME. Plus, I can chuck my new AC unit and get a swamp cooler … hot air holds less humidity!

369 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:27:06am

re: #349 Lincolntf

Hmmm, you’re in the middle of a recession, people are losing jobs every day, and your stated goal is to somehow help out the people feeling the pinch. What do you do? Well, if you’re Deval Patrick, you raise the state sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent so that every single one of your constituents has less money, of course.
Mini-Obama in Mass.

I thought this was only going to happen if they repealed the income tax. Didn’t question 1 get crushed?

370 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:27:55am

re: #348 realwest

That’s aggravating RW. Obama was right out front on that one, unlike Iran. Either he or Hillary called it ‘illegal’ even though the Honduran Supreme Court authorized the military to arrest the President because he was pushing an illegal referendum. Just screwy.

371 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:28:04am
372 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:28:35am

re: #367 reloadingisnotahobby

Don’t hate the player, buddy.

/ c:

373 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:30:21am

re: #361 BigPapa
Hey BigPapa - “How about don’t spend money you don’t have?” That doesn’t compute for politicians in California or in the Federal Government. Or in NY or N.C.
When the California Speaker of the Assembly (some Democratic Woman) called Republicans terrorists yesterday for suggesting that California - in a HUGE BUDGET MESS - maybe should cut expenses, the only hue and cry about it that I know of was out here on LGF in the prior thread by Desert Sage (who lives out there) myself and, irrc, jcm and a few others.

374 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:31:28am

re: #373 realwest
Oh and btw, BigPapa - y’all know what State the Speaker of the US House of Representatives hails from, right? I mean Nancy Pelosi’s district is in the belly of the Leftist beast!

375 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:31:31am

re: #373 realwest

Republicans - right-wing extremists - terrorists.

It’s evolution.

/

376 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:31:39am

re: #373 realwest

“There are people who’d end up starving and dying on the streets if we cut expenses! How dare they suggest we cut them off!”

/i could keep going if i didn’t partially believe all this.

377 reloadingisnotahobby  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:32:12am

For those that can afford to buy stocks.?
Dennison Corp (uranium mining) out of Canada.
Went from 4 bucks to .10 ……
So. Korea just dumped 78 million in it!
Mining permits have been granted ….(insider info)
Nucular (sp) hehe…Power plants are coming!
It can only go UP….Right?

378 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:32:15am

re: #371 Iron Fist

I’m sorry, but that argument doesn’t fly. You can write the laws to say it gives the gay “spouse” any rights, privileges, or immunities you please. But, hey, gays can already get 98% of the things they can gain by “marriage” through other means (contracts, durable power of attorney, etc.). The one thing they can’t get is spousal benefits from Social Security. The Democrats can give that to the gays today. All they have to do is pass a simple federal law changing the way a federal government program works.

They won’t do it, and you know it. Part of that is constituent pressure, but part of it is simply to use the Courts to drive a social agenda that our culture as a whole rejects. To shield power from the people. I think there is also another reason at work here, though. Words mean something, or we wouldn’t be having this fight. I used to be pro-gay marriage, but Andrew Sullivan convinced me that it was simply another way for the Left to stick a thumb in the eye of the majority of Americans. Another way to tell the majority of us to piss off, they run things. They’ve won. Their here and they’re queer and we should get used to it. More than that, we should approve of it.

The fact that voters in every state when given the option vote it down should speak volumes. The voice of the people should mean something all the time, not just when politicians find it beneficial. Hopefully enough people on all sides are tired of this and vote the SOB’s out at the first available chance.

379 SecondComing  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:32:16am
380 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:32:20am

re: #349 Lincolntf

When your state finances are screwed up, blame ‘the economy’ instead of your own financial planning. They just don’t get it, unbelievable. Maybe try lowering taxes for once to increase spending?

381 reloadingisnotahobby  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:33:22am

re: #372 laZardo
I did forget the sarc tag
//////////// …..there!

382 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:33:26am

re: #369 soxfan4life

Yup. I remember quite clearly telling people that they were going to end up with higher tolls and sales taxes whether or not they voted for 1, so they might as well take their one shot at controlling their own futures and vote Yes.
Guess it would be bad form to go back to that blog and pull up my old quote in a “told you so” move.

383 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:33:27am

re: #377 reloadingisnotahobby

For those that can afford to buy stocks.?
Dennison Corp (uranium mining) out of Canada.
Went from 4 bucks to .10 ……
So. Korea just dumped 78 million in it!
Mining permits have been granted ….(insider info)
Nucular (sp) hehe…Power plants are coming!
It can only go UP….Right?

South Korea dumped 78 million. Guess who’s gonna pick it up.

/-half

384 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:34:55am

re: #371 Iron Fist

I don’t buy it. I don’t think it’s about (ahem) ramming a homosexual agenda home.

On the other hand, I must say that even as a lefty, just knowing that Sullivan is for something I like is enough to make me rethink my convictions all over again.

In short— despite the regretable influence of Sully here, I don’t think that the push for gay marriage is about a different, anti-religious homosexual agenda.

And I don’t think that changing the laws in the way you mention is the way to go. That strikes me as the epitome of ‘special treatment’ or ‘special rights’.

385 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:35:00am
386 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:35:30am

re: #370 BigPapa
Whoops, sorry BigPapa, I didn’t see that comment - I STILL haven’t read or heard anything from the Obama administration on this one. But, of course when dealing with such small time players, Obama could afford to ride the wave and when it crashes and rolls over him, he’ll yell - really loudly “PRESENT”!

387 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:35:38am

re: #382 Lincolntf

I voted yes, scary how so many were hoodwinked and voted no. All of the crooks will win reelection though, that D for a MA legislator is like the S on Superman’s chest.

388 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:35:41am

re: #376 laZardo

“There are people who’d end up starving and dying on the streets if we cut expenses! How dare they suggest we cut them off!”

/i could keep going if i didn’t partially believe all this.

Pinto beans are 50 cents a bag. Take it from my personal experience.

If you starve in the streets in the US, you’re either (a) stupid or (b) mentally ill.

I have real sympathy for the mentally ill.

389 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:36:36am

re: #384 iceweasel

I gave you an “upding” for ramming.

But the agenda is more important to the activists than the “benefits”.

390 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:36:44am

re: #376 laZardo

“There are people who’d end up starving and dying on the streets if we cut expenses! How dare they suggest we cut them off!”

/i could keep going if i didn’t partially believe all this.


It is only your youth that keeps me from questioning why you believe any of it. Well that and you are a friend!

391 VioletTiger  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:37:08am

re: #379 SecondComing

He’s nearly helpless without his friends the TOTUS.

392 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:38:26am

re: #378 soxfan4life

The fact that voters in every state when given the option vote it down should speak volumes. The voice of the people should mean something all the time, not just when politicians find it beneficial. Hopefully enough people on all sides are tired of this and vote the SOB’s out at the first available chance.

But Americans as a whole are for gay rights. Even gay marriage is going to happen, it’s just a matter of time.

Gay marriage really isn’t something to worry about, and I believe many, if not most, conservatives would support it— if it was set off from the culture wars aspect and if people were clear that it doesn’t impinge on religion in any way.

393 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:38:28am

re: #371 Iron Fist

More than that, we should approve of it.

That’s the core issue. Instead tolerance, it’s now acceptance being demanded.

394 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:38:43am

re: #391 VioletTiger

He’s nearly helpless without his friends life support system the TOTUS.


Fixed

395 JCM  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:39:25am

re: #390 realwest

RW ——
Heads up….
You should be getting a phone call from our friends!

396 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:39:26am

re: #379 SecondComing

Obama ‘Deeply concerned’ by ouster of Honduran president

I think “Deeply concerned” is his presidential version of voting “present”.

Obama ‘Deeply Concerned’ About Iranian Election

Obama ‘Deeply concerned’ over Gaza

Obama “Deeply Concerned” For Jailed Reporters

I’m deeply concerned about the next 1301 Days, 03 Hours, 19 Minutes, 51 Seconds.

397 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:40:18am

re: #389 OldLineTexan

I gave you an “upding” for ramming.

But the agenda is more important to the activists than the “benefits”.

Thanks!

I wonder about this so-called homosexual agenda though. What’s supposed to be on it? The people I know who are activists for gay rights don’t have any kind of ‘homosexual agenda’. Some of them are very religious.

398 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:41:47am

re: #392 iceweasel

But Americans as a whole are for gay rights. Even gay marriage is going to happen, it’s just a matter of time.

Gay marriage really isn’t something to worry about, and I believe many, if not most, conservatives would support it— if it was set off from the culture wars aspect and if people were clear that it doesn’t impinge on religion in any way.


So why does it get voted down, even in California? The 6 states that made same sex marriage legal did it without a vote of the public.

399 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:41:50am

re: #392 iceweasel

I agree that the process of helping such an idea penetrate into our society’s consciousness, especially when a lot of otherwise tolerant people can be so…narrow-minded, should be made a lot smoother. There’s no two-ways, three-ways, or even four-ways about it.

400 JCM  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:42:13am

re: #396 J.D.

I’m deeply concerned about the next 1301 Days, 03 Hours, 19 Minutes, 51 Seconds.

Stand behind your unicorn.
When it farts, inhaled deep, it will be okay.

401 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:42:38am

re: #373 realwest


When the California Speaker of the Assembly (some Democratic Woman) called Republicans terrorists yesterday for suggesting that California - in a HUGE BUDGET MESS - maybe should cut expenses, the only hue and cry about it that I know of was out here on LGF in the prior thread by Desert Sage (who lives out there) myself and, irrc, jcm and a few others.

WTF? I’m gonna go find that. I live in HI now but grew up in the Bay Area so I stay tuned to what’s going on there.

If you read a list of reps for the Bay Area, every single one of them is a D. In fact, it’s a super majority of D’s even in state politics. How about holding them accountable for the budget mess instead of blaming ‘the economy’ or Bush?

402 albusteve  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:43:17am

re: #400 JCM

Stand behind your unicorn.
When it farts, inhaled deep, it will be okay.

oh my gawd….I won’t do it

403 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:43:23am

re: #397 iceweasel

Thanks!

I wonder about this so-called homosexual agenda though. What’s supposed to be on it? The people I know who are activists for gay rights don’t have any kind of ‘homosexual agenda’. Some of them are very religious.

With all due respect, you must not have been listening to this “debate” very long.

In brief, it’s not “tolerance” which is demanded … it is “acceptance”.

Toleration is demanded of me via the rule of law. Acceptance is a “culture war” level of aggression; we are playing King of the Hill on every slippery slope imaginable.

404 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:43:43am

re: #379 SecondComing
Ah, thank you for that link!
As I suspected, Obama’s definition of following constitutional law doesn’t apply to the Hondurans and THEIR constitution.

405 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:43:44am
406 JCM  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:44:51am

re: #404 realwest

Ah, thank you for that link!
As I suspected, Obama’s definition of following constitutional law doesn’t apply to the Hondurans and THEIR constitution.

Heck, it doesn’t even extend to ours….

“Positive rights of Government”

407 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:45:00am

re: #399 laZardo

I agree that the process of helping such an idea penetrate into our society’s consciousness, especially when a lot of otherwise tolerant people can be so…narrow-minded, should be made a lot smoother. There’s no two-ways, three-ways, or even four-ways about it.

Our consciousness needs to be opened. Perhaps gently, perhaps forcefully. One thing is for sure: ramming ideas or agendas down anyone’s throat is not the way to go, unless one wants to see the voting public violently choke on those ideas.

408 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:45:44am

re: #404 realwest

Ah, thank you for that link!
As I suspected, Obama’s definition of following constitutional law doesn’t apply to the Hondurans and THEIR constitution.


Following the Constitution isn’t something the current administration advocates anyhow. So to suggest another country follow theirs would be hypocritical.

409 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:45:58am

re: #407 iceweasel

Our consciousness needs to be opened. Perhaps gently, perhaps forcefully. One thing is for sure: ramming ideas or agendas down anyone’s throat is not the way to go, unless one wants to see the voting public violently choke on those ideas.

Hence the “gay marriage” vote results?

/partial; just gently chiding

410 VioletTiger  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:46:33am

re: #398 soxfan4life

So why does it get voted down, even in California? The 6 states that made same sex marriage legal did it without a vote of the public.

That’s the point IMO. Deep down most people who object to gay marriage do so becuase it goes against the way we have defined society for thousands of years, rather than for religious reasons.

I don’t have a strong opinion either way and would be willing to accept whatever ‘society’ decides. (Basically, if you really want a mother-in-law, go for it.) However, I do object to the government imposing something over the will of the majority.

411 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:47:22am

re: #401 BigPapa
Hey here ya go: [Link: newsbusters.org…]
Kindly note that she changed “taxes” to “revenues”!

412 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:47:31am

re: #373 realwest

Republicans are “terrorists” for wanting the state to become solvent? Amazing how willing the Dems are to wage rhetorical war against other Americans, but when it comes to our actual enemies it’s all “man-caused disasters” and apologies.

413 nyc redneck  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:47:37am

well the subway went up 25 cents today.
one of these days something like this at such an inopportune time will be the last straw for me. i’ll just pack up and head for the hills.
in the mean time let me go see if i get a quarter’s worth of improved service.
LOL
btw cigs are $10.79 per pack here. and you can’t smoke them anywhere.
(not that i’m a smoker)

414 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:48:18am

re: #411 realwest

Kind of like Clinton changing the idea of government spending to “investments”.

415 SecondComing  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:48:24am

re: #386 realwest

Whoops, sorry BigPapa, I didn’t see that comment - I STILL haven’t read or heard anything from the Obama administration on this one. But, of course when dealing with such small time players, Obama could afford to ride the wave and when it crashes and rolls over him, he’ll yell - really loudly “PRESENT”!

See comment #379.

416 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:48:38am

re: #403 OldLineTexan

With all due respect, you must not have been listening to this “debate” very long.

In brief, it’s not “tolerance” which is demanded … it is “acceptance”.

Toleration is demanded of me via the rule of law. Acceptance is a “culture war” level of aggression; we are playing King of the Hill on every slippery slope imaginable.

With all due respect, you confuse ‘acceptance’ with ‘acquiesence” or something similar.

No one is going to force churches to perform gay marriages. No one is going to force hetero people to have gay sex.

There really isn’t much to worry about here.

417 Gella  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:48:57am

whats going on? :((
Six Men Shot Dead In 24 Hours In Chicago
Several Others Shot Or Stabbed And Wounded
[Link: cbs2chicago.com…]

418 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:49:01am

re: #407 iceweasel

Well, they’ll just have to swallow their pride sooner or later. Spitting out such hateful homophobic slurs in their defense really isn’t giving something worth keeping to anyone. It only makes them even more blind.

419 VioletTiger  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:49:58am

re: #407 iceweasel

Our consciousness needs to be opened. Perhaps gently, perhaps forcefully. One thing is for sure: ramming ideas or agendas down anyone’s throat is not the way to go, unless one wants to see the voting public violently choke on those ideas.

I think the forcefully part is what sets people on edge.

420 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:50:51am

re: #406 JCM
Hey JCM - e-mail received and replied to, thank you very much!

421 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:50:53am

re: #400 JCM

Stand behind your unicorn.
When it farts, inhaled deep, it will be okay.

Yep.
We’re screwed.

422 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:50:56am

re: #385 taxfreekiller

avanti, iceweasle, freetoken, etal

So, if the One meddles and or stands aside when the thug Hugo meddles in Honduras, will you stand at the “O”holes side in support of his hugging thugs once more?

time comes when the truth will be clear to all

choices

I’m not an Obama cultist. I don’t think the others you mention are either.

I’ll likely add it to the list of other grievances I have about Obama.

423 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:51:30am

RW, check this out. I posted this yesterday but the link goes to another story, however I had copy/pasted the quotes from Hillary and Obama.

They clearly criticized the actions of the military and Supreme Court as ‘illegal.’

424 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:51:38am

re: #417 Gella

whats going on? :((
Six Men Shot Dead In 24 Hours In Chicago
Several Others Shot Or Stabbed And Wounded
[Link: cbs2chicago.com…]


Rather than calling for the shooters to get the maximum sentence, there will be cries for more gun control laws that will be distorted and under punished until they can get the citizens disarmed completely.

425 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:52:15am

re: #419 VioletTiger

I think the forcefully part is what sets people on edge.

Indeed, you can’t go in forcefully. The way in needs to be prepared, and often greased.

426 nyc redneck  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:52:36am

re: #379 SecondComing

Obama ‘Deeply concerned’ by ouster of Honduran president

I think “Deeply concerned” is his presidential version of voting “present”.

Obama ‘Deeply Concerned’ About Iranian Election

Obama ‘Deeply concerned’ over Gaza

Obama “Deeply Concerned” For Jailed Reporters

i’m “deeply concerned” abt. what a dope he is.
trying to be so profound and eloquent and saying nothing.

427 VioletTiger  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:52:41am

re: #416 iceweasel

With all due respect, you confuse ‘acceptance’ with ‘acquiesence” or something similar.

No one is going to force churches to perform gay marriages. No one is going to force hetero people to have gay sex.

There really isn’t much to worry about here.

There already have been lawsuits against caterers and even wedding locations with religious affiliations because gay couples were not accommodated.

428 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:53:02am

BTW, iceweasel, I have nothing against gay marriage per se except the dishonesty and hand-wringing in the movement. It’s bad to “lie for Jesus” no matter what or who your “Jesus” is.

I don’t think it will have good results, but it’s not a crusade of mine.

Just wanted to make that clear before the h8r h8rs show up and make an Internaet Nazi out of me (again), or an evolution denier (also untrue) or an AGW denier (that was a beating).

;)

429 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:53:08am

The gay marriage issue is just another way that the Left uses to divide people into groups under the name of “progress/equality”. Best evidence was how the issue was a “human rights” crisis until Obama himself said he was against it, then it disappeared for the rest of the campaign.

430 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:53:40am
431 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:53:40am

re: #411 realwest

Hey here ya go: [Link: newsbusters.org…]
Kindly note that she changed “taxes” to “revenues”!

revenue good
taxes bad

/bleat loudly until CHANGE occurs

432 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:54:15am

re: #419 VioletTiger

I think the forcefully part is what sets people on edge.

It definitely arouses people’s interest, gets them all tingly with emotion. Usually it’s anger, other times it’s curiosity.

433 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:54:36am

re: #418 laZardo

Well, they’ll just have to swallow their pride sooner or later. Spitting out such hateful homophobic slurs in their defense really isn’t giving something worth keeping to anyone. It only makes them even more blind.

One could argue that the problem is that they spit rather than swallow. Had they swallowed their pride sooner, rather than choosing to spit out slurs and vitriol, they wouldn’t be as hogtied as they are now.
Unfortunately, now they’re reduced to biting the hand that feeds them.

434 VioletTiger  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:55:04am

re: #426 nyc redneck

i’m “deeply concerned” abt. what a dope he is.
trying to be so profound and eloquent and saying nothing.

He blinks. This is how a friend of mine describes his reactions. He waits, he measures, he listens to what the constant public opinion polls say before he reacts. He is trying to vote present until the very last minute.

He has gotten away with it so far. But now our enemies know how he plays the game.

435 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:55:04am

re: #417 Gella

whats going on? :((
Six Men Shot Dead In 24 Hours In Chicago
Several Others Shot Or Stabbed And Wounded
[Link: cbs2chicago.com…]

Some important Chicagoan was probably getting his kid baptized.

/

436 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:55:22am

re: #416 iceweasel

With all due respect, you confuse ‘acceptance’ with ‘acquiesence” or something similar.

No one is going to force churches to perform gay marriages. No one is going to force hetero people to have gay sex.

There really isn’t much to worry about here.

No, I’m not. Acceptance means what it means. You will have “gay culture”, and you will like it. Or else.

And the two strawmen you set up are cute, but I don’t tilt at windmills.

437 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:55:29am

re: #415 SecondComing
See comment at 404!

438 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:55:44am

re: #428 OldLineTexan

BTW, iceweasel, I have nothing against gay marriage per se except the dishonesty and hand-wringing in the movement. It’s bad to “lie for Jesus” no matter what or who your “Jesus” is.

I don’t think it will have good results, but it’s not a crusade of mine.

Just wanted to make that clear before the h8r h8rs show up and make an Internaet Nazi out of me (again), or an evolution denier (also untrue) or an AGW denier (that was a beating).

;)

No worries. I like you! and I think I know what you’re about. The haters just hate you for being a player, baby! :)

439 rw in san diego  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:56:23am

re: #392 iceweasel

I never had a problem with gay rights/marriage until my gynecologist, who is Catholic, was sued by a lesbian couple. From what I understand, she said she would care for the woman during the pregnancy if she chose to continue with her as her physician, but she felt that her religious scruples/beliefs prevented her from performing the insemination procedure. The case went as far as the California Supreme Court where the physician lost. As far as I’m concerned, what occurred here, was that the rights of the couple to be inseminated by the physician of their choice triumphed over the religious freedoms of the physician. With the passage of gay marriage laws, I wonder if the same thing won’t happen and rabbis, priests, and ministers, who are personally opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, will be sued as well. Since that time, I really think that some sort of civil contract should be available to gay couples to protect their rights, but at the same time clergy, physicians, and others who might find themselves in this position would be protected as well.

440 Gella  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:56:30am

re: #435 laZardo

Some important Chicagoan was probably getting his kid baptized.

/

i was wondering is O is deeply concerned about it

441 JCM  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:56:34am

re: #420 realwest

Hey JCM - e-mail received and replied to, thank you very much!

I have to take care of a couple details on this end.
But you are all set up.

442 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:56:45am

re: #436 OldLineTexan

No, I’m not. Acceptance means what it means. You will have “gay culture”, and you will like it. Or else.

And the two strawmen you set up are cute, but I don’t tilt at windmills.

Those aren’t strawmen, alas, but arguments others have made…not you, though!

443 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:57:05am

re: #423 BigPapa
Thanks BigPapa - but check out #379 by Second Coming (who is either a religous freak or a lucky guy!).
/

444 SecondComing  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:57:22am

re: #433 iceweasel

One could argue that the problem is that they spit rather than swallow. Had they swallowed their pride sooner, rather than choosing to spit out slurs and vitriol, they wouldn’t be as hogtied as they are now.
Unfortunately, now they’re reduced to biting the hand that feeds them.

Nice choice of words. Upding for that.

445 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:57:45am

re: #438 iceweasel

No, the hate me for refusing to accept bullshit at face value because it’s their bullshit. And a sweet little gang they are.

446 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:58:05am

re: #443 realwest

Thanks BigPapa - but check out #379 by Second Coming (who is either a religous freak or a lucky guy!).
/

We were all young once.

/sigh

447 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:58:24am

re: #433 iceweasel

Yeah, and as long as that happens, perhaps we all remain slaves to our ambitions, unable to stand erect amidst the bondage of hatred that the dominant authority lashes us with.

/still snickering, must be unhealthy for me.

448 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:58:36am

re: #424 soxfan4life

Rather than calling for the shooters to get the maximum sentence, there will be cries for more gun control laws that will be distorted and under punished until they can get the citizens disarmed completely.


OF COURSE. No doubt all those shooters had legal, licensed guns, right? Huh? I can’t hear you over here!
/

449 MrSilverDragon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:59:10am

re: #446 OldLineTexan

We were all young once.

/sigh

I don’t think I was ever young, hence my continuously childlike behavior… I have to make up for lost time!

450 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:59:34am

re: #442 iceweasel

Those aren’t strawmen, alas, but arguments others have made…not you, though!

Just because someone else makes an argument and is on my side*, doesn’t mean I accept/don’t accept it. But, stranger things have happened in my lifetime.

*most people are not altogether on my side

451 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:59:52am

California State Assmebly Speaker Karen Bass interview. Reading the whole thing, she’s blaming voters, blaming Prop 13, and yes, she so went there:

Q:How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?

The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.

It’s not voting for taxes, it’s now voting for revenue. How Orwellian.

It’s the fault of: uneducated and unrealistic voters, an ‘outdated tax system that causes paralysis’ (read: Prop 13 is bad!), and conservative talk radio.

452 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:00:13am

re: #449 MrSilverDragon

I don’t think I was ever young, hence my continuously childlike behavior… I have to make up for lost time!

Physical youth … physical!

/

453 SecondComing  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:00:32am

re: #437 realwest

See comment at 404!

Yes. haha I saw that after I refreshed and had already posted that. :)

I was also wanting to point out that you mentioned him voting “present” but he had already done that with his “deeply troubled” remark.

454 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:00:42am

Fred Travelena died. RIP, Fred. You were funny.

So, just wait a couple weeks. We can become celebrities too. They are dying off pretty quick.

455 albusteve  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:00:54am

gay marriage is a states issue…referendum, pass/fail….pretty simple

456 JCM  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:00:55am

re: #424 soxfan4life

Rather than calling for the shooters to get the maximum sentence, there will be cries for more gun control laws that will be distorted and under punished until they can get the citizens disarmed completely.

Can’t have people shooting when the government comes to help can we?
I mean what do individuals know about what’s good for them?

//

457 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:01:28am

re: #454 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Fred Travelena died. RIP, Fred. You were funny.

So, just wait a couple weeks. We can become celebrities too. They are dying off pretty quick.

FBV! Hello and goodbye, friend!

/Look into selling AC units, too. Lotsa money in that!

458 JCM  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:01:45am

re: #455 albusteve

gay marriage is a states issue…referendum, pass/fail….pretty simple

10th Amend is so annoying!
Hasn’t stopped ‘em yet!

459 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:02:06am

re: #417 Gella

whats going on? :((
Six Men Shot Dead In 24 Hours In Chicago
Several Others Shot Or Stabbed And Wounded
[Link: cbs2chicago.com…]

This isn’t even possible. Isn’t it illegal to have guns in Chicago? In Austin, Houston, and Dallas we are just bristling with weapons. We should have many times the murder rate of Chicago, but we don’t even have it combined. Maybe somebody from Disneyland can explain this one.

460 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:02:10am

re: #439 rw in san diego
Hi there rw! Hope you’re well today!
But of course that was in California, ya know? Need I say more?!

461 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:03:50am

re: #446 OldLineTexan

We were all young once.

/sigh


ROTFLMAO! Tis true my friend, tis true. Or of course SecondComing could be a woman in which case there’s nothing all that remarkable about it!
/ducks to avoid certain incoming!

462 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:04:08am

re: #458 JCM


That damn Constitution is such a flawed document isn’t it?//////

463 3 wood  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:04:54am

Oooops, Sotomayor was just overturned by the Supreme Court in the New Haven Ct. case.

464 Gella  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:05:18am

re: #459 legalpad

This isn’t even possible. Isn’t it illegal to have guns in Chicago? In Austin, Houston, and Dallas we are just bristling with weapons. We should have many times the murder rate of Chicago, but we don’t even have it combined. Maybe somebody from Disneyland can explain this one.

guns are illegal to carry with u in ILL, but as u know u can always get one if u really, really want.

465 SecondComing  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:05:33am

re: #443 realwest

Thanks BigPapa - but check out #379 by Second Coming (who is either a religous freak or a lucky guy!).
/

The name is actually from a rock band. One that is not religious at all.

I hastily chose that when I saw the window open unexpectantly after waiting for months. I have another pretty cool name in mind now. I’m tempted to rejoin under that name. People always get the wrong impression about this one.

466 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:05:35am

The United States Supreme Court REVERSES Sotomayor.

467 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:05:53am

re: #463 3 wood

Oooops, Sotomayor was just overturned by the Supreme Court in the New Haven Ct. case.

Freakin’ YAY!

Discrimination is wrong. Period.

468 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:05:59am

re: #451 BigPapa

The manipulation of the language that has occured in the last year or so has been truly Orwellian. For years, referencing “1984” was kind of hackneyed, even slightly paranoid, but now it’s the best description available.

469 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:06:15am

re: #453 SecondComing
Well I reckon you’re right. “Deeply Troubled” = Present.

470 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:06:28am

re: #463 3 wood

re: #466 Nevergiveup

RACSIM!

/obligatory

471 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:06:30am

Just heard on the radio that the SCOTUS overturned Sotomayor’s ruling in Ricci vs. DiStefano.

472 freetoken  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:06:31am

re: #405 taxfreekiller

tfk - why do you continue to promote an organization (Dallas Tea Party) which hosts and promotes a well knwon 911 Truther (Michael Badnarik)?

473 rw in san diego  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:06:37am

re: #460 realwest

Good morning, real! Hope you and your mom are well. We’re looking forward to traveling to Massachusetts tomorrow to visit our daughter! Other than that, the weather here has been pretty typical for June…overcast. It’s called ‘June gloom’.

474 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:06:43am

Welcome to the big time, Your Honor.

475 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:06:49am

re: #439 rw in san diego

I never had a problem with gay rights/marriage until my gynecologist, who is Catholic, was sued by a lesbian couple. From what I understand, she said she would care for the woman during the pregnancy if she chose to continue with her as her physician, but she felt that her religious scruples/beliefs prevented her from performing the insemination procedure. The case went as far as the California Supreme Court where the physician lost. As far as I’m concerned, what occurred here, was that the rights of the couple to be inseminated by the physician of their choice triumphed over the religious freedoms of the physician. With the passage of gay marriage laws, I wonder if the same thing won’t happen and rabbis, priests, and ministers, who are personally opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, will be sued as well. Since that time, I really think that some sort of civil contract should be available to gay couples to protect their rights, but at the same time clergy, physicians, and others who might find themselves in this position would be protected as well.

I see what you’re saying, and honestly?— changing facts about the medical world mean that people who became doctors years ago are now constantly faced with ethical choices that were never even options when they qualified. Artificial insemination is one such case. Another is taking and freezing biological material from one (dying or dead) spouse, so the other might use it later.

I’m divided. On the one hand, I sort of like the idea of conscience clauses. We allow conscience exemptions in wartime, don’t we? For Quakers, etc.

On the other, all doctors and pharmacists etc take the Hippocratic Oath, right? Or something like it? — Their first duty is to provide medical care. So I’m not so sure I like the idea of a conscience clause for them.

As to gay marriage laws— take a look. Even if gay marriage becomes legal, no-one will force any religion to marry gay people or to honour or recognise gay marriages.

It is purely about marriage as a legal contract, not as a religious institution.

476 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:07:10am

re: #466 Nevergiveup

The United States Supreme Court REVERSES Sotomayor.


Uh, link please? Or description of case that the SCOTUS reversed her on?

477 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:07:42am

OK question for the constitutional lawyers out there. Now that the Supremes have ruled on this case, if and when she is questioned about this case, will she have to answer instead of weaseling out of it by saying it is a case under review?

478 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:08:06am

re: #476 realwest

Uh, link please? Or description of case that the SCOTUS reversed her on?

FOX TV

479 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:08:18am

re: #477 Nevergiveup

I’m not a constitutional lawyer.

YES!

480 SecondComing  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:08:29am

re: #440 Gella

i was wondering is O is deeply concerned about it

Probably. He’s “deeply concerned” about everything:

Obama ‘Deeply Concerned’ About Hurricane Gustav

481 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:08:34am
482 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:08:37am

re: #476 realwest

Uh, link please? Or description of case that the SCOTUS reversed her on?

The New haven Firefighters reverse discrimination case.

483 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:09:10am

re: #476 realwest

Uh, link please? Or description of case that the SCOTUS reversed her on?

BIG OLE RED HEADLINE ON DRUDGE.

Story’ll probably be up in a minute.

Good morning, your awesomeness!

484 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:09:19am

re: #476 realwest

Ricci v. DeStefano

485 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:09:23am

re: #463 3 wood

Oooops, Sotomayor was just overturned by the Supreme Court in the New Haven Ct. case.


Yea! Thanks for the great news. I’ve always said that, no matter how well intentioned they may have been, affirmative action required folks to discriminate based on race or gender or whatever and frankly discrimiation against anyone - even white males - is just wrong!
How are you doing 3 wood?

486 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:09:24am

re: #476 realwest

Uh, link please? Or description of case that the SCOTUS reversed her on?


The Connecticut firefighter who was denied a promotion because no minorities passed the test.

487 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:10:03am

re: #407 iceweasel

Our consciousness needs to be opened. Perhaps gently, perhaps forcefully. One thing is for sure: ramming ideas or agendas down anyone’s throat is not the way to go, unless one wants to see the voting public violently choke on those ideas.

Tell that to the anti-Prop 8 crowd in California. The consciousness opening runs both ways as well.

488 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:10:12am

re: #471 soxfan4life

Just heard on the radio that the SCOTUS overturned Sotomayor’s ruling in Ricci vs. DiStefano.

That was expected.
Sotomayor didn’t have the legal authority to overturn it. She had to rule the way she did, and it was expected that the case would hit SCOTUS and be settled there.

489 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:10:27am

re: #482 Nevergiveup
Yep, got it. Would sure like to read what the court said, what the vote was, etc. etc.

490 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:11:31am

What right-wing extremists, old chap?

A racist arrested by chance at a railway station was “on the cusp” of waging a terror campaign using tennis balls and weedkiller, a court heard.

Neil Lewington, 43, had developed a bomb factory at his parents’ home in Reading, Berkshire, targeting those he thought “non-British”, jurors heard.

491 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:11:46am

re: #484 laZardo
Thank you my friend - wow, Wiki is quick today!

492 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:11:56am

re: #481 Iron Fist

In Massachusetts, it was pure Judicial fiat. Engineered and executed by Judge/Liberal activist Margaret Marshall.

493 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:12:00am

re: #488 iceweasel

That was expected.
Sotomayor didn’t have the legal authority to overturn it. She had to rule the way she did, and it was expected that the case would hit SCOTUS and be settled there.

That’s not true. Even some of her colleagues criticized her and the other 2 judges who upheld the lower court by essentially saying they phone it in and did NOT pay the necessary attention to the case. It was only her opinion but the sloppy way it was handled.

494 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:12:11am

re: #463 3 wood

Oooops, Sotomayor was just overturned by the Supreme Court in the New Haven Ct. case.

How dare they! She’s a wise Latina woman!

495 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:12:22am

re: #489 realwest

Yep, got it. Would sure like to read what the court said, what the vote was, etc. etc.


5-4

496 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:12:54am

re: #491 realwest

The lead plaintiff in the case is Frank Ricci, who has been a firefighter at the New Haven station for 11 years. Ricci gave up a second job to have time to study for the test. Because he has dyslexia, he paid an acquaintance $1,000 to read his textbooks on to audiotapes. Ricci also made flashcards, took practice tests, worked with a study group, and participated in mock interviews. He placed 6th among 77 people who took the lieutenant’s test.

I don’t care what race he was, he definitely worked hard to pass.

497 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:13:32am

re: #494 Occasional Reader

Perhaps a wise Latina woman can authorize discrimination against a white male.

.
.
.

Perhaps not.

498 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:13:53am

re: #488 iceweasel

That was expected.
Sotomayor didn’t have the legal authority to overturn it. She had to rule the way she did, and it was expected that the case would hit SCOTUS and be settled there.


Why did she have to rule the way she did?

499 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:14:16am

re: #498 realwest

Why did she have to rule the way she did?

She didn’t.

500 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:14:16am

re: #439 rw in san diego

The Hippocratic oath used to explicitly denounce abortion, but that has changed.

501 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:15:12am

re: #467 Fat Bastard Vegetarian


Discrimination is wrong. Period.

Correction: Racial (and other “invidious”) discrimination is wrong (usually*).

Please resist the watering-down of the English language… to “discriminate” simply means to make a conscious choice.

* Except when it’s a “bona fide occupational qualification”, e.g. casting a white actor to play the part of George Washington

502 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:15:25am

re: #475 iceweasel

It is purely about marriage as a legal contract, not as a religious institution.

Then make it a civil union.

503 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:15:26am

re: #486 soxfan4life

The Connecticut firefighter who was denied a promotion because no minorities passed the test.

The conservatives on court ruled with the firefighters, and I agreed on this one. The liberals on the court including Suter, the justice she is replacing ruled as she did earlier.

504 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:15:46am

re: #488 iceweasel

Sotomayor didn’t have the legal authority to overturn it.

Huh?

Source, please?

505 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:16:37am

re: #480 SecondComing

Probably. He’s “deeply concerned” about everything:

Obama ‘Deeply Concerned’ About Hurricane Gustav

You said it…here’s another one:

Obama “Deeply Concerned” By N Korea Sentencing Of Reporters

506 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:16:46am

re: #497 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

What’s ironic is that So-So’s remark concluded with “…reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Does she mean a life in which they were discriminated against because of their skin color? Kind of like she tried to use her power to discriminate against the firefighters?

507 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:17:22am

re: #447 laZardo

Yeah, and as long as that happens, perhaps we all remain slaves to our ambitions, unable to stand erect amidst the bondage of hatred that the dominant authority lashes us with.

/still snickering, must be unhealthy for me.

You may be right. Sadly, far too many of us kneel in service to a higher power, bound by our ambitions and convictions, bent over in servitude to the dominant authority.

Some of us endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Some of us endure the lashings of a vicious tongue-whipping. Still others of us remain erect despite what comes.

508 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:17:34am

re: #439 rw in san diego

I never had a problem with gay rights/marriage until my gynecologist, who is Catholic, was sued by a lesbian couple. From what I understand, she said she would care for the woman during the pregnancy if she chose to continue with her as her physician, but she felt that her religious scruples/beliefs prevented her from performing the insemination procedure. The case went as far as the California Supreme Court where the physician lost. As far as I’m concerned, what occurred here, was that the rights of the couple to be inseminated by the physician of their choice triumphed over the religious freedoms of the physician. With the passage of gay marriage laws, I wonder if the same thing won’t happen and rabbis, priests, and ministers, who are personally opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, will be sued as well. Since that time, I really think that some sort of civil contract should be available to gay couples to protect their rights, but at the same time clergy, physicians, and others who might find themselves in this position would be protected as well.


I think this is the whole thing, the only thing with gay marriage. Will religions be left free to believe what they want? Ideally some churches, such as the Episcopalian, could marry gays if they want. Others would be left free not to. Likewise with individuals and their religious orientation. Considering the fact that civil unions can be made identical to marriage legally, the religions themselves could decide to marry them. They could even invent a new version of the various religions. And if they are going to force Christian religions to marry gays, how about Muslims? That’ll be interesting. I think it is very disingenuous to make the main argument in favor of gay marriage that they do not have the same legal privileges. They known damn well they can get them without disrupting religions.

509 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:17:55am

re: #455 albusteve

gay marriage is a states issue…referendum, pass/fail….pretty simple

But isn’t too many referendums being voted on by… well… largely uninformed folks a significant part of the problem in California?

510 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:17:55am

re: #505 NJDhockeyfan

re: #480 SecondComing

Probably. He’s “deeply concerned” about everything:

Obama ‘Deeply Concerned’ About Hurricane Gustav

You said it…here’s another one:

Obama “Deeply Concerned” By N Korea Sentencing Of Reporters

He’s just going to worry himself to pieces at this rate! Time for another ice cream break, says I.

511 rw in san diego  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:18:14am

re: #475 iceweasel

As to gay marriage laws— take a look. Even if gay marriage becomes legal, no-one will force any religion to marry gay people or to honour or recognise gay marriages.

It is purely about marriage as a legal contract, not as a religious institution.

I think we’ll have to differ on this. I don’t think you can say that no one will try and force religious people to perform gay marriage. I would have said no one would try to force a physician to perform a procedure about which he/she had strong ethical, moral, or religious reservations or restrictions.

I think the first admonition in the Hippocratic Oath is to ‘do no harm’, not a duty to provide care. Physicians are citizens who should have the same rights as any other citizen. A physician without a conscience would, indeed, cause me considerable worry.

512 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:19:07am

re: #501 Occasional Reader
Well aren’t we riding our high horse today! Why couldn’t a black actor in, um, whiteface, portray George Washington?
More accurate if the particular job required a degree of upper body strength which most females (and a large number of us males) lack. Forcing a FD to hire a woman who couldn’t pass reasonable strength tests related to the job, would be discrimination.
And who the hell is “invidious” anyway?!?
:)

513 Spider Mensch  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:20:10am

re: #480 SecondComing

Probably. He’s “deeply concerned” about everything:

Obama ‘Deeply Concerned’ About Hurricane Gustav

with oblama you have to keep his comments in context of his string pullers..i mean this guy is also deeply concerned when michelle hides his Bic lighters…so it just words coming out of his mouth with no real meaning or thought behind them…he’s a cardboard cut out for cripes sake, that 52% of voters got conned into voting for.

514 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:20:18am

re: #501 Occasional Reader

Correction: Racial (and other “invidious”) discrimination is wrong (usually*).

Please resist the watering-down of the English language… to “discriminate” simply means to make a conscious choice.

* Except when it’s a “bona fide occupational qualification”, e.g. casting a white actor to play the part of George Washington

Thank you.
Back in my HR days - people would yell “discrimination” when somebody else got a promotion, or even just when somebody was “mean” to them. They were unable to discriminate the difference between “illegal discrimination”, and day to day life.

515 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:20:30am

re: #501 Occasional Reader

Correction: Racial (and other “invidious”) discrimination

(“Invidious”, of course, is just a five-dollar word for “bad”. It would also make for a great name for a Sith Lord: Darth Invidious.)

516 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:21:07am

re: #464 Gella

guns are illegal to carry with u in ILL, but as u know u can always get one if u really, really want.

Especially if you want to murder someone. Then mysteriously, the gun ban doesn’t work on you. Maybe Illinois can have border guards and checkpoints like the old Soviet Union. Or maybe if the Illinois legislature wishes hard enough (on a star), this fantasy bullshit will work instead of getting those obeying the law killed.

517 3 wood  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:21:15am

re: #485 realwest

How are you doing 3 wood?

Busy, getting caught up on stuff after being gone for a week.

518 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:21:34am

re: #515 Occasional Reader

(“Invidious”, of course, is just a five-dollar word for “bad”. It would also make for a great name for a Sith Lord: Darth Invidious.)

Darth Cheney was so~ Episode VI anyway.

519 rw in san diego  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:21:40am

re: #500 J.D.

I didn’t know that.

520 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:21:53am
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Sunday said the Senate needs more time to review the record of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor after new material surfaced from her time with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.

“Just a day or so ago, we discovered that there are 300 or so boxes of additional material that has just been discovered from her time working with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund,” McConnell said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

“The committee needs to have access to that material and time to work through it so we know all the facts before we vote on a person who is up for a lifetime job,” McConnell said.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up the nomination on July 13. Republicans have complained bitterly about the timetable for considering the nomination. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is aiming for a floor vote before the Senate breaks in August.

Sotomayor served on the group’s board of directors from 1980 to 1992. Conservatives opposed to her nomination have seized on a 1981 memo signed by her and two other directors of the group, which is now called LatinoJustice PRLDEF. In it, the directors argued against reinstating the death penalty in New York state, making the case that capital punishment is racist because it is disproportionately imposed on minorities.

Is there anything left in this world that is not ‘racist’?

521 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:22:06am

re: #511 rw in san diego

I think we’ll have to differ on this. I don’t think you can say that no one will try and force religious people to perform gay marriage. I would have said no one would try to force a physician to perform a procedure about which he/she had strong ethical, moral, or religious reservations or restrictions.

I think the first admonition in the Hippocratic Oath is to ‘do no harm’, not a duty to provide care. Physicians are citizens who should have the same rights as any other citizen. A physician without a conscience would, indeed, cause me considerable worry.

I agree with you, an assumption that there would never be an attempt to force religious institutions to perform gay marriages is a huge assumption to make.

522 albusteve  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:22:24am

re: #509 J.D.

But isn’t too many referendums being voted on by… well… largely uninformed folks a significant part of the problem in California?

voter stupidity is everyones problem…but at least a referendum allows you to focus and get smart…CA’s biggest threat is rampant liberalism, politicians livng in a sureal world all their own

523 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:22:24am

North Korea doesn’t like our defending ourselves:
NKorea criticizes US missile defense for Hawaii
Funny, I thought this was a satellite launch, not a nuclear missile. Why should he be concerned about missile defense near Hawaii if the rocket is going into space?

North Korea criticized the U.S. on Monday for positioning missile defense systems around Hawaii, calling the deployment part of a plot to attack the regime and saying it would bolster its nuclear arsenal in retaliation.
“Through the U.S. forces’ clamorous movements, it has been brought to light that the U.S. attempt to launch a pre-emptive strike on our republic has become a brutal fact,” the North’s main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary.


So a missile defense system is capable of a “pre-emptive strike”? What, it pre-empts the warhead from hitting?

Meanwhile, we’re still “carefully following” the ship carrying arms to the dictators of Myanmar. Is that like being “deeply concerned”?

524 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:22:40am

Nine years after terrorists in a small boat bombed the destroyer Cole, the ship is slated to become the Navy’s latest surface combatant to get an advanced new deck gun that top commanders hope will prevent unwanted small boats from getting that close.

By the beginning of August, Cole will have a pair of Mk 38 Mod 2 chain guns, which can be aimed and fired remotely from inside the bridge, along with new electro-optical sights.

[Link: www.navytimes.com…]

What did Patton say about remote control weapons and no valor?

525 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:22:56am

re: #489 realwest

Yep, got it. Would sure like to read what the court said, what the vote was, etc. etc.


This is from the Supreme Court website.

Justice Kennedy gave the opinion of the Court

Justice Alito gave the concurring opinion joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas

Justice Ginsberg gave the dissenting opinion joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer

[Link: www.supremecourtus.gov…]

526 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:23:33am

re: #512 realwest

Why couldn’t a black actor in, um, whiteface, portray George Washington?

Denzel! He’s even got the right last name!

Reminds me of a funny bit I saw by a black comedian on the tube a few years back… quoting from memory: “I don’t understand Hollywood. We get this movie called The Last Samurai… starring Tom Cruise. And The Mexican… starring Brad Pitt. At this rate, I can’t wait until they come out with The Marcus Garvey Story… starring Ed Begley, Jr.”

527 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:23:59am

re: #524 Nevergiveup

Nine years after terrorists in a small boat bombed the destroyer Cole, the ship is slated to become the Navy’s latest surface combatant to get an advanced new deck gun that top commanders hope will prevent unwanted small boats from getting that close.

By the beginning of August, Cole will have a pair of Mk 38 Mod 2 chain guns, which can be aimed and fired remotely from inside the bridge, along with new electro-optical sights.

[Link: www.navytimes.com…]

What did Patton say about remote control weapons and no valor?

How close was Yemen to Somalia again? c:

528 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:24:00am

re: #501 Occasional Reader

Okay, you are right.

Occasional picky.

/

529 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:24:23am

Wesrburo Baptist church gets to keep harassing Vets funerals, the Supreme Court refuses to to rule against them . Free speech protects the ugliest speech too.

530 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:24:38am

re: #498 realwest

Why did she have to rule the way she did?

re: #504 Occasional Reader

Huh?

Source, please?

re: #499 Nevergiveup

Because Title VII says what it says, and to rule otherwise than she did in Ricci would have meant legislating from the bench. She punted. She kicked it up to the high court, rather than ‘making law’. This is the opposite of judicial activism, and frankly, is a reason why conservatives and moderates ought to like her appointment.

[Link: www.slate.com…]

531 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:24:46am

re: #523 Kosh’s Shadow

North Korea doesn’t like our defending ourselves:
NKorea criticizes US missile defense for Hawaii
Funny, I thought this was a satellite launch, not a nuclear missile. Why should he be concerned about missile defense near Hawaii if the rocket is going into space?


So a missile defense system is capable of a “pre-emptive strike”? What, it pre-empts the warhead from hitting?

Meanwhile, we’re still “carefully following” escorting the ship carrying arms to the dictators of Myanmar. Is that like being “deeply concerned”?

FIFY

532 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:25:09am

re: #519 rw in san diego

I didn’t know that.

Neither did I, until recently when my son took the oath.

533 JCM  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:25:12am

re: #512 realwest

Well aren’t we riding our high horse today! Why couldn’t a black actor in, um, whiteface, portray George Washington?
More accurate if the particular job required a degree of upper body strength which most females (and a large number of us males) lack. Forcing a FD to hire a woman who couldn’t pass reasonable strength tests related to the job, would be discrimination.
And who the hell is “invidious” anyway?!?
:)

In the early 80’s the written tests for firefighters was dumbed way down. Not enough minorities passing. It was a high school level test. If ladder A is longer than ladder B, but shorter than ladder C which is the longest ladder.

Then the physical agility and strength test were dialed back because not enough women were passing.

534 rw in san diego  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:25:39am

re: #532 J.D.

Mazel tov!

535 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:25:44am

re: #523 Kosh’s Shadow

Meanwhile, we’re still “carefully following” the ship carrying arms to the dictators of Myanmar. Is that like being “deeply concerned”?

Once the Nork ship begins offloading arms in Myanmar, Obama has authorized our naval vessel to deploy its full arsenal of frowny-faces.

536 freetoken  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:26:10am

re: #520 NJDhockeyfan

Is there anything left in this world that is not ‘racist’?

If you were not aware, the argument against the death penalty due to disproportionate use upon minorities is an oft discussed topic (when debating the death penalty.)

537 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:27:12am

re: #530 iceweasel

Because Title VII says what it says, and to rule otherwise than she did in Ricci would have meant legislating from the bench. She punted. She kicked it up to the high court, rather than ‘making law’.

That’s a rather different argument from saying she “didn’t have the authority”. If she doesn’t, SCOTUS doesn’t, either.

538 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:27:13am

re: #529 avanti

Wesrburo Baptist church gets to keep harassing Vets funerals, the Supreme Court refuses to to rule against them . Free speech protects the ugliest speech too.

And yet, don’t grieving families also have a right to have a funeral in peace?
We aren’t talking about government vs speech, but the right of some individuals vs some other individuals.

539 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:27:13am

re: #535 Occasional Reader

Once the Nork ship begins offloading arms in Myanmar, Obama has authorized our naval vessel to deploy its full arsenal of frowny-faces.


When he authorizes the use of strong words we should be really concerned.///

540 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:27:17am

re: #417 Gella

whats going on? :((
Six Men Shot Dead In 24 Hours In Chicago
Several Others Shot Or Stabbed And Wounded
[Link: cbs2chicago.com…]

Note to Daley:
It’s the gangs, stupid.

541 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:27:24am

re: #530 iceweasel

re: #499 Nevergiveup

Because Title VII says what it says, and to rule otherwise than she did in Ricci would have meant legislating from the bench. She punted. She kicked it up to the high court, rather than ‘making law’. This is the opposite of judicial activism, and frankly, is a reason why conservatives and moderates ought to like her appointment.

[Link: www.slate.com…]

The Supreme Court said you can NOT assume prejudice. It is kinda like the rule in baseball that you can NOT assume a double play.

542 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:28:01am

re: #517 3 wood
I understand, but sent you an e-mail with an almost sure-fire way for you to make money! Almost being the key word there! LOL!

543 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:28:08am

re: #529 avanti

They tried to disrupt a funeral in MA (maybe NH) a few years ago. Sadly for them, the bulk of the NG unit to which the soldier belonged was back in the States and attending the funeral. Their response to the protesters wasn’t pretty, but it sure was quick.

544 JCM  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:29:23am

re: #535 Occasional Reader

Once the Nork ship begins offloading arms in Myanmar, Obama has authorized our naval vessel to deploy its full arsenal of frowny-faces.

He’s not using the ultimate weapon?

The full moon manned rail?

545 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:29:35am

re: #529 avanti

Wesrburo Baptist church gets to keep harassing Vets funerals, the Supreme Court refuses to to rule against them . Free speech protects the ugliest speech too.


What does free speech have to do with Ricci vs. DiStefano?

546 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:29:37am

re: #526 Occasional Reader
LOL! How are you doing today O.R.?

547 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:29:47am
548 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:30:17am

re: #520 NJDhockeyfan

Is there anything left in this world that is not ‘racist’?

Our concrete guy had a Mexican, Mario, working for him, and Mario’s girlfriend left him. He said, “She had a Mexican, and she took up with a Guatemalan!

549 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:30:22am

re: #537 Occasional Reader

That’s a rather different argument from saying she “didn’t have the authority”. If she doesn’t, SCOTUS doesn’t, either.

That makes no sense. SCOTUS has more authority than other courts. Especially in this sort of case.

550 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:30:36am

re: #508 legalpad

I think this is the whole thing, the only thing with gay marriage. Will religions be left free to believe what they want?

The religious angle is secondary, correlative. The core issue is societal norms. Is gay marriage the same as hetero marriage? Should it be the same, the exact same, as hetero marriage?

If it were merely just rights then laws to cover could be enacted or changes. It’s about gays wanting absolute validation, normalizing gay marriage the same as hetero marriage. They’re going to get a lot of resistance to that, and not just for religious reasons.

551 VioletTiger  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:31:32am

re: #505 NJDhockeyfan

You said it…here’s another one:

Obama “Deeply Concerned” By N Korea Sentencing Of Reporters

It’s official….
Deeply Concerned = Present

552 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:31:55am

re: #514 reine.de.tout

Thank you.
Back in my HR days - people would yell “discrimination” when somebody else got a promotion, or even just when somebody was “mean” to them. They were unable to discriminate the difference between “illegal discrimination”, and day to day life.

And here’s a taste of where we are heading (if we don’t reverse course soon). In the Netherlands, the law prohibits “discrimination” (discriminatie)… period. When I asked a Dutch lawyer how the hell the law could forbid “making choices”, she cheerfully replied, oh, don’t worry, judges will of course apply a “rule of reason”.

So, summing up: It’s illegal for you to make any choices. But don’t worry, it’s actually okay if you make good choices. But you won’t necessarily know if your choice was good or not, until your trial!

553 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:32:07am

MADISON, Wis. — The University of Wisconsin-Madison, which saw some of the fiercest Vietnam War protests in the nation, is shedding its long-standing antimilitary image by hiring a military historian and teaching a new course for military officers.

[Link: www.navytimes.com…]

Excellent. Good for them.

554 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:32:22am

re: #548 J.D.

Our concrete guy had a Mexican, Mario, working for him, and Mario’s girlfriend left him. He said, “She had a Mexican, and she took up with a Guatemalan!

She is obviously racist toward Mexicans. Is he going to sue her?
/

555 CommonCents  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:32:32am

re: #529 avanti

Wesrburo Baptist church gets to keep harassing Vets funerals, the Supreme Court refuses to to rule against them . Free speech protects the ugliest speech too.

In my opinion, an intrusion on a funeral service is no different than an intrusion on a home. These “free speechers” should be dealt with harshly. You can holler slippery slope all you want but these folks need a beat down.

556 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:32:35am

re: #534 rw in san diego

Mazel tov!

Thanks.
And he won’t do abortions!

557 JCM  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:33:13am

re: #552 Occasional Reader

And here’s a taste of where we are heading (if we don’t reverse course soon). In the Netherlands, the law prohibits “discrimination” (discriminatie)… period. When I asked a Dutch lawyer how the hell the law could forbid “making choices”, she cheerfully replied, oh, don’t worry, judges will of course apply a “rule of reason”.

So, summing up: It’s illegal for you to make any choices. But don’t worry, it’s actually okay if you make good choices. But you won’t necessarily know if your choice was good or not, until your trial!

That why we need wise statists to tell us everything…..

558 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:33:14am

re: #549 iceweasel

That makes no sense. SCOTUS has more authority than other courts. Especially in this sort of case.

That is not true. They are the FINAL authority, but they have no special authority.

559 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:33:18am

re: #551 VioletTiger

It’s official….
Deeply Concerned = Present

Here is one from January.

Obama Deeply Concerned About Suffering in Gaza

560 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:33:22am

re: #550 BigPapa

The religious angle is secondary, correlative. The core issue is societal norms. Is gay marriage the same as hetero marriage? Should it be the same, the exact same, as hetero marriage?

If it were merely just rights then laws to cover could be enacted or changes. It’s about gays wanting absolute validation, normalizing gay marriage the same as hetero marriage. They’re going to get a lot of resistance to that, and not just for religious reasons.

But gay people won’t be getting ‘absolute validation’, or ‘normalisation’, simply because they’re allowed in engage in a form of legal contract that is open to any heterosexual couple that wants to make a life together.

561 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:34:08am

re: #529 avanti
With respect, the guaranty of Free Speech is a guaranty of the Government not interferring with your free speech. You could walk into a group of Neo-Nazi’s and say “Hitler was a queer” and get the you know what beaten out of you. If arrested the Neo-Nazi’s could/should be arrested for assault and battery, but not for violating your rights to free speech.

562 albusteve  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:34:23am

re: #555 CommonCents

In my opinion, an intrusion on a funeral service is no different than an intrusion on a home. These “free speechers” should be dealt with harshly. You can holler slippery slope all you want but these folks need a beat down.

a disturbing the peace rap is too simple….won’t work

563 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:35:13am

re: #559 NJDhockeyfan

Here is one from January.

Obama Deeply Concerned About Suffering in Gaza

More “Moral Equivancly” bullshit. Hey asshole call a spade a spade. It’s all Hamas and the Palestinians fault schmuck.

564 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:35:18am

re: #523 Kosh’s Shadow

So a missile defense system is capable of a “pre-emptive strike”? What, it pre-empts the warhead from hitting?

To some, any weapon or system that’s defensive is still offensive. Therefore, bad.

We don’t want to weaponize space now, do we? Even if those weapons are defensive in nature, it’s still a weapon.

Screwy thinking.

565 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:35:20am

re: #561 realwest

With respect, the guaranty of Free Speech is a guaranty of the Government not interferring with your free speech. You could walk into a group of Neo-Nazi’s and say “Hitler was a queer” and get the you know what beaten out of you. If arrested the Neo-Nazi’s could/should be arrested for assault and battery, but not for violating your rights to free speech.

Thanks. That’s what I was trying to say in
re: #538 Kosh’s Shadow

566 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:35:23am

re: #549 iceweasel


Every court is supposed to uphold the Constitution. It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution not legislate from the bench. Why have different levels of courts if they refuse to rule and kick it up to the next higher level. And if she refused to rule on a controversial case why would we want her on the highest level. I would prefer someone willing to make the decision even if it wasn’t the decision I wanted or agreed with, I have more respect for someone willing to make the decision, not kick it up.

567 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:35:37am

Hiya, Lizard Nation!

Its hot and sweltering here - adn it will get hotter!
(Yes, its only 80F - but hey, it was winter only yesterday!)

Hope you are all well!

568 JCM  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:35:41am

re: #555 CommonCents

In my opinion, an intrusion on a funeral service is no different than an intrusion on a home. These “free speechers” should be dealt with harshly. You can holler slippery slope all you want but these folks need a beat down.

Freedom doesn’t mean license.

Responsibility and consequences should not be isolated from actions.
The isolation is a core leftist principal, do what feels good, nanny state will protect you from everything that might result.

569 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:36:01am
570 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:36:15am

re: #559 NJDhockeyfan

I’m deeply concerned that we’ve elected a guy with such a limited vocabulary.

By the way, a story here in NC from a few days ago reminded me of your dilemma from a few weeks ago. (That did turn out to be fine, right?)
Two people were found dead in their homes when neighbors called the police for a welfare check after not seeing them for a weekend. They think murder suicide, but are still investigating.

571 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:36:38am

re: #558 Nevergiveup

That is not true. They are the FINAL authority, but they have no special authority.

They have the final authority when it comes to interpreting the Constitution— had Sotomayor ‘made’ law on the bench in Ricci, it STILL would have been kicked upstairs to SCOTUS and she knew it. But then the flying monkeys would be shrieking about how she was an ‘activist judge’.

I don’t like the Ricci decision either, but it doesn’t seem like she did anything wrong— and her legal record seems to indicate that she’s a moderate at best, and this decision in particular shows she’s not a ‘judicial activist’.

572 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:36:40am

re: #559 NJDhockeyfan

How many times, in 6 months, has the term “Obama Deeply Concerned” been written by different reporters (I use the word reporters loosely).

573 VioletTiger  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:37:20am

re: #559 NJDhockeyfan

Here is one from January.

Obama Deeply Concerned About Suffering in Gaza

I googled obama deeply concerned and got a half million hits.
Wanna bet the hits keep on coming?

574 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:37:27am

re: #553 Nevergiveup

“It’s a resurgence of the vicious neocon lobby! And they’re starting where we least expected it!”

/personally anti-Vietnam War, this is probly well known around here, but I’ve nothing but respect for LGF Vietnam vets.

575 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:37:33am

re: #566 soxfan4life

Every court is supposed to uphold the Constitution. It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution not legislate from the bench. Why have different levels of courts if they refuse to rule and kick it up to the next higher level. And if she refused to rule on a controversial case why would we want her on the highest level. I would prefer someone willing to make the decision even if it wasn’t the decision I wanted or agreed with, I have more respect for someone willing to make the decision, not kick it up.

See my 571.

576 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:37:59am

re: #559 NJDhockeyfan


With all these links, it seems 0bama is deeply concerned about every country but ours. Where is the link to 0bama being deply concerned about the U.S.A.?

577 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:38:03am

re: #573 VioletTiger

re: #572 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

MMTA

578 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:38:33am

re: #570 Lincolntf

I’m deeply concerned that we’ve elected a guy with such a limited vocabulary.

By the way, a story here in NC from a few days ago reminded me of your dilemma from a few weeks ago. (That did turn out to be fine, right?)
Two people were found dead in their homes when neighbors called the police for a welfare check after not seeing them for a weekend. They think murder suicide, but are still investigating.

That sucks. Fortunately my neighbor didn’t have the same thing happen to him. All is well next door.

579 Bloodnok  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:38:36am

re: #567 yma o hyd

Hiya, Lizard Nation!

Its hot and sweltering here - adn it will get hotter!
(Yes, its only 80F - but hey, it was winter only yesterday!)

Hope you are all well!

Hiya! Good to see you.

Do you still have Baz with you?

580 KenJen  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:38:40am

re: #547 Iron Fist

Ironfist, a local KY guy named Jim Strader-outdoorsman, gun lover has a program every Sun night usually on fishing and hunting. Last night he talked about the O admin. and fear of losing gun rights, etc. It was a really good program with excellent callers. You can listen to it here if interested.

581 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:38:48am

re: #549 iceweasel

That makes no sense. SCOTUS has more authority than other courts. Especially in this sort of case.

SCOTUS has no more constitutional authority to “legislate from the bench” than does a Circuit Court, my dear. (I’m actually one of those lawyer-dealies, believe it or not, I have some idea what I’m talking about here.) If your initial argument was correct, and the Circuit Court had to rule as it did because the law in this instance was clear and did not contravene other federal legislation or the Constitution, then you should be outraged as the SCOTUS decision.

583 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:40:23am

Unfortunately, it looks as if one of the best twitterers of the Iranian dissent has been grabbed by the security forces:

’# I heard about @PersianKiwi I have no idea how they captured him/her, he/she was using freegate I guess
# I don’t think if gov really captured PersianKiwi, they knew about his/her twitter & hopefully will be released soon
about 16 hours ago from web
(From ‘Change _for_Iran’)

Its what I feared - he’s not tweeted since Wednesday last week, and it makes sense in view of this headline today:
Iran ‘has arrested 2,000’ in violent crackdown on dissent

584 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:40:51am

re: #560 iceweasel

But gay people won’t be getting ‘absolute validation’, or ‘normalisation’, simply because they’re allowed in engage in a form of legal contract that is open to any heterosexual couple that wants to make a life together.

Create a civil union if you want to deal with the legal issues. But I think that’s not what’s truly desired, it’s to be accepted as normal in society. Instead of tolerance, which gays have clearly achieved, they want total acceptance. Gay marriage and military issues are the final frontiers. But there’s problems with that, not just religiously speaking.

585 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:41:05am

re: #582 NJDhockeyfan

Sarkozy “Deeply Concerned” About Obama Positions

Heh.

He’s a madman! This will only further the Cycle Of Deep Concern!

586 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:41:13am

re: #576 soxfan4life

With all these links, it seems 0bama is deeply concerned about every country but ours. Where is the link to 0bama being deply concerned about the U.S.A.?



Obama ‘deeply concerned’ on US car industry

587 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:41:22am

re: #582 NJDhockeyfan

Say what you want about the French, Sarkozy knows a clown when he sees one.

…”Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate’s stance on Iran as “utterly immature” and comprised of “formulations empty of all content.”

588 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:41:31am

“Deeply Concerned” sounds like something out of some science-fiction video game.

Speaking of which…

/2:00 is the kicker

589 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:41:52am
591 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:43:05am

re: #550 BigPapa

The religious angle is secondary, correlative.

Well, I think it’s the main thing, due to the first amendment. If a church decides it wants to accept gays and gay marriage, according to the constitution they should be free to do so. If a religion wants to think they are going to hell, they should be free to believe that.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Neither states nor anyone else should be able to take any of these rights from us, as they are trying to do with the second amendment.

592 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:43:29am

re: #579 Bloodnok

Hiya! Good to see you.

Do you still have Baz with you?

Hiya Bloodnok!

No, he went back home today …
I really miss him, he was so affectionate.
We’ve just been out, Madame and me - and again I didn’t know what to do with my left hand. It feels so useless without ahving a dog lead there …
Even Madame is a bit subdued - but that is pobably ebcause its too hot for her.

593 Who Watches the Watchmen?  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:43:50am

re: #417 Gella

whats going on? :((
Six Men Shot Dead In 24 Hours In Chicago
Several Others Shot Or Stabbed And Wounded
[Link: cbs2chicago.com…]

Mother, mother mother
There’s too many of you crying
Brother, brother, brother
There’s too many of you dying

594 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:43:51am

re: #571 iceweasel

They have the final authority when it comes to interpreting the Constitution— had Sotomayor ‘made’ law on the bench in Ricci, it STILL would have been kicked upstairs to SCOTUS and she knew it. But then the flying monkeys would be shrieking about how she was an ‘activist judge’.

I don’t like the Ricci decision either, but it doesn’t seem like she did anything wrong— and her legal record seems to indicate that she’s a moderate at best, and this decision in particular shows she’s not a ‘judicial activist’.

I’ll say it again the Supreme Court kicked this back because they said you can NOT assume prejudice which is what the lower court did and what Sotomayor agreed with. She DID make a ruling agreeing with the lower court. And according to many legal experts and some of her colleagues it was a sloppy, hast, undignified opinion and decision.

595 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:44:10am

re: #590 NJDhockeyfan

Bush Deeply Concered had over a a half a million hits. Heck…took Obama 6 months to get as deeply concerned as Bush did in over 8 years.

That’s why he’s a better President.

/

596 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:44:59am

re: #547 Iron Fist

Hopefully such a law would not, in effect, violate the first amendment.

597 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:45:19am

re: #583 yma o hyd
Sends chills up your spine, doesn’t it?

598 Spartacus50  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:45:36am

So the people of Honduras bounce out their Chavez-wannabe and Hillary Clinton and Obama both protest. Once again, they find themselves on the wrong side. The action in Honduras over the weekend should reverberate in countries like Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela. Their dictators have flimsy holds on power. Chavez should be concerned.

599 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:45:39am
600 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:45:40am

re: #584 BigPapa

Create a civil union if you want to deal with the legal issues. But I think that’s not what’s truly desired, it’s to be accepted as normal in society. Instead of tolerance, which gays have clearly achieved, they want total acceptance. Gay marriage and military issues are the final frontiers. But there’s problems with that, not just religiously speaking.

Civil union isn’t legally sufficient, for all the reason given. (Not accepted in all states, doesn’t entitle gay spouses to the legal rights accorded to hetero spouses ).

Yes, gay people would also like to be accepted as ‘normal’. You’re right about that.
They don’t have an ‘agenda’ to make other people be gay, or use outside force to make religions to marry them, or anything like that.

601 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:47:21am

re: #586 NJDhockeyfan


Obama ‘deeply concerned’ on US car industry

Anything where he’s concerned about the ones of us in the U.S. that don’t have a union for him to suck up to?

602 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:47:29am

re: #598 Spartacus50

The action in Honduras over the weekend should reverberate in countries like Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela. Their dictators have flimsy holds on power. Chavez should be deeply concerned.

fix’d?

/the combo must not be broken

603 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:47:43am

re: #600 iceweasel

or use outside force to make religions to marry them

All it takes is one lawsuit.

604 SecondComing  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:47:48am

re: #572 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

How many times, in 6 months, has the term “Obama Deeply Concerned” been written by different reporters (I use the word reporters loosely).

Well you know they’re just stenographers. So they’re just writing what he says.

605 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:47:50am

re: #598 Spartacus50

So the people of Honduras bounce out their Chavez-wannabe

Well… ah… problem there is, it wasn’t really “the people” in the sense of some broad-based [fill in color here] Revolution. It was the army. This was a good ol’-fashioned military coup. Zelaya is no prize, but he did win a democratic election.

606 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:48:42am
607 Killian Bundy  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:48:44am

Court rules for white firefighters over promotions

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

/*smack down*

608 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:48:57am

re: #597 J.D.

Sends chills up your spine, doesn’t it?

It does.
I thought at that time that he knew this was going to happen, because of his/her last tweets:

‘we must go - dont know when we can get internet - they take 1 of us, they will torture and get names - now we must move fast - #Iranelection
Allah - you are the creator of all and all must return to you - Allah Akbar - #Iranelection Sea of Green
8:39 AM Jun 24th from web’

609 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:49:59am

re: #594 Nevergiveup

I’ll say it again the Supreme Court kicked this back because they said you can NOT assume prejudice which is what the lower court did and what Sotomayor agreed with. She DID make a ruling agreeing with the lower court. And according to many legal experts and some of her colleagues it was a sloppy, hast, undignified opinion and decision.

And according to GHWB— who appointed her— she’s a good judge and ought to be on SCOTUS. According to 60plus percent of the american people, she should be on SCOTUS. And according to most experts and colleagues, she belongs on SCOTUS.

The unsourced, anonymous, smears spread by un-named colleagues and law clerks, spread by Rosen in TNR intitially, look like sour grapes.

610 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:50:23am

re: #603 legalpad

All it takes is one lawsuit.

I doubt it. Clear 1st Amendment “free exercise” violation.

611 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:50:32am

re: #601 J.D.

When it comes to domestic stuff, the only things Obama is “deeply concerned” about are Socializing the economy, destroying the opposition, getting re-elected and hiding his college transcripts. Everything else is just a “distraction”.

612 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:50:52am

re: #565 Kosh’s Shadow
You’re welcome and I’m sorry - I didn’t see your comment or I would have let it stand - it was a good comment!

613 Bloodnok  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:51:03am

re: #592 yma o hyd

Hiya Bloodnok!

No, he went back home today …
I really miss him, he was so affectionate.
We’ve just been out, Madame and me - and again I didn’t know what to do with my left hand. It feels so useless without ahving a dog lead there …
Even Madame is a bit subdued - but that is pobably ebcause its too hot for her.

Aw. that’s too bad! I adore the name Baz for a dog, by the way.

Last night I was watching a program on the election of John Bercow (right after Prime Minister’s Questions, in which Gordon Brown looked like a beaten man). What a likeable guy. First Jewish Speaker of the House of Commons, too. It was a great program. Betty Boothroyd was on and still has that fire. I miss watching Prime Minister’s Questions when she was Speaker.

614 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:51:03am

re: #591 legalpad

Well, I think it’s the main thing, due to the first amendment. If a church decides it wants to accept gays and gay marriage, according to the constitution they should be free to do so. If a religion wants to think they are going to hell, they should be free to believe that.

On a clearly legal issue, I guess so. But then again, if gay marriage is the same as hetero marriage, then will religious organizations be allowed to discriminate?

By law, they will be forced to accept it.

But apart from that, this is a societal norms issue, not just a religious issue.

615 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:51:26am

re: #608 yma o hyd

It does.
I thought at that time that he knew this was going to happen, because of his/her last tweets:

‘we must go - dont know when we can get internet - they take 1 of us, they will torture and get names - now we must move fast - #Iranelection
Allah - you are the creator of all and all must return to you - Allah Akbar - #Iranelection Sea of Green
8:39 AM Jun 24th from web’

Skies of blue, and seas of green…

616 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:51:48am

re: #603 legalpad

All it takes is one lawsuit.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Religions and churches commonly decide who they will and won’t marry. Catholic priests won’t marry divorced Catholics. Orthodox Rabbis won’t perform interfaith weddings.

No same sex couple is going to sue the catholic church or a rabbi. It. Can’t. Happen.

617 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:51:55am

re: #567 yma o hyd
Hi {yma} hope you’re doing ok today!

618 lawhawk  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:52:04am

re: #524 Nevergiveup

What did Patton say about remote control weapons and no valor?

Not sure, but I’m sure if he saw these systems, he’s be like - all the better so the poor dumb bastard on the other side dies faster than our soldiers, sailors, and Marines.

619 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:52:09am

re: #610 Occasional Reader

I doubt it. Clear 1st Amendment “free exercise” violation.

I hope you’re right. I don’t trust congress, and I sure don’t trust the Supreme Court.

620 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:52:15am

re: #614 BigPapa

then will religious organizations be allowed to discriminate?

Of course they can. As they are able to now. Catholic churches are under no legal obligation to perform Hindu marriages, etc.

621 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:52:32am

re: #610 Occasional Reader

I doubt it. Clear 1st Amendment “free exercise” violation.

Yes, exactly.

622 BlueCanuck  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:52:51am

re: #605 Occasional Reader

Well… ah… problem there is, it wasn’t really “the people” in the sense of some broad-based [fill in color here] Revolution. It was the army. This was a good ol’-fashioned military coup. Zelaya is no prize, but he did win a democratic election.

Actually it wasn’t the army acting on their own. According to the news I read last night the army was acting as an INSTURMENT of the Supreme Court that instructed the military to arrest the president for illeagal actions according to the constitution.

623 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:52:58am

re: #619 legalpad

I hope you’re right. I don’t trust congress, and I sure don’t trust the Supreme Court.

Nor should we trust any of them.

624 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:53:16am

re: #569 Iron Fist

Black Muslims aren’t considered a racist organization.


Hey Bro’ - you mean they allow whites, asians and whatever into the Black Muslims?!
How are you doing today my friend? Well I hope.

625 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:53:31am

re: #611 Lincolntf

When it comes to domestic stuff, the only things Obama is “deeply concerned” about are Socializing the economy, destroying the opposition, getting re-elected and hiding his college transcripts. Everything else is just a “distraction”.

Really?
I hadn’t noticed.
/

626 Spartacus50  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:53:56am

re: #605 Occasional Reader

Well… ah… problem there is, it wasn’t really “the people” in the sense of some broad-based [fill in color here] Revolution. It was the army. This was a good ol’-fashioned military coup. Zelaya is no prize, but he did win a democratic election.

The elected legislature, Supreme Court, and military removed him from office; in strict accordance with their Constitution. They should be backed by our “freedom loving” government. It was most definitely NOT a coup.

627 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:54:30am

re: #568 JCM
SPOT ON! Great comment JCM.
Oh and btw you have mail!

628 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:54:34am

re: #583 yma o hyd

Unfortunately, it looks as if one of the best twitterers of the Iranian dissent has been grabbed by the security forces:

’# I heard about @PersianKiwi I have no idea how they captured him/her, he/she was using freegate I guess
# I don’t think if gov really captured PersianKiwi, they knew about his/her twitter & hopefully will be released soon
about 16 hours ago from web
(From ‘Change _for_Iran’)

Its what I feared - he’s not tweeted since Wednesday last week, and it makes sense in view of this headline today:
Iran ‘has arrested 2,000’ in violent crackdown on dissent

I’m sure Obama is “deeply concerned”.
About still being able to talk to Ahmadinejad.
But I hope Ahmadinejad meets the proper end for dictators, soon.

629 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:54:45am

re: #609 iceweasel

And according to GHWB— who appointed her— she’s a good judge and ought to be on SCOTUS. According to 60plus percent of the american people, she should be on SCOTUS. And according to most experts and colleagues, she belongs on SCOTUS.

The unsourced, anonymous, smears spread by un-named colleagues and law clerks, spread by Rosen in TNR intitially, look like sour grapes.

“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

[Link: www.foxnews.com…]

But the appellate judges have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with “indisputably complex and far from well-settled” questions, in the words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes.

“This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal,” Cabranes said, in a dissent from the full 2nd Circuit’s decision not to hear the case.

First of all I am only taking about HER decision in THIS case. Support her or don’t support her, that’s your right, but don’t confuse the discussion. It’s pretty clear she was sloppy and didn’t give this case it’s due consideration and she just got slapped down for it.

630 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:54:57am

Hola amigos. I know it’s been a while since I rapped at ya.

631 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:54:58am

Work beckons… later.

632 John Neverbend  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:55:24am

re: #315 Nevergiveup

Lobster cheap? I paid $17.50 for a lobster sandwich at CitiPark last night.Well at least the Yankees won.

Odd game. 17 walks, 11 from Mets pitching. Mariano Rivera got an RBI single and made his 500th save.

633 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:55:28am

re: #618 lawhawk

Not sure, but I’m sure if he saw these systems, he’s be like - all the better so the poor dumb bastard on the other side dies faster than our soldiers, sailors, and Marines.

OK I’ll go along with that.

634 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:55:48am

re: #611 Lincolntf

When it comes to domestic stuff, the only things Obama is “deeply concerned” about are Socializing the economy, destroying the opposition, getting re-elected and hiding his college transcripts. Everything else is just a “distraction”.


The only thing I would add to your list for deeply concerned is cutting military spending. All those evil companies employing Americans and keeping them off the dole must be dealt with quickly.

635 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:55:58am

re: #620 Occasional Reader

For now. A decade or two the notion of one Judge being able to upend the definition and practice of marriage was unthinkable, now it’s well-entrenched policy in MA.
There have already been movements to strip Churches of their tax-exempt status if they don’t embrace the multi-culti zeitgeist. They’ve failed so far, but there’s always a Margaret Marshall out there somewhere.

636 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:56:42am

re: #632 John Neverbend

Odd game. 17 walks, 11 from Mets pitching. Mariano Rivera got an RBI single and made his 500th save.

I was home in bed by the time Mariano got his 500th save

637 VioletTiger  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:56:56am

re: #616 iceweasel

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Religions and churches commonly decide who they will and won’t marry. Catholic priests won’t marry divorced Catholics. Orthodox Rabbis won’t perform interfaith weddings.

No same sex couple is going to sue the catholic church or a rabbi. It. Can’t. Happen.

How do you know this?

638 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:57:26am

re: #612 realwest

You’re welcome and I’m sorry - I didn’t see your comment or I would have let it stand - it was a good comment!

You said it better; no need to apologize.
Even if you didn’t say it as well, the only one who can say you don’t have a right to put in your opinion, is Charles.

639 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:58:49am

re: #629 Nevergiveup


First of all I am only taking about HER decision in THIS case. Support her or don’t support her, that’s your right, but don’t confuse the discussion. It’s pretty clear she was sloppy and didn’t give this case it’s due consideration and she just got slapped down for it.

But that is the opposite of everything I’ve read about her ruling on this case for the last couple of months. Indeed everything I’d read on Ricci (that I respected) said she made the only decision she reasonably could, and all opinions predicted this SCOTUS decision.

So it doesn’t look ‘sloppy’, or like a ‘slap’. Sorry.

640 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:59:17am

re: #561 realwest

With respect, the guaranty of Free Speech is a guaranty of the Government not interferring with your free speech. You could walk into a group of Neo-Nazi’s and say “Hitler was a queer” and get the you know what beaten out of you. If arrested the Neo-Nazi’s could/should be arrested for assault and battery, but not for violating your rights to free speech.

No question about that, but I did not know that was the issue with the anti gay idiots. I thought they were trying to keep them away from a funeral by force of law, thus a free speech issue.

641 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:59:24am
642 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:59:31am

re: #639 iceweasel

Well the Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you.

643 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:59:37am

re: #613 Bloodnok

Aw. that’s too bad! I adore the name Baz for a dog, by the way.

Last night I was watching a program on the election of John Bercow (right after Prime Minister’s Questions, in which Gordon Brown looked like a beaten man). What a likeable guy. First Jewish Speaker of the House of Commons, too. It was a great program. Betty Boothroyd was on and still has that fire. I miss watching Prime Minister’s Questions when she was Speaker.

John Bercow - hm … the consensus here is that this was yet another fiddle by the NuLab party to get the man they wanted.
There was a huge amount of arm-twisting going on behind the scenes, by the Labour whips because Bercow is not trusted in the Tory party - and he’s been fiddling his expenses as well - and that was exactly the reason NuLab did their best to get him in.
He may turn out ok, time will tell - but the one we wanted was Anne Widdecombe, because she would only have beens peaker for the time of this Parliament, she is standing down.

Yeah - all cry for ‘change’ - but nothing changes …

644 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:59:38am

re: #637 VioletTiger

How do you know this?

Services provided by religious organizations can indeed be affected by lawsuits and decisions that require the organization to provide services against the organization’s beliefs.

In Massachusetts:
Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions

645 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:59:40am

re: #616 iceweasel

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Religions and churches commonly decide who they will and won’t marry. Catholic priests won’t marry divorced Catholics. Orthodox Rabbis won’t perform interfaith weddings.

No same sex couple is going to sue the catholic church or a rabbi. It. Can’t. Happen.

Why then was NH Gov Lynch so adament about protection of clergy in NH’s law? That was the sticking point not the idea of gay marriage.

646 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:00:06am

re: #616 iceweasel

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Religions and churches commonly decide who they will and won’t marry. Catholic priests won’t marry divorced Catholics. Orthodox Rabbis won’t perform interfaith weddings.

No same sex couple is going to sue the catholic church or a rabbi. It. Can’t. Happen.

I’ll repeat: I hope you’re right.
But I don’t trust congress, and I sure don’t trust the Supreme Court. They seem to be going after the second amendment with that what states can do thing. It’s The Constitution I’m worried about.

As for gay marriage, I don’t care. I’m not religious, and I’ve had two good friends, one excellent business associate, and one brother-in-law who are gay. Now my brother-in-law’s partner is an obnoxious, paranoid, lazy sack of shit, but that’s just him.

647 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:00:27am

re: #586 NJDhockeyfan
Thanks for the link - how come every time Obama gets deeply concerned about our economy to him it means parts of it - BIG PARTS OF IT - need “restructuring”?!

648 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:00:45am

re: #600 iceweasel

Yes, gay people would also like to be accepted as ‘normal’. You’re right about that.
They don’t have an ‘agenda’ to make other people be gay, or use outside force to make religions to marry them, or anything like that.

It’s not about making other people gay or forcing them to have gay sex. It’s about being normal, not ab-normal. In times before, it was deviant behavior, with all the sinister implications that term implies, not not any more. Now it’s just ab-normal, as in, not normal, without the sinister inference.

In Roman times, it was ‘normal’ to have a wife in a legal marriage but a gay lover on the side. For the last few hundred years, it’s been ‘normal’ for marriage to be between a man and a woman. Now, gays want it to be ‘normal’ for anybody who wants to get be married to get married.

In a legal sense, the civil unions issues could be dealt with just the same by changing law. But as Iron Fist pointed out, they are trying it in the court system as a human rights issue, which is the wrong way to go.

649 JCM  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:01:05am

re: #616 iceweasel

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Religions and churches commonly decide who they will and won’t marry. Catholic priests won’t marry divorced Catholics. Orthodox Rabbis won’t perform interfaith weddings.

No same sex couple is going to sue the catholic church or a rabbi. It. Can’t. Happen.

They already are, forcing churches to allow use of church facilities.

Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster sued after a religious group denied the use of a beachside pavilion the couple had wanted to use as the site of their wedding. The couple won.
650 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:01:29am

re: #617 realwest

Hi {yma} hope you’re doing ok today!

Hiya, {rw}!

Its too hot for me and Madame (80F!) - and we’re sad because big, gorgeous Baz went home today …
I miss him terribly - he was that affectionate!

651 Bloodnok  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:02:25am

re: #643 yma o hyd

John Bercow - hm … the consensus here is that this was yet another fiddle by the NuLab party to get the man they wanted.
There was a huge amount of arm-twisting going on behind the scenes, by the Labour whips because Bercow is not trusted in the Tory party - and he’s been fiddling his expenses as well - and that was exactly the reason NuLab did their best to get him in.
He may turn out ok, time will tell - but the one we wanted was Anne Widdecombe, because she would only have beens peaker for the time of this Parliament, she is standing down.

Yeah - all cry for ‘change’ - but nothing changes …

Whoa! Thank you for the info! I obviously didn’t hear any of that here. I guess I should have been a little suspicious by the number of NuLab votes he received!

652 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:02:34am

re: #637 VioletTiger

How do you know this?

Because of what the first amendment says. Because of what already happens when churches and religions only perform marriages for those they want. Because of all the extensive commentary, here and elsewhere, by charles and others, on gay marriage.

Go research it and stop jumping out of your skin when some howler monkey on fox news shrieks that gay marriage means your priest or church will be ‘forced’ to perform gay weddings.
(I don’t necessarily mean you in particular, but I’m so tired of this lie being spread around)

It. Is Not. Going to Happen.

653 freetoken  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:02:51am

re: #606 taxfreekiller


so, part of it is just to piss off the ass hole liberal Democrats who have been telling lies about American fighting men and I for the last 40 years

Understand that you are still angry with the treatment of the military experience decades ago.

However, if you really are concerned about “loons”, what do you make of the “Truthers”? Because the event you are promoting was funded in part, according to the Dallas Tea Party website, by the fees they charged for the Badnarik seminars:

[Link: dallasteaparty.org…]

So if you are really concerned about looniness… and you decide to go to the July 4th event, you might ask around and see what people think of Badnarik.

654 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:03:33am

re: #644 reine.de.tout

Ugh. Massachusetts (in matters like this) is often just the canary in the coal mine, as I’m sure you already know.
What a shame.

655 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:03:40am

re: #652 iceweasel

Because of what the first amendment says. Because of what already happens when churches and religions only perform marriages for those they want. Because of all the extensive commentary, here and elsewhere, by charles and others, on gay marriage.

Go research it and stop jumping out of your skin when some howler monkey on fox news shrieks that gay marriage means your priest or church will be ‘forced’ to perform gay weddings.
(I don’t necessarily mean you in particular, but I’m so tired of this lie being spread around)

It. Is Not. Going to Happen.

It. Is. Not. Outside. The. Realm. of. Possibility.

See:
re: #644 reine.de.tout

and
re: #649 JCM

657 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:03:46am

re: #649 JCM

The facility was OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. That is why they were open to a discrimination suit.

658 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:03:57am

re: #628 Kosh’s Shadow

I’m sure Obama is “deeply concerned”.
About still being able to talk to Ahmadinejad.
But I hope Ahmadinejad meets the proper end for dictators, soon.

Yes - him and Ali Khamenei.
Can’t be soon enough, not just for us but for all the dissidents, especially those now in the hadns of the basiji.
Some pretty horrible stories have come out - and those are the ones who were only beaten up …

659 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:04:16am

re: #655 reine.de.tout

It. Is. Not. Outside. The. Realm. of. Possibility.

See:
re: #644 reine.de.tout

and
re: #649 JCM

Answered.
Read up on the pavilion. Wrong.

660 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:04:21am

re: #641 Iron Fist

One of the interesting aspect of the gay marriage issue is the position of the majority of African-Americans, and Mexican-Americans. It seems that the left is pretending that it just isn’t so. Par for them.

661 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:04:37am
662 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:04:56am

re: #626 Spartacus50

The elected legislature, Supreme Court, and military removed him from office; in strict accordance with their Constitution. They should be backed by our “freedom loving” government. It was most definitely NOT a coup.

Agreed. Honduras does not have the same laws we do. Their Constitution was designed to allow the military to act against the president if that was the only way to prevent the president from subverting the Constitution. He was clearly trying to do so, on the model of Hugo Chavez. They would have been fools not to act when they had the constitutional right and duty to do so.

663 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:05:47am

re: #654 Lincolntf

Ugh. Massachusetts (in matters like this) is often just the canary in the coal mine, as I’m sure you already know.
What a shame.

Yes.
Unfortunately, the same thing will happen to Catholic hospitals, I’m afraid, it’s just a matter of time before all medical providers are required to provide abortions.

Catholic hospitals will close.
And the issue of selling the facilities has also been discussed, and because the sale of a facility to an organization that would provide abortions would constitute participation in the sin of abortion, the facilities will remain closed and unused.

664 MandyManners  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:06:08am

re: #656 MandyManners

Same link.

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill “condoning discrimination” — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

665 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:06:54am

re: #659 iceweasel

Answered.
Read up on the pavilion. Wrong.

So, that answers the “pavilion” question.
What about the other?

666 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:06:56am

re: #661 Iron Fist

Again, the wording could be written out to make civil unions the law of the land, but it is probably too late for that. The voters have spoken fairly clearly that they do not consider it possible for homosexuals to really marry. This is essentially the wording by all the Constitutional Amendments forbidding it.

It would be a nasty scrap if the Federal Government (Congress) tried to overturn State constitutions. The last time the Federal Government did something like that we had a little domestic dispute over the issue.

Exactly. As we mentioned earlier— once upon a time it might have been possible to avert this by changing the laws about civil unions. That didn’t happen, and frankly, now it’s too late.

667 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:07:17am

re: #605 Occasional Reader
Uh, sorry O.R. - what he did was try to change the Honduran constitution which has term limits for Presidents and did so by referendum. The Honduran Congress said “No you can’t do that” and the Honduran Supreme Court said no you can’t do that and moreover, as per the Constitution, trying to do that prohibits you from holding government office of any type for 10 years. And the Honduran Supreme Court ordered the military - which is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the President - to arrest him.
Civilian authority is now in charge in Honduras.

668 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:07:41am

ROME — The first-ever scientific test on what are believed to be the remains of the Apostle Paul “seems to confirm” that they do indeed belong to the Roman Catholic saint, Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday.

[Link: www.foxnews.com…]

Bubby, honey I get that the remains are old, but where is the proof that it is Paul? Was his diver’s License found with him?

669 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:07:59am
670 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:08:27am

re: #664 MandyManners

Same link.

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill “condoning discrimination” — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

And adoption services have always been the primary mission of Catholic Charities.

No longer in Massachusetts.

Who is well-served by this?

671 MandyManners  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:09:34am

re: #664 MandyManners

Oopsie.

672 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:09:53am

re: #620 Occasional Reader

Of course they can. As they are able to now. Catholic churches are under no legal obligation to perform Hindu marriages, etc.

Are Catholic churches under a legal obligation to marry Catholics who otherwise abide by the rules of being Catholic?

The worry is that although there’s no legal basis for it now, a lawsuit to marry a gay couple may happen. Some groups have more rights than others is today’s political reality. That religious groups discriminate now has no bearing: can they legally discriminate for whatever reasons they want? If they cannot, then they can likely be forced to not discriminate. That seems to be the issue.

673 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:09:54am

re: #669 Fat Bastard Vegetarian


Now that you let that little secret out the MA legislature is making plans to construct a toll booth on this express lane.

674 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:10:00am

re: #616 iceweasel
“No same sex couple is going to sue the catholic church or a rabbi. It. Can’t. Happen.”
I’ll. Take. That. Bet.

675 MandyManners  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:10:29am

re: #670 reine.de.tout

And adoption services have always been the primary mission of Catholic Charities.

No longer in Massachusetts.

Who is well-served by this?

No one.

676 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:10:44am

Britain Opening First Atheist Summer Camp for Children
Monday, June 29, 2009
PrintShareThis
When schoolchildren break up for their summer holidays at the end of July, India Jago, aged 12, and her brother Peter, 11, will be taking a vacation with a twist.

While their friends jet off to Spain or the Greek islands, the siblings will be hunting for imaginary unicorns in Somerset, southwestern England, while learning about moral philosophy.

The Jagos, from Basingstoke, Hampshire, are among 24 children who will be taking part in Britain’s first summer camp for atheists.

The five-day retreat is being subsidized by Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of “The God Delusion,” and is intended to provide an alternative to faith-based summer camps normally run by the Scouts and Christian groups.

Crispian Jago, an IT consultant, is hoping the experience will enrich his two children.

“I’m very keen on not indoctrinating them with religion or creeds,” he said earlier this month. “I would rather equip them with the tools to learn how to think, not what to think.”

Yeah, Fine, OK but why do I get the feeling that these kids are going to grow up to be raving moonbats?

677 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:11:20am

re: #675 MandyManners

No one.


But it makes the libs feel good, and that is what it’s all about.

678 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:11:27am

re: #651 Bloodnok

Whoa! Thank you for the info! I obviously didn’t hear any of that here. I guess I should have been a little suspicious by the number of NuLab votes he received!

Yes - for teh duration of this parliament, where NuLAb has the majority of votes, there won’t be chagne, there will only be flim-flam rhetoric. Thus the whips, whose power is unfortunately enormous, enforce what the government wants.

There are two Tory politicians, one an MP, one an MEP, who ahve weitten an outstandign brochure about what needs to be done to chagne all this - hopefully by the next Tory Government:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plan-Twelve-Months-Renew-Britain/dp/0955979900/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246288090&sr=1-1

They rely very much on the American political traditions - a good read, and as its self-published (Lulu!), its easy to get in the USA.
Daniel Hannan, btw, is the MEP who took on Brown in the Brussels Parliament - and whose speech was beamed round the world via youtube, last year …
He also blogs at the ‘Daily Telegraph’

679 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:11:47am

re: #676 Nevergiveup

I loved those South Park episodes that made fun of Dawson. “Thank science!”

680 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:11:50am

re: #665 reine.de.tout

So, that answers the “pavilion” question.
What about the other?

But your other isn’t a new question. It’s an example of the exact same issue:

Services provided by religious organizations can indeed be affected by lawsuits and decisions that require the organization to provide services against the organization’s beliefs.

Exactly. The religious organisations themselves, and religions, aren’t affected. They just can’t provide public services that discriminate.

So, a catholic church cant be forced to marry gay people….but if you work for a catholic hospital (or any organisation) and you have a gay spouse, then you can sue your employer (the hospital) if they won’t let you include your spouse on your health care coverage— if they let all the hetero employees cover their spouses on the work coverage.

See the difference?

681 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:12:04am

re: #656 MandyManners

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple’s legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

This is the same as if a restaurant refused to serve same-sex couples.
She performs a service, and not a religious service.

Now, if she were a minister, and refused to officiate, that would be different, but this isn’t the case of the government telling a religion what they can or cannot do, but telling a business that they cannot refuse to perform the same non-religious service they perform for others just because the couple is gay.
It is consistent with the decisions that restaurants can’t refuse to serve Jews or Catholics, etc.

682 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:12:14am

re: #674 realwest

“No same sex couple is going to sue the catholic church or a rabbi. It. Can’t. Happen.”
I’ll. Take. That. Bet.

{real}
Teaching is a lifelong profession, huh?

683 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:12:20am

re: #674 realwest

“No same sex couple is going to sue the catholic church or a rabbi. It. Can’t. Happen.”
I’ll. Take. That. Bet.

Awesome.

684 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:12:26am

re: #653 freetoken

Understand that you are still angry with the treatment of the military experience decades ago.

However, if you really are concerned about “loons”, what do you make of the “Truthers”? Because the event you are promoting was funded in part, according to the Dallas Tea Party website, by the fees they charged for the Badnarik seminars:

[Link: dallasteaparty.org…]

So if you are really concerned about looniness… and you decide to go to the July 4th event, you might ask around and see what people think of Badnarik.

Still, I am beginning to think that tfk is right about the need for such rallies, especially in California. Despite the crazies, who do need to be kept off the stage, they serve the vital role of putting the government on notice that broad sections of the public intensely oppose new taxes, and the legislatures will raise taxes at their great electoral peril.

685 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:12:41am

re: #672 BigPapa

Are Catholic churches under a legal obligation to marry Catholics who otherwise abide by the rules of being Catholic?

The worry is that although there’s no legal basis for it now, a lawsuit to marry a gay couple may happen. Some groups have more rights than others is today’s political reality. That religious groups discriminate now has no bearing: can they legally discriminate for whatever reasons they want? If they cannot, then they can likely be forced to not discriminate. That seems to be the issue.

going by what happened in Massachusetts with Catholic Charities and their adoption services - no, they cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs that go against what the state has mandated. And so they simply closed.

I find that frightening.

686 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:12:53am

re: #681 Kosh’s Shadow

This is the same as if a restaurant refused to serve same-sex couples.
She performs a service, and not a religious service.

Now, if she were a minister, and refused to officiate, that would be different, but this isn’t the case of the government telling a religion what they can or cannot do, but telling a business that they cannot refuse to perform the same non-religious service they perform for others just because the couple is gay.
It is consistent with the decisions that restaurants can’t refuse to serve Jews or Catholics, etc.

EXACTLY.

687 MandyManners  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:13:03am

Buzzsawmonkey on human rights.

Do not fall into the leftist trap of believing that “human rights” are in any way related to personal liberty. They are the antithesis of personal liberty.

In this country we have personal liberty, which is protected by civil rights that are enforced by equal protection under the law. We may fall short of equal protection sometimes, but that is the ideal—and that ideal, and the striving to live up to it, is what makes us, and keeps us, the most free society in the world.

“Human rights” are a vague term which is used mostly by the UN—which should give you a tip right there as to their value. People talk about the lack of “human rights” in this society or that—but what it comes down to is that these societies which “lack human rights” are societies where personal liberty is not respected, where there are no civil rights, and certainly no equal protection under law, to safeguard it.

If you start looking at “human rights” claims, you will be struck first by how vague any definition of “human rights” is—it usually is a Humpty Dumpty usage, meaning whatever the user of the term chooses it to mean—and you will be struck further by how “human rights” are usually considered something which are expected to be granted by the government, and which are also spoken of as “rights” which are doled out to groups variously identified. In other words, “human rights” are government-granted group rights, which is precisely the opposite of individual liberty protected by even-handed government action.

“Human rights” first made their domestic appearance after the Civil Rights Movement had achieved its civil rights goals. The movement, then in the process of being co-opted by Marxists, black separatists, and other race hustlers, began looking for additional things to agitate for. The special privileges and affirmative action set-asides came to be as the movement started looking for “human rights” grievances to be met, rather than civil rights protections to be equalized.

The gay rights movement, which could not claim civil rights grievances, early on got into using “human rights” language in a big way. In doing this, it was piggybacking on the similarity of the sound of “human rights” to “civil rights,” and on the fact that the civil rights movement itself was moving into human rights rather than civil rights agitation.

So, yes—the leftist protesters at the Denver convention were very much demonstrating for “human rights”—for group rights for favored groups only, granted by government fiat and enforced as special interests. They were demonstrating against the civil rights which are the foundation and glory of this country.

Do not confuse these two.

688 Bloodnok  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:13:12am

re: #678 yma o hyd

Yes - for teh duration of this parliament, where NuLAb has the majority of votes, there won’t be chagne, there will only be flim-flam rhetoric. Thus the whips, whose power is unfortunately enormous, enforce what the government wants.

There are two Tory politicians, one an MP, one an MEP, who ahve weitten an outstandign brochure about what needs to be done to chagne all this - hopefully by the next Tory Government:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plan-Twelve-Months-Renew-B ritain/dp/0955979900/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=book s&qid=1246288090&sr=1-1

They rely very much on the American political traditions - a good read, and as its self-published (Lulu!), its easy to get in the USA.
Daniel Hannan, btw, is the MEP who took on Brown in the Brussels Parliament - and whose speech was beamed round the world via youtube, last year …
He also blogs at the ‘Daily Telegraph’

Favorited. Thanks!

689 JCM  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:14:19am

re: #659 iceweasel

Answered.
Read up on the pavilion. Wrong.

So once a religious institution rents out a building for any event not directly sponsored by the institution they loose all control of the facility and have to rent to anyone who wants to?

It’s still private property isn’t it?

690 Gella  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:14:39am

re: #681 Kosh’s Shadow

This is the same as if a restaurant refused to serve same-sex couples.
She performs a service, and not a religious service.

Now, if she were a minister, and refused to officiate, that would be different, but this isn’t the case of the government telling a religion what they can or cannot do, but telling a business that they cannot refuse to perform the same non-religious service they perform for others just because the couple is gay.
It is consistent with the decisions that restaurants can’t refuse to serve Jews or Catholics, etc.

for some reason this reminds me of few cases, when pharmacists refused to dispense morning after pill, because religion is not allowed them to so do

691 MandyManners  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:14:39am

Au contraire: “human rights” themselves are, and have always been, an out and out fraud. There is individual liberty, or there is not. Where there is individual liberty, it is protected by governments which respect civil rights—in other words, where the rule of law trumps the rule of dictator, party line, or other whim or ideology.

Talk of “human rights” applies to two things: regimes which do not grant or protect the civil rights of their subjects, who therefore have no individual liberty, or—when applied to the West—they are a grievance-mongering stick used to beat nations which do not grant special privileges to grievance-mongering groups.

“Human rights” first appeared in the domestic politics of the US when the gay rights movement of the late 1970s attempted to assert “human rights” on behalf of those it claimed to speak for, because there were no genuine civil rights violations to which it could legitimately lay claim. The effort was made, with some success, to pass off “human rights” claims as co-equal with the civil rights goals of the early civil rights movement, then still a vivid memory. That pattern of demanding “human rights” has been adopted and co-opted from the gay rights movement by the domestic Islamist groups, which also, not coincidentally, adopted and co-opted the “-ophobia” coinage which the gay rights movement pioneered; “Islamophobia” is a direct adaptation of the “homophobia” decried by the gay rights movement.

Human rights are invariably a fraud, because they either are discussed in the context of, and by, regimes which are not committed to protecting the liberty of their subjects, or as a way of obtaining extra-legal special treatment for aggrieved interest groups whose liberties are already protected.

692 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:15:02am

re: #676 Nevergiveup

Britain Opening First Atheist Summer Camp for Children
Monday, June 29, 2009
PrintShareThis
When schoolchildren break up for their summer holidays at the end of July, India Jago, aged 12, and her brother Peter, 11, will be taking a vacation with a twist.

While their friends jet off to Spain or the Greek islands, the siblings will be hunting for imaginary unicorns in Somerset, southwestern England, while learning about moral philosophy.

The Jagos, from Basingstoke, Hampshire, are among 24 children who will be taking part in Britain’s first summer camp for atheists.

The five-day retreat is being subsidized by Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of “The God Delusion,” and is intended to provide an alternative to faith-based summer camps normally run by the Scouts and Christian groups.

Crispian Jago, an IT consultant, is hoping the experience will enrich his two children.

“I’m very keen on not indoctrinating them with religion or creeds,” he said earlier this month. “I would rather equip them with the tools to learn how to think, not what to think.”

Yeah, Fine, OK but why do I get the feeling that these kids are going to grow up to be raving moonbats?

Well - when I read this, I thought to myself: right on, Dawkins! This sort of camp is the best way of putting children off atheism for life!

693 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:15:06am

re: #652 iceweasel

Go research it and stop jumping out of your skin when some howler monkey on fox news shrieks that gay marriage means your priest or church will be ‘forced’ to perform gay weddings.
(I don’t necessarily mean you in particular, but I’m so tired of this lie being spread around)

Whoa! It’s not crazy kooky conspiracy stuff, it’s a at least a probability or a likelyhood. Leave the Fox News stuff out of it, it’s not a lie, it’s a valid concern. You telling me it can’t happen is not enough.

694 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:16:14am

re: #680 iceweasel

Exactly. The religious organisations themselves, and religions, aren’t affected. They just can’t provide public services that discriminate.

So, a catholic church cant be forced to marry gay people….but if you work for a catholic hospital (or any organisation) and you have a gay spouse, then you can sue your employer (the hospital) if they won’t let you include your spouse on your health care coverage— if they let all the hetero employees cover their spouses on the work coverage.

See the difference?

In the issue of Catholic Charities and their adoption services - the law REQUIRED that the organization act in a way contrary to the religious beliefs of the organization. There was no “conscience” clause.

And so what is to keep the law from similar infringement on other services provided by the religious organization? Marriage?

That’s a bigger issue than parter benefits from an employer.

And that’s the issue I haven’t seen you address.

695 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:16:21am

re: #600 iceweasel

Civil union isn’t legally sufficient, for all the reason given. (Not accepted in all states, doesn’t entitle gay spouses to the legal rights accorded to hetero spouses ).

Yes, gay people would also like to be accepted as ‘normal’. You’re right about that.

They don’t have an ‘agenda’ to make other people be gay, or use outside force to make religions to marry them, or anything like that.

I am totally in favor of full marriage status for gays. Why, because of the simple fairness of the whole concept. If you, as a male/female couple, has certain benefits befitting a household, then why should a male/male or female/female household be offered the same benefits, as long as that couple want to make a commitment, a commitment that is recognized by the state, as a legal contract.

I have know numerous gay couple, and because they can’t get domestic partner considerations, there are situation where the taxpayer continues to pay for one or both of those partners, since one may not have any medical coverage, and they still have to dip into the emergency room trough.

This could be expanded to any situation where the benefits normally given special male/female married couple is denied to committed domestic partners.

Gay marriages, recognized legally by the state, is in no way problematic to the morals of a community, the nation or the world.

If your god tells you homosexuality is wrong, than don’t have sex with others of your gender. If you feel on a personal level that homosexuality is wrong, then don’t participate in homosexual encounters and if you feel that homosexuality is wrong, then pass these feeling on to your children and other members of your family unit.

If you believe in human rights, then you should have no problem with giving these people the same rights and coverage under the laws as you hold so dear.

And in general, gay people do not evangelize. Yes, there is a spate of information available to explain why a person considers themselves gay, why the want to live as domestic partners, why one should not discriminate against them, yes, that information exists, no more than a information on any subject exists, to inform.

The adventuresome image of a “going to hell” Sodom at the edge of the sea, writhing in sexual sin, tumbling into the bowels of the earth, is simply an ancient myth. I haven’t seen any act of god raining down on San Francisco or Bangkok lately.

696 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:16:29am

re: #679 Mad Al-Jaffee

I loved those South Park episodes that made fun of Dawkins. “Thank science!”

PIYF, and I agree.

697 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:16:49am

re: #693 BigPapa

Whoa! It’s not crazy kooky conspiracy stuff, it’s a at least a probability or a likelyhood. Leave the Fox News stuff out of it, it’s not a lie, it’s a valid concern. You telling me it can’t happen is not enough.

Of course you shouldn’t merely take my word for it— nor should anyone. Go check it out. I did, which is why I’m saying what I am.

698 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:17:03am

re: #696 Dark_Falcon
Doh!

699 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:17:35am

re: #693 BigPapa

Whoa! It’s not crazy kooky conspiracy stuff, it’s a at least a probability or a likelyhood. Leave the Fox News stuff out of it, it’s not a lie, it’s a valid concern. You telling me it can’t happen is not enough.

Thank you.

700 SummerSong  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:17:41am

Bernie Madoff looks like “grandpa” from the Munsters.


[Link: images.google.com…]

701 johnnyreb  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:17:45am

re: #616 iceweasel

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Religions and churches commonly decide who they will and won’t marry. Catholic priests won’t marry divorced Catholics. Orthodox Rabbis won’t perform interfaith weddings.

No same sex couple is going to sue the catholic church or a rabbi. It. Can’t. Happen.

Gays are already suing nearly every other aspect of society to demand their “rights”, why do you think suing a church to get them to marry a gay couple would not happen? Do a google search for “gay couple sues” and look at the results.

702 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:18:07am

re: #681 Kosh’s Shadow

She never took the job, or took any money as far as I can tell. Her only mistake was telling the truth about her reason for declining the job. And doing it in a state where a judge would rule that she was legally compeklled to work for people she didn’t approve of.
I’ve declined to do work for people based on everything from how they treat their pets (seriously, I almost kicked the guys ass) to the neighborhood they live in (no use making 2 grand on a job if I might have 5 grand worth of tools stolen).
I hope she wins on appeal.

703 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:18:34am

re: #676 Nevergiveup

“I’m very keen on not indoctrinating them with religion or creeds,” he said earlier this month. “I would rather equip them with the tools to learn how to think, not what to think.”

Yeah, Fine, OK but why do I get the feeling that these kids are going to grow up to be raving moonbats?

As an atheist, I find that sorta creepy. Is he indoctrinating his children with atheism? He obviously looks down on believers, I hope he doesn’t teach that to his children.

704 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:18:55am

re: #693 BigPapa

Whoa! It’s not crazy kooky conspiracy stuff, it’s a at least a probability or a likelyhood. Leave the Fox News stuff out of it, it’s not a lie, it’s a valid concern. You telling me it can’t happen is not enough.

How could it be a concern. We would have to break the separation of church and state. In that case we could probably teach evolution in church (hmmm, maybe not a bad trade off). :)

705 aggieann  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:18:59am

re: #616 iceweasel

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Religions and churches commonly decide who they will and won’t marry. Catholic priests won’t marry divorced Catholics. Orthodox Rabbis won’t perform interfaith weddings.

No same sex couple is going to sue the catholic church or a rabbi. It. Can’t. Happen.

Didn’t a gay couple sue a church recently because the church refused to let them “marry” on the church’s property?

706 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:19:01am

re: #670 reine.de.tout
Good morning reine - excellent comment and link (referral)!

707 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:19:06am

re: #693 BigPapa

Whoa! It’s not crazy kooky conspiracy stuff, it’s a at least a probability or a likelyhood. Leave the Fox News stuff out of it, it’s not a lie, it’s a valid concern. You telling me it can’t happen is not enough.

Somewhere a gay or lesbian church goer will ask for a ceremony that will be denied and said member will break out tax returns showing a tithing to the church and argue if they wee willing to take my money they should give me service. Never mind that they may have been closeted while making the donations they claim entitles them to service.

708 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:19:43am

re: #694 reine.de.tout

In the issue of Catholic Charities and their adoption services - the law REQUIRED that the organization act in a way contrary to the religious beliefs of the organization. There was no “conscience” clause.

And so what is to keep the law from similar infringement on other services provided by the religious organization? Marriage?

That’s a bigger issue than parter benefits from an employer.

And that’s the issue I haven’t seen you address.

Check it out yourself. Don’t take my word for it. Go look.

Religions are already not forced to perform marriages. They already choose who they will and won’t marry.

709 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:19:46am

re: #706 realwest

Good morning reine - excellent comment and link (referral)!

Merci!

710 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:19:48am

re: #702 Lincolntf

She never took the job, or took any money as far as I can tell. Her only mistake was telling the truth about her reason for declining the job. And doing it in a state where a judge would rule that she was legally compeklled to work for people she didn’t approve of.
I’ve declined to do work for people based on everything from how they treat their pets (seriously, I almost kicked the guys ass) to the neighborhood they live in (no use making 2 grand on a job if I might have 5 grand worth of tools stolen).
I hope she wins on appeal.

Quite Concur.

711 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:19:56am

Al Sharpie Sharpton is going to coordinate the Funeral of Jackson along with his family. Zoo time?

712 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:20:18am

re: #685 reine.de.tout

going by what happened in Massachusetts with Catholic Charities and their adoption services - no, they cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs that go against what the state has mandated. And so they simply closed.

I find that frightening.

It is frightening.
The same thing happened here in the UK, when NuLab pushed this sort of anti-discriminatory law through.
The RC Church, from the Cardinals down, tried to negotiate - and said they would be forced to close their adoption services.
NuLab pooh-pooh’ed this - and recently, the service in Birmingham was shut down by the RC Church.

What is even more frightening is that the Social services, e.g. in Scotland, are now giving children to gay couples for adoption, even though the grandparents are still alive, (mid-fifties) and said they were willing and able to raise their grandchildren.
Nothing doing. Anti-discrimination laws beat family cohesion hands down.

713 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:20:48am

re: #682 J.D.
Hey {J.D.} - it is indeed! LOL! How are you today?

714 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:21:06am

re: #694 reine.de.tout

In the issue of Catholic Charities and their adoption services - the law REQUIRED that the organization act in a way contrary to the religious beliefs of the organization. There was no “conscience” clause.

Riene…
Please site some example for me. I suspect what you are referring to is much different than “forcing” a church to perform gay marriages.

715 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:21:20am

re: #693 BigPapa

Whoa! It’s not crazy kooky conspiracy stuff, it’s a at least a probability or a likelyhood. Leave the Fox News stuff out of it, it’s not a lie, it’s a valid concern. You telling me it can’t happen is not enough.

It is not probable or likely. You can no more force a Priest to marry a gay couple then you can to make him preform Buddhist marriage ceremonials, it’s a strawman argument.

716 SecondComing  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:21:37am

re: #573 VioletTiger

I googled obama deeply concerned and got a half million hits.
Wanna bet the hits keep on coming?

Yeah, it’s endless:

Obama says “deeply concerned” over Pakistan attack”

717 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:21:39am

re: #708 iceweasel

Check it out yourself. Don’t take my word for it. Go look.

Religions are already not forced to perform marriages. They already choose who they will and won’t marry.

And prior to the Massachusetts adoptions case, religions were allowed to provide religiously based services without infringement by laws that forced them to act contrary to their religious beliefs.

No longer the case.

718 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:22:01am

re: #705 aggieann

Didn’t a gay couple sue a church recently because the church refused to let them “marry” on the church’s property?

Fine, that’s the couple that did it, not the state or federal government. Hell, almost anyone can sue almost anyone for almost any reason right now.

719 realwest  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:22:04am

Well y’all it’s been grand but I have chores to do - hope you all have a great day and that I get the chance to see you all down the road!

720 lawhawk  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:22:24am

So, Ricci came down and it reversed Sotomayor and her fellow members of the 2d Circuit. I can’t exactly say I’m surprised- either at the ruling or the breakdown of the Court - with Kennedy leading the majority and Ginsberg the minority. Fact is that Sotomayor would have simply replaced Souter on the minority and the outcome would have been the same.

I think it interesting that it was Kennedy who penned the majority opinion, rather than Scalia or Roberts or Alito. There were also concurring opinions - by Scalia and Alito, but I haven’t had a chance to read through the entire opinion, which can be found here.

The crux of the case rests on whether “… by discarding the test results, the City and the named officials discriminated against the plaintiffs based on their race, in violation of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. &sect2000e et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The City and the officials defended their actions, arguing that if they had certified the results, they could have faced liability under Title VII for adopting a practice that had a disparate impact on the minority firefighters.” The problem for the Court was that the courts below had given more credence to the possibility that the City would have faced lawsuits, rather than the actual discrimination suffered. Actual harm trumped a possible specious claim of harm down the road.

721 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:22:31am

re: #676 Nevergiveup
I need a unicorn!

Stand behind your unicorn.
When it farts, inhaled deep, it will be okay.
722 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:22:55am

re: #705 aggieann

Didn’t a gay couple sue a church recently because the church refused to let them “marry” on the church’s property?

NJ. A pavilion. And the reason they sued is because the church let all kinds of people perform all kinds of services there (others denominations and non-denominational). That’s why they got sued. They refused to rent out to a gay couple holding a civil union ceremony— when they rented out to everyone else.

BTW, they didn’t even have to pay damages. they just lost their tax exempt status, as I recall. They wanted to have it both ways. (ha!)

723 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:22:57am

re: #714 Walter L. Newton

Riene…
Please site some example for me. I suspect what you are referring to is much different than “forcing” a church to perform gay marriages.

Here’s the story. .

724 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:23:05am

re: #405 taxfreekiller

well lots of hard hot work getting the July 4the Southfork Ranch Tax Day Tea Party ready, sure wished the Ron Paul loons would have showed up to help as Kilgore calims they run the deal, trouble is, just some more of every day people of who do not like the nutty ass loon Democrats nor the
go along “ear mark” R.I.N.O.’s.

Some one says there is a new RINO Hunter Lodge getting set up for people who are on the hunt to unelecte both.

[Link: www.blowoutcongress.com…]

I was wondering about that gathering, tfk. I drive by Southfork just about every day on my to and from work, and I saw a yard sign for that event, on Parker Road this morning.

725 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:23:10am

re: #712 yma o hyd

It is frightening.
The same thing happened here in the UK, when NuLab pushed this sort of anti-discriminatory law through.
The RC Church, from the Cardinals down, tried to negotiate - and said they would be forced to close their adoption services.
NuLab pooh-pooh’ed this - and recently, the service in Birmingham was shut down by the RC Church.

What is even more frightening is that the Social services, e.g. in Scotland, are now giving children to gay couples for adoption, even though the grandparents are still alive, (mid-fifties) and said they were willing and able to raise their grandchildren.
Nothing doing. Anti-discrimination laws beat family cohesion hands down.

Not a good argument. The separation of church and state is not the same, and is not as entrenched in Europe as it is here in the US.

726 VioletTiger  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:23:29am

re: #652 iceweasel

Because of what the first amendment says. Because of what already happens when churches and religions only perform marriages for those they want. Because of all the extensive commentary, here and elsewhere, by charles and others, on gay marriage.

Go research it and stop jumping out of your skin when some howler monkey on fox news shrieks that gay marriage means your priest or church will be ‘forced’ to perform gay weddings.(I don’t necessarily mean you in particular, but I’m so tired of this lie being spread around)

It. Is Not. Going to Happen.

Now, that is offensive. I don’t shriek or jump and I don’t even have a strong opinion on the subject. I am concerned, however, that institutions that object to gay marriage will be forcced to participate in some way. Read the links above already provided by other lizards.

727 laZardo  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:23:31am

Gonna get me a snack before bed. Nighty!

728 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:24:06am

re: #707 soxfan4life

Somewhere a gay or lesbian church goer will ask for a ceremony that will be denied and said member will break out tax returns showing a tithing to the church and argue if they wee willing to take my money they should give me service. Never mind that they may have been closeted while making the donations they claim entitles them to service.

Agreed, or they’ll simply argue that a conscience exception violates their rights. The more militant gays are far leftists seeking to make traditionalism illegal.

729 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:24:11am

re: #705 aggieann

Didn’t a gay couple sue a church recently because the church refused to let them “marry” on the church’s property?

If it’s hall owned by a church that is rented out to the public, that a different issue.

730 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:24:50am

re: #713 realwest

Good! And you?

731 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:24:57am

re: #707 soxfan4life

Somewhere a gay or lesbian church goer will ask for a ceremony that will be denied and said member will break out tax returns showing a tithing to the church and argue if they wee willing to take my money they should give me service. Never mind that they may have been closeted while making the donations they claim entitles them to service.

And there is NO law in the US that requires a non-profit to supply anything to someone who donates to them. If there was a law, then you may have an argument. You’re making things up.

732 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:25:17am
733 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:25:18am

re: #726 VioletTiger

Now, that is offensive. I don’t shriek or jump and I don’t even have a strong opinion on the subject. I am concerned, however, that institutions that object to gay marriage will be forcced to participate in some way. Read the links above already provided by other lizards.

You forgot to highlight this part:
I don’t necessarily mean you in particular

Read up on the subject.

No church that objects to gay marriage will be forced to perform one.

734 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:26:15am

re: #723 reine.de.tout

Here’s the story. .

If they accepted federal money, they have to comply with federal rules.

735 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:26:26am

re: #731 Walter L. Newton

And there is NO law in the US that requires a non-profit to supply anything to someone who donates to them. If there was a law, then you may have an argument. You’re making things up.

Exactly right. 501 3 (c) or something like that in the exemption code, for nonprofits.

736 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:26:41am

re: #704 Walter L. Newton

In that case we could probably teach evolution in church (hmmm, maybe not a bad trade off). :)

How satanic of you!

737 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:26:51am

re: #680 iceweasel

Exactly. The religious organisations themselves, and religions, aren’t affected. They just can’t provide public services that discriminate… .

Many religious organizations believe it is a privilege and a duty to provide services to people. And they do it well, and they do it compassinately.

You seem to be arguing that a religious organization should refrain from providing services.

I’m - stunned.

738 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:27:55am

re: #715 avanti

It is not probable or likely. You can no more force a Priest to marry a gay couple then you can to make him preform Buddhist marriage ceremonials, it’s a strawman argument.

Cannot concur. There are no limits to what the left will try to force people to do. The hard left seeks to force acceptance of homosexuality on churches and I could see them passing (or trying to pass) ‘anti-discrimination’ laws that would tell priests who they must marry.

739 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:28:08am

re: #731 Walter L. Newton


So you can’t envision this argument coming up? I didn’t say it happened yet, but I certainly can see it being brought up.

740 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:28:10am

re: #734 avanti

If they accepted federal money, they have to comply with federal rules.

they chose to claim it was ‘public’ in order to get some tax exemptions or something. Then they got bitten in the ass when they didn’t want to rent to a gay couple. Too bad, so sad, bye bye tax exemption.

741 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:28:12am

re: #700 SummerSong

Bernie Madoff looks like “grandpa” from the Munsters.

[Link: images.google.com…]

According to the obit on Al Lewis that I found from a photo on your link, he was a “political activist”, but then don’t say anything alse about that part of his life. Was he a conservative? It does say that he sometimes guested on Howard Stern’s show.

742 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:28:19am

re: #723 reine.de.tout

Here’s the story. .

This doesn’t force Boston churches from placing children in gay homes. It simply is requiring the church to comply with existing laws in regards to adoption.

Would you like it if any organization could ignore all state and federal laws regarding the safety of children?

Would you like a church day care to be able to ignore all state and federal laws regarding the safety of children?

Would you like a church school to be able to ignore all state and federal laws regarding the safety of children?

743 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:28:35am

re: #737 reine.de.tout

Many religious organizations believe it is a privilege and a duty to provide services to people. And they do it well, and they do it compassinately.

You seem to be arguing that a religious organization should refrain from providing services.

I’m - stunned.

I’m stunned that you read that into her comment, but I’ll let her elaborate.

744 Killian Bundy  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:28:36am

re: #676 Nevergiveup

/speaking of summer camp

745 Cygnus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:28:44am

re: #669 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Does Hell have an express lane?

“12 sins or less”? Not this person.

746 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:28:48am

re: #734 avanti

If they accepted federal money, they have to comply with federal rules.

Well.
OK, then.
I’m sure everybody is very well served by the fact that Catholic Charities in Massachusetts has been shut down.
Well done.

We are discussing whether or not the “state” can impose it’s own requirements on religious institutions, that go against the institution’s beliefs.

Your simple “if they accepted federal money, they have to comply with federal rules”, seems to indicate you are OK with that.

747 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:29:27am

re: #722 iceweasel

NJ. A pavilion. And the reason they sued is because the church let all kinds of people perform all kinds of services there (others denominations and non-denominational). That’s why they got sued. They refused to rent out to a gay couple holding a civil union ceremony— when they rented out to everyone else.

Whether or not they allowed others/all kinds to use it is irrelevant. The church discriminated, they got sued. That’s precedent.

Will a gay couple be allowed to sue a church to actually marry them? It’s not out of the realm of possibility.

748 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:29:33am

re: #733 iceweasel

You forgot to highlight this part:
I don’t necessarily mean you in particular

Read up on the subject.

No church that objects to gay marriage will be forced to perform one.

And … no church that objects to gay couples will be required to provide adoption services …oh wait …

749 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:29:59am

re: #739 soxfan4life

So you can’t envision this argument coming up? I didn’t say it happened yet, but I certainly can see it being brought up.

Won’t fly, case closed.

750 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:30:28am

re: #737 reine.de.tout

Many religious organizations believe it is a privilege and a duty to provide services to people. And they do it well, and they do it compassinately.

You seem to be arguing that a religious organization should refrain from providing services.

Not at all. That’s not what I’ve argued.


I’m pointing out that they can’t operate a public facility, and provide a public service, and then want to claim a religious exemption.

Especially when they’re taking federal funds, etc.

751 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:30:40am

re: #746 reine.de.tout

Well.


Your simple “if they accepted federal money, they have to comply with federal rules”, seems to indicate you are OK with that.


You assume correctly.

752 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:30:44am

re: #725 Walter L. Newton

Not a good argument. The separation of church and state is not the same, and is not as entrenched in Europe as it is here in the US.

Ahem.
It is deeply entrenched in France, for example (thats why Sarkozy can fulminate against the wearing of burkhas).

Here in the UK, there is no separation of State and church, you’re right there - but this Church is the Anglican Church - not the Roman Catholic one, which was pretty much discriminated against until the early 19th century.
So the question is allowed - why force this Church especially into doing something against its codex of beliefs, while at the same time allow Imams to preach in their mosques that gays need to be killed?

Its the heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all and deeply unequal tratment of the various faith traditiosn which grate. Its not as if the state-run social services have been prevented from letting gay couples adopt ..

753 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:30:45am

Red Cross: Israel trapping 1.5m Gazans in despair


[Link: www.haaretz.com…]

Hey fuck heads how about this?:


18:23 IDF troops come under mortar fire near Gaza security fence (Army Radio)

754 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:31:26am

re: #695 Walter L. Newton

In Judaism, the tradition is that Sodom was destroyed due to its lack of charity; in fact, charity was forbidden.
The sexual stuff was a way of keeping away visitors that might need support; this was before the days of rich tourists.
(Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, but I don’t have the complete reference at work.)

However, it is said in the Torah that sexual immorality causes the land of Israel to “vomit out” its inhabitants. That applies to much more than homosexuality, and also refers to whether society accepts such acts, not whether they occur in private.
Thus, a “gay pride” parade in Jerusalem is a problem religiously, but not so much whether same sex couples get benefits but don’t flaunt their sexuality. And flaunting is frowned upon for heterosexual couples, as well.

755 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:31:31am
756 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:31:36am
757 MandyManners  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:31:44am

re: #748 reine.de.tout

And … no church that objects to gay couples will be required to provide adoption services …oh wait …

Gee, Reine. We need to “read up on the subject”.

758 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:31:58am

re: #742 Walter L. Newton

This doesn’t force Boston churches from placing children in gay homes. It simply is requiring the church to comply with existing laws in regards to adoption.

Would you like it if any organization could ignore all state and federal laws regarding the safety of children?

Would you like a church day care to be able to ignore all state and federal laws regarding the safety of children?

Would you like a church school to be able to ignore all state and federal laws regarding the safety of children?

Laws regarding the safety of children do not go against the religious teachings of the church, walter.

759 solomonpanting  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:32:23am

re: #687 MandyManners

The movement, then in the process of being co-opted by Marxists, black separatists, and other race hustlers, began looking for additional things to agitate for.

Exactly.
One of the following may not be accurate:

Remember all of the stories your grandparents and parents would tell you of all of the mass rallies they would attend agitating for same-sex marriages?
Neither do I.
Remember all of the rallies and demonstrations you would attend back in the 1960’s and 1970’s agitating for same-sex marriages?
Neither do I.
Remember reading all of the philosophers, statesmen, rabbis, priests, and other societal commentators clamoring for same-sex marriage?
Neither do I.
Regardless, I still believe that folks like Perez Hilton possess more wisdom than all who passed before them in the last several thousand years.

760 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:32:54am

re: #734 avanti

Do you consider tax-exempt status to be “accepting federal money”?
That’s the hook that the GLBT’s have been trying to use in MA (unsuccesfully so far) to claim discrimination.

On a different note, my old Parish routinely endorses and hosts semi-annual dinners for local pols who proudly trumpet their support of NARAL, so MA may not be the best place to look for consistency/precedent in the way Catholicism and Law intersect.

761 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:33:22am

re: #737 reine.de.tout

Many religious organizations believe it is a privilege and a duty to provide services to people. And they do it well, and they do it compassinately.

You seem to be arguing that a religious organization should refrain from providing services.

I’m - stunned.

And that is exactly why some religious organization DON’T take state or federal funds. Jehovah’s Witnesses is one example. They are not listed as a non-profit religious organization. They are offered the same protections from prying eyes of the government as a corporation is.

They did that by choice, so they would have more control over their own organization.

762 aggieann  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:33:32am

re: #668 Nevergiveup

ROME — The first-ever scientific test on what are believed to be the remains of the Apostle Paul “seems to confirm” that they do indeed belong to the Roman Catholic saint, Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday.

[Link: www.foxnews.com…]

Bubby, honey I get that the remains are old, but where is the proof that it is Paul? Was his diver’s License found with him?

Exactly!

763 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:33:39am

re: #715 avanti

It is not probable or likely. You can no more force a Priest to marry a gay couple then you can to make him preform Buddhist marriage ceremonials, it’s a strawman argument.

That’s actually a Straw Man. A Priest cannot marry a Buddhist in a Buddhist marriage ceremony, it wouldn’t be a Buddhist marriage ceremony. However, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that a Catholic priest can be sued to perform a Catholic marriage on a Catholic couple. Again, precedents are being set now.

764 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:33:42am

re: #759 solomonpanting

Lemme think…….

765 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:33:43am

Madoff—150 years- BYe BYE

766 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:34:16am

re: #748 reine.de.tout

And … no church that objects to gay couples will be required to provide adoption services …oh wait …

Oh wait….that’s right, you’re making a different argument, Again.

Look, we can agree that it’s bad that Catholic Adoption Services in MA were shut down.

But that doesn’t mean that religions are going to be forced to marry gay people, or recognise gay marriages, and your worries about this have already been more than adequately addressed in this thread alone by avanti and by Walter, if you don’t like my responses.

Seriously, reine, check it out. There isn’t much to worry about here.

767 Killian Bundy  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:34:24am

150 years.

/sucks to be Bernie

768 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:34:45am

re: #767 Killian Bundy

150 years.

/sucks to be Bernie

Hammer Time

769 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:34:56am

re: #752 yma o hyd

Ahem.
It is deeply entrenched in France, for example (thats why Sarkozy can fulminate against the wearing of burkhas).

Here in the UK, there is no separation of State and church, you’re right there - but this Church is the Anglican Church - not the Roman Catholic one, which was pretty much discriminated against until the early 19th century.
So the question is allowed - why force this Church especially into doing something against its codex of beliefs, while at the same time allow Imams to preach in their mosques that gays need to be killed?

Its the heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all and deeply unequal tratment of the various faith traditiosn which grate. Its not as if the state-run social services have been prevented from letting gay couples adopt ..

With out the same separation of church and state that the United States has, fair, unfair, it doesn’t matter to the legal element of your article. The government can do what they want, fair or not. It’s a moot argument, it has nothing to do with our freedoms over on this side of the pond.

770 Cygnus  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:35:10am

re: #711 Nevergiveup

Al Sharpie Sharpton is going to coordinate the Funeral of Jackson along with his family. Zoo time?

OMG; it’s going to be the Lady Diana funeral all over again.

771 solomonpanting  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:35:28am

re: #764 J.D.

Lemme think…….

‘Taint rocket science.
;(

772 johnnyreb  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:35:31am

re: #738 Dark_Falcon

Cannot concur. There are no limits to what the left will try to force people to do. The hard left seeks to force acceptance of homosexuality on churches and I could see them passing (or trying to pass) ‘anti-discrimination’ laws that would tell priests who they must marry.

I concur. The “militant” gays and lesbians can and do sue every single thing they think is not gay friendly. They will sue to marry in a church and in some place(s) they will win the lawsuit and it will go to SCOTUS. If anyone here thinks that will not happen in the next 5-10 years or so, you need a reality check.

773 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:35:33am

re: #770 Cygnus

OMG; it’s going to be the Lady Diana funeral all over again.

The Low rent version maybe

774 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:36:40am
775 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:36:54am

re: #758 reine.de.tout

Laws regarding the safety of children do not go against the religious teachings of the church, walter.

Reine, you know for a fact that if a church school, day care, sunday school, what ever, if they jump the shark and something happens, the government CAN jump in, and the freedom of separation will go right out the window. I never said any church is not concerned with the safety of children, for religious reason or otherwise.

That’s a moot point, stick to my legal argument.

776 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:37:06am

re: #770 Cygnus

OMG; it’s going to be the Lady Diana funeral all over again.

“Goodbye Plastic Nose…”
-Elton John

Did I just say that? Criminy! I was a fan!

777 aggieann  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:37:19am

re: #722 iceweasel

NJ. A pavilion. And the reason they sued is because the church let all kinds of people perform all kinds of services there (others denominations and non-denominational). That’s why they got sued. They refused to rent out to a gay couple holding a civil union ceremony— when they rented out to everyone else.

BTW, they didn’t even have to pay damages. they just lost their tax exempt status, as I recall. They wanted to have it both ways. (ha!)

The “everyone else” argument is relevant only if previous renters performed acts there that directly contradict Christian teaching. I haven’t found any evidence of this.

778 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:39:02am

re: #761 Walter L. Newton

Walter - One thing I can’t recall exactly: Did Jehovah’s Witnesses take the position that they were not a religion in Mexico? It seems like they didn’t sing in their kingdom halls because of that. It seems that in Mexico, religions can’t own property and they wanted to own property.

779 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:39:02am

re: #772 johnnyreb

I concur. The “militant” gays and lesbians can and do sue every single thing they think is not gay friendly. They will sue to marry in a church and in some place(s) they will win the lawsuit and it will go to SCOTUS. If anyone here thinks that will not happen in the next 5-10 years or so, you need a reality check.

Have you not read the constitution ? The government can not interfere with the free exercise of religion. Could a Priest sue successfully to remain a Priest and get married, gay or otherwise ?

780 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:39:09am

re: #763 BigPapa

That’s actually a Straw Man. A Priest cannot marry a Buddhist in a Buddhist marriage ceremony, it wouldn’t be a Buddhist marriage ceremony. However, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that a Catholic priest can be sued to perform a Catholic marriage on a Catholic couple. Again, precedents are being set now.

Yes, the precedents are being set now, and iceweasel and avanti are so certain of being correct that they cannot see that the baby steps being taken now, such as with Catholic Charities, etc., is just the beginning.

781 rw in san diego  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:39:14am

re: #708 iceweasel

Religions are already not forced to perform marriages. They already choose who they will and won’t marry.

iceweasel, I think that the posters are maintaining that this could change.

782 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:39:18am
783 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:39:27am

re: #763 BigPapa

That’s actually a Straw Man. A Priest cannot marry a Buddhist in a Buddhist marriage ceremony, it wouldn’t be a Buddhist marriage ceremony. However, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that a Catholic priest can be sued to perform a Catholic marriage on a Catholic couple. Again, precedents are being set now.

I’ll say it again. Almost anyone can me sued for almost anything NOW. It’s a moot point. It’s not a law, it can be done now, because it can be done NOW, it has not moved any state or federal government agency to make it a law.

You are stating feeling, not facts or law. Let’s stick to plain facts.

784 SummerSong  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:39:28am

re: #741 Ward Cleaver

According to the obit on Al Lewis that I found from a photo on your link, he was a “political activist”, but then don’t say anything alse about that part of his life. Was he a conservative? It does say that he sometimes guested on Howard Stern’s show.

Here is some info on that -
Politics

Lewis during his Green Party of New York campaign for Governor.Lewis has claimed that he was member of the Sacco and Vanzetti Defense Committee in 1927, and that he worked in the 1930s to free the Scottsboro Boys. However, both of these occurrences would be unlikely if he had been born in 1923.

In a 1997 interview, Lewis also claimed that he was an organizer in the Food, Agricultural and Tobacco Workers Union in North Carolina in the 1930s. Once on his WBAI-FM radio program Lewis said, “If anything I consider myself an anarchist.”

As an activist, he hosted a politically oriented radio program on WBAI, and ran as Green Party candidate for Governor of New York in 1998. In that race he sought to be listed on the ballot as Grandpa Al Lewis, arguing that he was most widely known by that name. His request was rejected by the Board of Elections, a decision upheld in court against his challenge. Despite this setback, he achieved one of his campaign objectives. His total of 52,533 votes exceeded the threshold of votes set by New York law (50,000), and hence guaranteed the Green Party of New York an automatic ballot line for the next four years. (See Election results, New York governor) He said that, with no [political] machine and no money backing him, the likelihood of winning the governorship would be like climbing Mount Everest barefooted. [8]

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

785 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:39:31am

re: #763 BigPapa

That’s actually a Straw Man. A Priest cannot marry a Buddhist in a Buddhist marriage ceremony, it wouldn’t be a Buddhist marriage ceremony. However, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that a Catholic priest can be sued to perform a Catholic marriage on a Catholic couple. Again, precedents are being set now.

WHAT?

No way. No way.
Catholic priests already routinely refuse to perform marriages. NONE of them will marry someone who was once married in a Catholic ceremony and is now divorced. (not annulled). NONE. That’s grounds for excommunication— for the person getting married a second time, AND for the priest who would perform the marriage.

And they can’t be sued for it.

786 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:39:52am

re: #776 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

“Goodbye Plastic Nose…”
-Elton John

Did I just say that? Criminy! I was a fan!

No no no!
It’s “Candle in the ______”… fill in the blank.

787 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:39:57am
788 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:40:44am

re: #769 Walter L. Newton

With out the same separation of church and state that the United States has, fair, unfair, it doesn’t matter to the legal element of your article. The government can do what they want, fair or not. It’s a moot argument, it has nothing to do with our freedoms over on this side of the pond.

Now the sentence I bolded is totally irrefutable!

My posts were however only meant as illustrations for the same sort of Zeitgeist which has influenced the LLL on both sides of the Big Pond - with apaprently similar outcomes.

789 aggieann  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:41:19am

re: #780 reine.de.tout

Yes, the precedents are being set now, and iceweasel and avanti are so certain of being correct that they cannot see that the baby steps being taken now, such as with Catholic Charities, etc., is just the beginning.

Just wait until Catholic hospitals are required to perform abortions …

790 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:41:24am

re: #775 Walter L. Newton

Reine, you know for a fact that if a church school, day care, sunday school, what ever, if they jump the shark and something happens, the government CAN jump in, and the freedom of separation will go right out the window. I never said any church is not concerned with the safety of children, for religious reason or otherwise.

That’s a moot point, stick to my legal argument.

I’m not certain what your legal argument is, Walter.

The fact is that in Massachusetts, a service that was provided by a religiously based organization is no longer provided, because the state said the organization could not follow its conscience.

If no one else here finds that small baby-step just a tad bit frightening, then I don’t know what to say.

791 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:41:26am

re: #781 rw in san diego

iceweasel, I think that the posters are maintaining that this could change.

Yes, with a constitutional amendment allowing the government to regulate how we practice our faith. Do you fear that ?

792 kansas  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:41:33am

re: #5 Gus 802
If we knew what we were doing that men wouldn’t do evil, we wouldn’t need LGF be the government.

FTFY
793 DaddyG  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:41:33am

re: #723 reine.de.tout

Here’s the story. .

Catholic Charities is one of the charitable organizations that takes out very little for administrative fees. The article says Romney’s proposal of abill to allow organizations like this to operate under their own rules could be a Presidential run political move but LDS family services has adoption services too. I wonder if it isn’t his affiliation with the LDS Church that isn’t part of his motive and not just political posturing.

IMO this is just one more example of the state being forced into private areas by judicial fiat.

794 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:41:43am

re: #787 taxfreekiller

150 years

So if Madoff got 150 years, how much should Congress get for stealing 10 times as much yearly 1500 years?

795 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:42:06am

re: #778 legalpad

Walter - One thing I can’t recall exactly: Did Jehovah’s Witnesses take the position that they were not a religion in Mexico? It seems like they didn’t sing in their kingdom halls because of that. It seems that in Mexico, religions can’t own property and they wanted to own property.

They are incorporated as a company, period. But, they do sometimes have to deal with certain laws in certain countries because other countries don’t always have laws that well define a religion or the freedoms that we allow a religion.

So, yes, they have had to adjust in certain countries so they are not classified as a religion.

796 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:42:21am

re: #770 Cygnus

OMG; it’s going to be the Lady Diana funeral all over again.

Not totally - they won’t have the Archbushop of Canterbury to officiate, and the Queen won’t be attending either, I don’t think …

;-)

797 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:42:32am

re: #763 BigPapa

This whole marriage controversy shows up a vestigial place where the church and state are still not separate. If the use of the word “Marriage” was completely the province of churches, and the state issued “Unions”, then I think the problem would be solved.

As it is, those citizens opposed to some things, are being asked to give their assent by means of their citizenship, and they will never.

798 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:42:38am

re: #794 soxfan4life

So if Madoff got 150 years, how much should Congress get for stealing 10 times as much yearly 1500 years?

Why don’t we just shut the place down and git ourselves a King? Ah, maybe not. Never Mind.

799 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:42:56am

re: #794 soxfan4life

Nope. It’s okay. They are above the law. If they’re not, they just re-invent it.

800 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:43:02am

re: #796 yma o hyd

Not totally - they won’t have the Archbushop of Canterbury to officiate, and the Queen won’t be attending either, I don’t think …

;-)

Oh there will be plenty of Queens there!

801 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:43:05am

re: #781 rw in san diego

iceweasel, I think that the posters are maintaining that this could change.

But why? Apart from some gay panic, why? There’s been no change in legal precedent, and all the many years worth of precendent that we have is against it.

I’m honestly puzzled. I think some people are confused about the difference between legal and religious marriage, and I think some people are maybe influenced by talking heads? I really can’t understand.

802 DaddyG  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:43:20am

re: #765 Nevergiveup

Madoff—150 years- BYe BYE


Save the taxpayers money and effort and leave him alone in a room with his investors for a few minutes. Supply sharpened #2 pencils for good measure. /

803 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:43:32am

re: #798 Nevergiveup

Why don’t we just shut the place down and git ourselves a King? Ah, maybe not. Never Mind.

Didn’t we just do that?

804 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:44:01am

re: #791 avanti

Yes, with a constitutional amendment allowing the government to regulate how we practice our faith. Do you fear that ?

Exactly, in lieu of that, why are people afraid? I don’t get it. Misinformation, I think.

805 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:44:15am

Is anyone here bidding on the moonwalk cheeto?

[Link: www.israelforum.com…]

806 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:44:25am

re: #803 soxfan4life

Didn’t we just do that?

Depends on definitions? King, G-D? Messiah?

807 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:45:00am

re: #793 DaddyG

Catholic Charities is one of the charitable organizations that takes out very little for administrative fees. The article says Romney’s proposal of abill to allow organizations like this to operate under their own rules could be a Presidential run political move but LDS family services has adoption services too. I wonder if it isn’t his affiliation with the LDS Church that isn’t part of his motive and not just political posturing.

IMO this is just one more example of the state being forced into private areas by judicial fiat.

Back in the 90’s the California Judge’s Association tried to force out a judge because he was affiliated with Boy Scouts, and Boy Scouts discriminates against gays. (Full disclosure: I’m a cub leader, the wife of a cub leader and a scout leader—full schedule, don’t ask—and the daughter of a scoutmaster.)

THAT’S what scares me. The possibilities of de facto religion tests.

808 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:45:45am

re: #805 Mad Al-Jaffee

Is anyone here bidding on the moonwalk cheeto?

[Link: www.israelforum.com…]

People actually pay money for this shit? You are killing my faith in humanity.

809 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:45:54am

re: #805 Mad Al-Jaffee

Is anyone here bidding on the moonwalk cheeto?

[Link: www.israelforum.com…]

No, but I might just buy some bags of cheetos until I find one that some sucker will buy for lots of money.

810 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:45:58am
811 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:46:39am

re: #475 iceweasel

As to gay marriage laws— take a look. Even if gay marriage becomes legal, no-one will force any religion to marry gay people or to honour or recognise gay marriages.

What the iceweasel said.

First, it’s already the case that any religious minister can refuse to marry a couple who aren’t members in good standing of the religious congregation.

Second, it’s also already the case that any religious body is free to excommunicate members. So in the event that a gay couple who were members in good standing of a Catholic congregation tried to “force” the priest to marry them, it would come down to an internal fight between the couple and their church, with the potential result of the couple being excommunicated, long before it ever got to a courtroom.

That said, it’s likely to be the case — contrary to iceweasel’s assertion — that in certain scenarios, religious bodies could be forced to make some degree of accommodation for same-sex couples (i.e., to “recognize” them) who had a valid “couplehood license” from the state, whether it might be called “same-sex marriage” or “civil unions” or whatever. Being somewhat libertarian minded, I’m not especially comfortable with religious institutions being forced to do anything. But at the same time I’m aware that there is a large and complex structure of existing precedent created by anti-discrimination and equal-access laws, and exceptions to such precedent cannot be carved out willy-nilly, because each exception made creates a new precedent.

812 3 wood  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:46:50am

Sports Nerd Corner:

The debacle by the Cubs over the weekend in their collapse against the White Sox (including a 6 - 0 waxing yesterday) did more than just give Sox fans like me bragging rights with my Cub fans friends for another year.

It effectively ended the Cubs year in terms of being competitive for a Championship, cause the White Sox are not all that good this year either. The Cubs just don’t have the talent to compete.

But this is where you see the difference between organizations that actually want to win and those that really don;t care as long as they make money.

At this time, winning organizations would start cutting deals and trading away aging players to competitive teams for young prospect and draft picks to build for the future. In the short run that will cost some ticket sales
but the long term payoff is hopefully a much better team that has a chance to win it all in a year or two.

Teams that don’t care will stand pat as long as the fans keep buying tickets to watch their team lose.

The Cubs are now 101 years into a Championship dry spell.

Watch what the Cubs GM does the rest of the year and then make up you own mind as to whether the Cubs really want to win or not.

By the way manager Lou Piniella has given up. He just sits in the dugout now and watches his team make mistake after mistake and does nothing.

813 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:46:53am

re: #807 EmmmieG

Religion tests are unconstitutional. Of course you know.

& I felt like that reporter asking Palin again and again if she thought global warming as man-made, was trying to give a religious test.

814 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:47:08am

re: #790 reine.de.tout

I’m not certain what your legal argument is, Walter.

The fact is that in Massachusetts, a service that was provided by a religiously based organization is no longer provided, because the state said the organization could not follow its conscience.

If no one else here finds that small baby-step just a tad bit frightening, then I don’t know what to say.

No, I find it no different than church schools, who have broken state and federal laws in the way they discipline children or have abused children.

No, I find it no different than church day care, who have broken state and federal laws in the way they discipline children or have abused children.

It has happened, and I am very happy that there are laws and agencies that can shut these sort of problems down.

And I never said that it is some doctrine of some religion to hurt children, but it happens.

Following your logic, then the church should not be sued for the sexual abuse that clergy have done to children.

815 DaddyG  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:47:14am

re: #780 reine.de.tout

Yes, the precedents are being set now, and iceweasel and avanti are so certain of being correct that they cannot see that the baby steps being taken now, such as with Catholic Charities, etc., is just the beginning.


I’m not worried about the intent of the laws as presently written as much as I am the unintended consequences and/or future interpretations by activist judges. This wouldn’t be the first law to undergo many, many increasingly radical interpretations. (see 2nd amendment as a group right case).

816 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:47:14am
817 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:47:28am

Iranian Prince: My moment will come’
Heir to Shah throne says he wants to return to Iranian politics from ‘exile’ in Washington

[Link: www.ynetnews.com…]

Somebody hasn’t been taking his medications?

818 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:47:47am

Well, this was short but sweet. Gotta take the princess to girl’s camp.

819 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:48:44am

re: #777 aggieann

The “everyone else” argument is relevant only if previous renters performed acts there that directly contradict Christian teaching. I haven’t found any evidence of this.

The previous renters performed marriages in other faiths, as well as civil unions. Thus there was no justification for the church that owned the property (which they had listed as a public property, not a religiously owned one) to deny the rental to a couple that wanted to perform a civil union—merely because that couple happened to be gay.

It’s the equivalent of any business refusing to rent to a black couple, an inter-racial couple, or to jewish couples. They were legally punished— and rightly so.

820 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:48:49am

re: #813 Ojoe

Religion tests are unconstitutional. Of course you know.

& I felt like that reporter asking Palin again and again if she thought global warming as man-made, was trying to give a religious test.

One last thought: I think there are ways to get around laws, like colleges trying to find ways to “increase diversity” even after a supreme court ruling told them they couldn’t use race as a deciding factor in admissions.

821 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:48:50am

re: #812 3 wood

Maybe Lou will get fired in time to take over the Yankees when Girardi gets the hook?

822 solomonpanting  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:49:30am

re: #794 soxfan4life

So if Madoff got 150 years, how much should Congress get for stealing 10 times as much yearly 1500 years?

They’ll get raises.

823 DaddyG  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:49:34am

re: #797 Ojoe

This whole marriage controversy shows up a vestigial place where the church and state are still not separate. If the use of the word “Marriage” was completely the province of churches, and the state issued “Unions”, then I think the problem would be solved.


I beleive you would also have to take out the marriage incentives in the tax codes or apply them to Unions. The $ are a big part of the reason there is a call for legal status in the first place.
824 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:50:10am

re: #779 avanti

Have you not read the constitution ? The government can not interfere with the free exercise of religion. Could a Priest sue successfully to remain a Priest and get married, gay or otherwise ?

The left does not care about the Constitution, only about transforming America to their tastes. The question that needs to be asked is this:

When the free exercise clause runs into conflict, with anti-discrimination laws, what test should be used to determine which right hold priority?

And do you know who should be asked that question? Sonia Sotomayor is who. It’s a non-gotcha question whose honest answer would tell us a good deal about how she would rule on cases.

825 filetandrelease  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:50:24am

Any thoughts on Sotomayor getting overruled by the supreme court regarding those firefighter causing her difficulty to get the nod?

826 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:51:01am

re: #811 Throbert McGee

What the iceweasel said.

First, it’s already the case that any religious minister can refuse to marry a couple who aren’t members in good standing of the religious congregation.

Second, it’s also already the case that any religious body is free to excommunicate members. So in the event that a gay couple who were members in good standing of a Catholic congregation tried to “force” the priest to marry them, it would come down to an internal fight between the couple and their church, with the potential result of the couple being excommunicated, long before it ever got to a courtroom.

That said, it’s likely to be the case — contrary to iceweasel’s assertion — that in certain scenarios, religious bodies could be forced to make some degree of accommodation for same-sex couples (i.e., to “recognize” them) who had a valid “couplehood license” from the state, whether it might be called “same-sex marriage” or “civil unions” or whatever. Being somewhat libertarian minded, I’m not especially comfortable with religious institutions being forced to do anything. But at the same time I’m aware that there is a large and complex structure of existing precedent created by anti-discrimination and equal-access laws, and exceptions to such precedent cannot be carved out willy-nilly, because each exception made creates a new precedent.

Give me a legal precedent for any of this. What could be used, as a foundation, to force a religion, a church, to marry gay couples, in the full marriage rites of that religion?

Catholic churches can, right NOW, deny marriage in the church to other male/female Catholic couples, and this has been church law and practice for hundreds of years.

Our government hasn’t called them on it yet.

827 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:51:12am
828 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:51:53am
829 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:52:01am

re: #795 Walter L. Newton

Thanks. I always thought that policy was sort of chickenshit, considering their edict to members, “don’t compromise” - like don’t get a political card in Malawi and get beaten to death.

830 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:52:38am

re: #825 filetandrelease

Any thoughts on Sotomayor getting overruled by the supreme court regarding those firefighter causing her difficulty to get the nod?


My thoughts are those steel backbones in the US Senate will trip over each other in an effort to kiss her ass and get her nomination approved as quickly as possible. Maybe only being delayed in their effort to suck up to the Commie in chief and ramrod cap and trade on us first.

831 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:52:43am

re: #814 Walter L. Newton

No, I find it no different than church schools, who have broken state and federal laws in the way they discipline children or have abused children.

No, I find it no different than church day care, who have broken state and federal laws in the way they discipline children or have abused children.

It has happened, and I am very happy that there are laws and agencies that can shut these sort of problems down.

And I never said that it is some doctrine of some religion to hurt children, but it happens.

Following your logic, then the church should not be sued for the sexual abuse that clergy have done to children.

Walter- of course the clergy should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for abuses. And the Church did not do, imo, what it should have done in those cases, it did not take nearly a strong enough stance on it, but tried to “protect” the priests. Wrong, wrong wrong, and I’ve said that in other threads, so please don’t tell me that “my logic” ends in the result that I’m OK with priest pedophiles.

If you are on board, as you seem to be, with the state being able to force religious-based organizations to provide civil services that are AGAINST the religious beliefs of the organization, then I don’t know what to say.

That’s a different issue entirely than pedophilia, which is a criminal issue, and in any event, ALSO against the teachings of the church. Even if it doesn’t seem that way.

832 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:53:04am

re: #815 DaddyG

I’m not worried about the intent of the laws as presently written as much as I am the unintended consequences and/or future interpretations by activist judges. This wouldn’t be the first law to undergo many, many increasingly radical interpretations. (see 2nd amendment as a group right case).

I’m with you.

833 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:53:56am

re: #811 Throbert McGee


That said, it’s likely to be the case — contrary to iceweasel’s assertion — that in certain scenarios, religious bodies could be forced to make some degree of accommodation for same-sex couples (i.e., to “recognize” them) who had a valid “couplehood license” from the state, whether it might be called “same-sex marriage” or “civil unions” or whatever. Being somewhat libertarian minded, I’m not especially comfortable with religious institutions being forced to do anything. But at the same time I’m aware that there is a large and complex structure of existing precedent created by anti-discrimination and equal-access laws, and exceptions to such precedent cannot be carved out willy-nilly, because each exception made creates a new precedent.

Throbert, you know the most about this, I know, from when we’ve talked about it before.
Religious insitituions may be forced to recognise same sex marriages in some circumstances, some of which have been mentioned in this thread, but they’re not going to be forced to perform them— isn’t that right?

834 Kragar  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:54:25am

150 years for Madoff

835 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:54:56am

re: #829 legalpad

Thanks. I always thought that policy was sort of chickenshit, considering their edict to members, “don’t compromise” - like don’t get a political card in Malawi and get beaten to death.

They have never been set up as a non-profit church, going all the way back to the late 1800’s.

I don’t think that they were thinking about Mali a 125 years later. It was a simple business decision at the time.

I’m not arguing their stance on this, just passing info to you. I’m not associated with the group any more.

836 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:55:03am

re: #824 Dark_Falcon

Dark, I object to comments like “The left does not care about the Constitution, only about transforming America to their tastes. “

That’s a assumption on your part, and no more valid then me saying “The right does not care about gay rights” It paints with a broad brush and offends me personally since I very much care about the Constitution although I’m to the left of you.

837 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:55:06am

re: #834 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

150 years for Madoff

Who wants to be in a cell with him in 20 years?

838 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:55:17am

re: #812 3 wood

Sports Nerd Corner:

The debacle by the Cubs over the weekend in their collapse against the White Sox (including a 6 - 0 waxing yesterday) did more than just give Sox fans like me bragging rights with my Cub fans friends for another year.

It effectively ended the Cubs year in terms of being competitive for a Championship, cause the White Sox are not all that good this year either. The Cubs just don’t have the talent to compete.

But this is where you see the difference between organizations that actually want to win and those that really don;t care as long as they make money.

At this time, winning organizations would start cutting deals and trading away aging players to competitive teams for young prospect and draft picks to build for the future. In the short run that will cost some ticket sales
but the long term payoff is hopefully a much better team that has a chance to win it all in a year or two.

Teams that don’t care will stand pat as long as the fans keep buying tickets to watch their team lose.

The Cubs are now 101 years into a Championship dry spell.

Watch what the Cubs GM does the rest of the year and then make up you own mind as to whether the Cubs really want to win or not.

By the way manager Lou Piniella has given up. He just sits in the dugout now and watches his team make mistake after mistake and does nothing.

The Cubs suck so bad that it drains the fight out even the manager. Wait till next year.

839 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:55:29am

re: #834 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

150 years for Madoff

Well not likely unless they plan on jailing his casket also? But hey that’s alright with me.

840 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:55:41am
841 reloadingisnotahobby  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:55:50am

re: #834 Kragar (proud to be kafir)
And Crdit Card Companies WORLD WIDE are mourning the
loss of Billy Mayes!
What a way to start the week!

842 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:56:07am

re: #838 Dark_Falcon

The Cubs suck so bad that it drains the fight out even the manager. Wait till next year.

One day there will be no next year?

843 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:56:21am

re: #825 filetandrelease

Any thoughts on Sotomayor getting overruled by the supreme court regarding those firefighter causing her difficulty to get the nod?

Zero will say (* in a deep baritone voice) “See that is why we need her on this court, to assure that there is equality and justice for minorities”. And the masses will celebrate and the MFMSM will talk about how brilliant he is. And I will puke for the 1,000th time since January.

844 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:56:22am

Do read the news gathered in this blog, which our winston recommended.

The reports about the imprisonments of various students and especially of the women is pretty harrowing.

Also, from that link:
‘>Mohammad Mostafaei, a lawyer fighting for the rights of the minors convicted to capital punishment was arrested.
Mohammad Mostafaei is fighting for the rights of the children, who have commited crimes and are mostly before reaching the legal age, and are mostly sentenced to death. Currently Mohammad is representing 25 cases.’

845 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:56:55am
846 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:56:56am

Micheal Jackson’s parents are going to bring up his kids? Hum? Well because they did such a good job with him?

847 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:57:41am

re: #702 Lincolntf

She never took the job, or took any money as far as I can tell. Her only mistake was telling the truth about her reason for declining the job. And doing it in a state where a judge would rule that she was legally compeklled to work for people she didn’t approve of.
I’ve declined to do work for people based on everything from how they treat their pets (seriously, I almost kicked the guys ass) to the neighborhood they live in (no use making 2 grand on a job if I might have 5 grand worth of tools stolen).
I hope she wins on appeal.

None of these are related to discrimination (although the neighborhood one might be an issue). Once some group gets into a protected category, though, you can’t refuse for that reason.

Again, if she were allowed to refuse to take jobs from gays, it would open the door for people to refuse to take work from blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc.

848 MrSilverDragon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:57:52am

re: #837 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Who wants to be in a cell with him in 20 years?

I’d say the chances of that happening are pretty much slim to none, considering…

He got off cheap, in my opinion.

849 DaddyG  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:57:57am

re: #838 Dark_Falcon The cubs should start treating Billy-goats to a beer at center field after every game.

850 filetandrelease  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:58:04am

re: #830 soxfan4life

LOL, yeah, my thoughts too. Was hoping though.

851 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:58:28am

re: #827 Iron Fist

I see lawsuit people. Seriously, even you admit there is a basis for believing that people would indeed sue (or potentially would sue) a religious organization because they wouldn’t perform “marriages” for gay couples.

No, I haven’t admited that or said that. If gay marriage passes, religious organisations can be sued for discriminating— if they refuse to recognise that a same-sex spouse is entitled to health care under a gay employee’s insurance plan, for example. If a Catholic hospital treating a patient restricts visitors to ‘family’, and won’t recognise the right of the gay spouse to visit, or to make the health care decisions. That sort of thing.

But not for refusing to perform a marriage.

852 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:58:30am

re: #825 filetandrelease

Any thoughts on Sotomayor getting overruled by the supreme court regarding those firefighter causing her difficulty to get the nod?

Nope, she’s a liberal, the liberals on the court agree with her, including the guy she is replacing, so no surprise to anyone, nor will it change the balance.

853 reloadingisnotahobby  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:58:52am

re: #846 Nevergiveup

I’m not sure that’s fair!
Micheal was the only one that went….ah….Weird!
Right?

854 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:59:03am
855 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:59:15am

re: #848 MrSilverDragon

I’d say the chances of that happening are pretty much slim to none, considering…

He got off cheap, in my opinion.

Not defending him, but he will die in Prison. What did you want? For him to be drawn and quartered?

856 rw in san diego  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:59:40am

re: #791 avanti

Avanti, see my post #439. This is why I think it can happen. I saw this case as the physician’s religious rights being trumped by the rights of the couple, not to have the insemination procedure, but to have the procedure by the physician they wanted. I don’t see this as a discrimination issue against the couple. They could have had the procedure done elsewhere. It seems to me that the Catholic church teachings are pretty uniform along these lines and that members who want to consider themselves in good standing with their church will conform to its requirements. I see that as a person practicing their religion. I guess you could say that any person with convictions along these lines shouldn’t enter the medical profession, but we’d lose a number of really fine physicians that way.

Well, I have to run, but I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s positions on the subject.

857 filetandrelease  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:59:50am

re: #843 VegasRick

Ouch. “They are wrong, she is right” hadn’t considered that.

858 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:59:57am

re: #852 avanti

Nope, she’s a liberal, the liberals on the court agree with her, including the guy she is replacing, so no surprise to anyone, nor will it change the balance.

re: #843 VegasRick

Zero will say (* in a deep baritone voice) “See that is why we need her on this court, to assure that there is equality and justice for minorities”. And the masses will celebrate and the MFMSM will talk about how brilliant he is. And I will puke for the 1,000th time since January.

Do you want any action on my bet? I know you like to gamble.

859 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:00:04am
860 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:00:08am

re: #831 reine.de.tout

Walter- of course the clergy should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for abuses. And the Church did not do, imo, what it should have done in those cases, it did not take nearly a strong enough stance on it, but tried to “protect” the priests. Wrong, wrong wrong, and I’ve said that in other threads, so please don’t tell me that “my logic” ends in the result that I’m OK with priest pedophiles.

If you are on board, as you seem to be, with the state being able to force religious-based organizations to provide civil services that are AGAINST the religious beliefs of the organization, then I don’t know what to say.

That’s a different issue entirely than pedophilia, which is a criminal issue, and in any event, ALSO against the teachings of the church. Even if it doesn’t seem that way.

If they take government money, for supplying a service that is the same as a government supplied service, they are obligated to follow the civil laws related to that service.

It has NOTHING to do with a church. You would have to abide by these same rules, if you were taking government funds to supply adoptions.

Why can’t you see that this is a civil issues, taking public funds, supplying a service that is regulated?

Yes, I am on board with the government FORCING a church adoption agency that takes public funds to obey the laws.

Yes, I am on board with the government FORCING a church school that takes public funds to obey the laws.

Yes, I am on board with the government FORCING a church day care agency that takes public funds to obey the laws.

For a matter of fact, when it comes to the safety of the children, I would be for FORCING ANYONE to follow the law.

Aren’t you?

861 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:00:19am

re: #853 reloadingisnotahobby

I’m not sure that’s fair!
Micheal was the only one that went….ah….Weird!
Right?

None of them have real normal lives do they?

862 DaddyG  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:00:51am

REST IN PEACE (NOT QUIET) BILLY MAYS!

BUT WAIT: THATS NOT ALL…

COMFORT AND BLESSINGS TO THE FAMILY!

He was an American character. I do wish his family the best in their time of loss.

863 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:00:52am

re: #767 Killian Bundy

150 years.

/sucks to be Bernie

Even the 17 years he asked for was likely to be a death penalty.

Guess what - taxpayers now get to pay for all his medical expenses via the prison system.

864 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:01:10am

re: #845 Iron Fist

The Supreme Court has been defferential to organized religon. For example, they allow blood sacrifices in Santareia. But you do make my main point. Desolving freedom of religion is the goal. It isn’t just a feature of it, but it is the main reason for them pushing the issue.

That’s how you feel, I can’t change your opinion.

865 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:01:11am

re: #857 filetandrelease

Ouch. “They are wrong, she is right” hadn’t considered that.

Zero is all knowing. Just ask him.

866 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:01:18am

re: #805 Mad Al-Jaffee

Is anyone here bidding on the moonwalk cheeto?

[Link: www.israelforum.com…]

“There’s a sucker born every minute.” - P.T. Barnum

Did you see this at the same site?

Men, the New Women, Alert: New York Times Pimps the Man-Corset

Many times on this site, I’ve told you about many feminine fashion choices that the gay men and masculine women who run the fashion industry have been pimping on man.

And so it continues.

Recently, I told you about “Man-genta”—the new color name the fashion industry invented to get men to wear pink. But that’s nothin’ compared to the … “MAN CORSET.” John Paul Gaulthier presented it in his fashion collection at last week’s Paris Men’s Fashion Week runway show. And the New York Times just loves it. Figures.

867 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:01:27am

re: #755 Alouette

Here lizards, is where you can wish congratulations to the happy engaged couple!

Wedding gifts can be purchased at the Zionist Mall.

Heh.

Wow, looks like he scored big time. She’s beautiful. Congratulations!

868 filetandrelease  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:01:31am

re: #852 avanti

The silver lining. The balance remains the same. Slim, but it is all we have.

869 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:02:26am

Right wing extremist of the day….
White supremacist Neil Lewington caught ‘on cusp’ of terror campaign


A white supremacist arrested by chance at a railway station turned out to be “on the cusp” of launching a campaign of terrorism, a court heard today.

Neil Lewington had developed a bomb factory in his bedroom at his parents’ home and aimed to target “those he considered non-British”, jurors were told.

He had an “unhealthy interest” in the London nail bomber David Copeland, America’s Unabomber and Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh.

870 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:02:56am

re: #853 reloadingisnotahobby

I’m not sure that’s fair!
Micheal was the only one that went….ah….Weird!
Right?

Latoya?

871 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:03:01am

re: #865 VegasRick

Zero is all knowing. Just ask him.


No need with the MSM reminding us all of the time.

872 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:03:50am
873 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:04:12am

re: #856 rw in san diego

Avanti, see my post #439. This is why I think it can happen. I saw this case as the physician’s religious rights being trumped by the rights of the couple, not to have the insemination procedure, but to have the procedure by the physician they wanted.

That’s a different issue. Assume my faith tells me sex before marriage is a sin, can I refuse to rent to a unmarried couple because of my faith and just suggest that they can rent elsewhere ?

874 MrSilverDragon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:04:35am

re: #855 Nevergiveup

Not defending him, but he will die in Prison. What did you want? For him to be drawn and quartered?

I was thinking more along the lines of permanent public service, nights in a jail cell, days on a chain gang. Chances are he’s just going to sit in a cell.

No, I don’t wish for execution.

875 reloadingisnotahobby  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:04:38am

re: #861 Nevergiveup

They are all still in entertainment of some sort so
I guess your assertion is also correct!
But they all still embrace they’re “Race” which makes them
less odd than they’re sibling……….

876 aggieann  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:04:42am

re: #819 iceweasel

The previous renters performed marriages in other faiths, as well as civil unions. Thus there was no justification for the church that owned the property (which they had listed as a public property, not a religiously owned one) to deny the rental to a couple that wanted to perform a civil union—merely because that couple happened to be gay.

It’s the equivalent of any business refusing to rent to a black couple, an inter-racial couple, or to jewish couples. They were legally punished— and rightly so.

Fine, as long as a Muslim taxi driver will not refuse to give me a ride just because I’m wearing my “I Love Bacon” T-shirt and have my seeing-eye dog at my side. Or as long as a pharmacist will not refuse to give me the day-after pill.

877 MandyManners  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:04:47am

re: #834 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

150 years for Madoff

Will they go after Mark and Andrew Madoff?

878 DaddyG  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:05:09am

re: #860 Walter L. Newton Catholic charities was self funded and did not take government money for adoptions as far as I know.

879 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:05:14am
880 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:06:01am
881 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:06:28am

German Neo Nazis: Hail Ahmadinejad!

From that link:
‘German neo-Nazis and extreme right-wingers have expressed their solidarity with the messianic junta in Tehran. Among them is the fugitive Swiss Holocaust denier Jürgen Graf, who fled to Iran in 2000 seeking “political asylum” - Graf gives his address as “PO Box 19395/7161, Tehran,“

“Hearty congratulation to your reelection, Mr. President!“ rejoiced the Deutsche Volksunion (DVU) under its leader Matthias Faust.’

RTWT!

882 DaddyG  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:06:59am

re: #866 NJDhockeyfan I was man enough to wear pink beforre it was man-genta. But corsets are out of the question.

883 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:07:23am
884 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:07:29am

re: #876 aggieann

Fine, as long as a Muslim taxi driver will not refuse to give me a ride just because I’m wearing my “I Love Bacon” T-shirt and have my seeing-eye dog at my side. Or as long as a pharmacist will not refuse to give me the day-after pill.

Your point?

885 rw in san diego  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:08:26am

PIMF! Yikes! everyones’ not everyone’s.

re: #801 iceweasel

Sorry, I didn’t see your post that answered mine. I don’t have a crystal ball, and I don’t know what will happen, but I do have concerns. I hope you’re right and my concerns will prove to be baseless. Time will tell.

Bye for now, all!

886 LC LaWedgie  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:09:04am
887 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:09:05am

re: #836 avanti

Dark, I object to comments like “The left does not care about the Constitution, only about transforming America to their tastes. “

That’s a assumption on your part, and no more valid then me saying “The right does not care about gay rights” It paints with a broad brush and offends me personally since I very much care about the Constitution although I’m to the left of you.

When I say “the left” I mean the ideologue left and I meant what I said about them. It’s not meant to apply to people who are simply liberal like you or Dianne Feinstein, but rather to ideological people like Barbara Boxer or George Soros.

888 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:09:22am

re: #835 Walter L. Newton

They have never been set up as a non-profit church, going all the way back to the late 1800’s.

I don’t think that they were thinking about Mali a 125 years later. It was a simple business decision at the time.

I’m not arguing their stance on this, just passing info to you. I’m not associated with the group any more.

I understand that, of course. I read they are tax exempt in most countries, and, from another source, that the decision to be organized a certain way in Mexico was related to tax-exempt status. I was associated myself, but I cannot remember exactly about this issue. It just seemed many of their policies were altered - compromised, if you will, like singing in Mexico, so they could have tax exempt status. Yet in Malawi, that is in Africa, some innocuous thing at the level of registration for the draft was resisted at the cost of many lives.

No big deal, of course.

889 Kragar  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:09:28am
890 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:09:43am

re: #849 DaddyG

The cubs should start treating Billy-goats to a beer at center field after every game.

LOL!

891 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:09:58am

re: #830 soxfan4life

As a white guy and in her eyes inferior to a wise latina I do not believe I would ever get justice from Sotomayor.

892 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:10:17am

re: #873 avanti

That’s a different issue. Assume my faith tells me sex before marriage is a sin, can I refuse to rent to a unmarried couple because of my faith and just suggest that they can rent elsewhere ?

Exactly. Assume my faith tells me eating pork is bad, or that we shouldn’t eat meat on Fridays, or that meat and diary can’t be mixed. Do I get to impose those beliefs on renters? No, I don’t.

893 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:11:04am

re: #881 yma o hyd

German Neo Nazis: Hail Ahmadinejad!

From that link:
‘German neo-Nazis and extreme right-wingers have expressed their solidarity with the messianic junta in Tehran. Among them is the fugitive Swiss Holocaust denier Jürgen Graf, who fled to Iran in 2000 seeking “political asylum” - Graf gives his address as “PO Box 19395/7161, Tehran,“

“Hearty congratulation to your reelection, Mr. President!“ rejoiced the Deutsche Volksunion (DVU) under its leader Matthias Faust.’

RTWT!

Nazis, I hate these guys.

894 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:11:27am

re: #885 rw in san diego

PIMF! Yikes! everyones’ not everyone’s.

Sorry, I didn’t see your post that answered mine. I don’t have a crystal ball, and I don’t know what will happen, but I do have concerns. I hope you’re right and my concerns will prove to be baseless. Time will tell.

Bye for now, all!

Cheers, rw in sd— have a great day!

895 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:11:37am

Meanwhile in Gaza…..
Arrests, recriminations threaten Hamas, Fatah talks


Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah group accused rival Hamas of arresting dozens of Fatah activists in the Gaza Strip on Monday.

The recriminations threaten to derail Egyptian-mediated efforts to reconcile the two Palestinian groups.

A Hamas spokesman said there had been no arrests and accused Fatah of distortion aimed at undermining the talks.

Arrests and counter arrests by forces loyal to the two groups have hampered efforts to restore political unity and boost prospects for a resumption of peace-making with Israel.

Senior Fatah lawmaker Ashraf Gomaa told Reuters by telephone from Gaza that at least 90 of those arrested on Monday had been identified, but that the Hamas sweeps were continuing.

896 Lincolntf  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:12:42am

My biggest concern is that the danger in having all of the GLBT groups trying to revoke the tax-exempt status of Churches recalls the truism that the power to tax is the power to destroy.
And believe me, destroying the Church is a high priority for a lot of moonbats, gay or straight.
Daniel Webster knew what he was talking about.

897 DaddyG  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:12:53am

re: #891 Ojoe

As a white guy and in her eyes inferior to a wise latina I do not believe I would ever get justice from Sotomayor.

You have had justice for 200 years - time to give someone else a turn. /moonbat logic

898 yma o hyd  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:13:03am

re: #895 Killgore Trout

Well - if the Big Brother, represented by ahmadinejad, can do it (arrest dissenters) - then he hamasthugs can do it, no?

899 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:13:05am

re: #810 buzzsawmonkey

I am utterly opposed to “human rights”; they are a corruption of the concept of liberty protected by civil rights upon which the Constitution is based. “Human rights” were imported into American politics after the Civil Rights Movement, under the leadership of the Marxists, Islamists and separatists who wrested the movement from King, abandoned its quest for civil rights and started seeking preferential treatments.

The “gay rights movement,” except for its quest to repeal sodomy laws and the related laws which forbade serving liquor to homosexuals, same-sex dancing, etc., has been a “human rights” movement from its inception—and, interestingly, one which originally had as one of its announced goals the destruction of the institution of marriage.

It is incorrect to say that “gays do not evangelize.” The “gay rights movement” has been actively engaged in evangelization for years in its pushing of “queer studies,” its efforts to expand sex education, and its ever-expanding definitions of what constitutes “being gay.”

The notion that “gay” is a separate status and culture, however, is relatively modern—no more than 130 years old or so. The Biblical prohibitions against homosexual acts do not discuss or recognize any such thing as “homosexuality“—homosexual acts, like all sex engaged in outside of (permissible) marriage, was socially destructive.

The suffragette movement started in America in 1848, so it only took 72 years for their right to vote to be recognized in 1920 - much less than 130 years.

Only 90 years ago women did not yet have the right to vote in America.
How many years after 1920 (passage of 19th Amendment) did it take for people to recognize the legitimacy of women’s new status?

Slavery in America existed for less than 130 years before human beings achieved the status of no longer being owned by other people.

So surely it is not the 130 year period of their “movement” which should prevent homosexuals from attaining equal status? If they are to be denied then it must be on some other basis.

900 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:13:18am
901 Racer X  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:13:43am

The Los Angeles Lakers are still the NBA champs!

Haters - ppfffftttttttt!

902 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:14:44am

New video: Inside Ghoba Mosque

Any idea what they are chanting?

903 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:14:45am

re: #900 buzzsawmonkey

Not renting apartments—or hotel rooms—to unmarried couples was absolutely routine well within living memory. It was not until the 1970s that the Inalienable Right to Unbridled Fornication became a secular article of faith.

you have a way with words.

904 Nevergiveup  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:15:25am

re: #902 NJDhockeyfan

New video: Inside Ghoba Mosque


[Video]

Any idea what they are chanting?

I’ll bet it ain’t “lets go mets”?

905 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:15:27am

re: #892 iceweasel

Exactly. Assume my faith tells me eating pork is bad, or that we shouldn’t eat meat on Fridays, or that meat and diary can’t be mixed. Do I get to impose those beliefs on renters? No, I don’t.

What if my rental property has a kosher kitchen and I want to keep it that way?

906 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:15:44am

re: #900 buzzsawmonkey

Not renting apartments—or hotel rooms—to unmarried couples was absolutely routine well within living memory. It was not until the 1970s that the Inalienable Right to Unbridled Fornication became a secular article of faith.

That doesn’t mean it was right.

Not letting black people sit at the lunch counter, or go to your school, or drink from your waterfountain, or sit at the front of the bus is going to be within living memory for some.

It was wrong before it became illegal.

907 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:16:01am

re: #889 Kragar (proud to be kafir)


0bama being weak isn’t so much a choice as it is a lifestyle. By failing to stand up for anything he can never be nailed to the wall for taking an unpopular opinion. Thus creating the malleable POS we are stuck with today.

908 reloadingisnotahobby  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:16:45am

re: #905 Alouette

Remodel with all new appliances?

909 CIA Reject  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:16:45am

re: #900 buzzsawmonkey

Not renting apartments—or hotel rooms—to unmarried couples was absolutely routine well within living memory. It was not until the 1970s that the Inalienable Right to Unbridled Fornication became a secular article of faith.

IRUF! - I’m stealing that…

910 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:16:56am

re: #860 Walter L. Newton

If they take government money, for supplying a service that is the same as a government supplied service, they are obligated to follow the civil laws related to that service.

It has NOTHING to do with a church. You would have to abide by these same rules, if you were taking government funds to supply adoptions.

Why can’t you see that this is a civil issues, taking public funds, supplying a service that is regulated?

er,um - if you actually read my post, you would have noticed what I said: If you are on board, as you seem to be, with the state being able to force religious-based organizations to provide civil services that are AGAINST the religious beliefs of the organization, then I don’t know what to say.

Yes, I am on board with the government FORCING a church adoption agency that takes public funds to obey the laws.

Yes, I am on board with the government FORCING a church school that takes public funds to obey the laws.

Yes, I am on board with the government FORCING a church day care agency that takes public funds to obey the laws.

For a matter of fact, when it comes to the safety of the children, I would be for FORCING ANYONE to follow the law.

Aren’t you?

Again - if you had actually read my post, perhaps you would have noticed what I said:Walter- of course the clergy should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for abuses. And the Church did not do, imo, what it should have done in those cases, it did not take nearly a strong enough stance on it, but tried to “protect” the priests. Wrong, wrong wrong, and I’ve said that in other threads, so please don’t tell me that “my logic” ends in the result that I’m OK with priest pedophiles.

911 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:17:23am

re: #902 NJDhockeyfan

“Allahu Ackbar”
/god is great

912 DaddyG  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:17:30am

re: #900 buzzsawmonkey

…Inalienable Right to Unbridled Fornication…

Heh. You should see the prom kids in the downtown hotels in Atlanta.

913 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:17:50am

re: #905 Alouette

What if my rental property has a kosher kitchen and I want to keep it that way?

Interestingly, that is an exception. I don’t know if it is if you’re renting a full apartment, but I do know that if you’re subletting or letting only part of an apartment, you can require the tenant to keep kosher (or, rather, to treat your dishes and utensils in such a way as to maintain your kosher kitchen).

914 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:18:28am

re: #862 DaddyG

REST IN PEACE (NOT QUIET) BILLY MAYS!

BUT WAIT: THATS NOT ALL…

COMFORT AND BLESSINGS TO THE FAMILY!

He was an American character. I do wish his family the best in their time of loss.

Yes, I was saddened to read about Billy Mays this morning. I’ve seen a couple of newsmagazine profiles on him, and he seemed like a genuinely nice guy.re: #886 LC LaWedgie

TV sitcom pioneer Gale Storm dies

Wow, that’s too bad. I remember her back in the ’60s, doing TV commercials for refrigerators (Amana, IIRC). BTW, where she born (Bloomington, TX) is southeast of Victoria, where you begin to see palm trees, heading toward the Gulf Coast and the town of Seadrift, and Matagorda Island.

915 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:18:55am

re: #889 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

Obama is choosing to be weak

The president has cast himself not as a leader of reform, but as a cheerleader for “reform” – meaning anything, really, that can plausibly be called reform, however flawed. He has defined success down so far that many kinds of failure now qualify. Without hesitating, he has cast aside principles he emphasised during the campaign. On healthcare, for instance, he opposed an individual insurance mandate. On climate change, he was firm on the need to auction all emissions permits. Congress proposes to do the opposite in both cases and Mr Obama’s instant response is: “That will do nicely.”


1301 Days, 00 Hours, 40 Minutes, 27 Seconds.
I fear time is on his side.

916 songbird  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:18:59am

re: #902 NJDhockeyfan

Are they shouting “Long Live USA”?

917 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:19:38am

EGYPT: Police shut down Iran solidarity march

An attempt by Egyptians to march in solidarity with Iranian protesters and to honor Neda-Agha Soltan — whose death earlier this month made her the icon of Iran’s opposition movement — was halted by security forces in Cairo over the weekend.

The Cairo rally was called by democracy activist and opposition leader Ayman Nour and was scheduled to be held in Talaat Harb square in the Egyptian capital’s downtown. But dozens of security vehicles surrounded Nour and his fellow protesters upon their arrival at the square. Police arrested four protesters belonging to Nour’s party and prevented reporters from covering the event.

“It is very ironic how Egyptian authorities, who earlier expressed their dismay against the Iranian regime’s oppressive means of handling protesters, are now banning us from a march that shares the same perspective,” Nour said at a news conference at his party’s headquarters. “Such acts only prove one thing and it is that the Egyptian and Iranian regimes are quite the same when it comes to their autocratic path and rejection of democracy.”

918 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:19:59am

re: #914 Ward Cleaver

Wow, I really screwed up that post.

919 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:20:06am

re: #900 buzzsawmonkey

Not renting apartments—or hotel rooms—to unmarried couples was absolutely routine well within living memory. It was not until the 1970s that the Inalienable Right to Unbridled Fornicati on became a secular article of faith.

I know, I was denied a motel room for my soon to be wife and me in 1968 after returning from Vietnam. That was in Virgina, and I was not a happy camper about it.

920 lawhawk  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:20:56am

re: #877 MandyManners

Will they go after Mark and Andrew Madoff?

Depends on the information provided by Madoff thus far, and whether the sons knew. Frankly, I am not sure how they couldn’t know the business was a sham.

921 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:20:57am

re: #912 DaddyG

Heh. You should see the prom kids in the downtown hotels in Atlanta.

Seriously, the world has changed. Atlanta teens freak me out (I’ve got a couple of friends there with kids)

922 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:21:02am

re: #919 avanti

I know, I was denied a motel room for my soon to be wife and me in 1968 after returning from Vietnam. That was in Virgina, and I was not a happy camper about it.

I trust you guys are still married?

923 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:21:36am

re: #886 LC LaWedgie

TV sitcom pioneer Gale Storm dies

This woman looks almost exactly like my mother..

924 ernieg  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:21:39am

re: #891 Ojoe

As a white guy and in her eyes inferior to a wise latina I do not believe I would ever get justice from Sotomayor.

Yes, but think of the greater efficiency of the judicial system. No more long pesky briefs, with page after page of argument, their tedious lists of “findings of fact,” “findings of law,” and all those damned footnotes. One look at the litigants as they enter the courtroom and the case is decided.

Bam. Next case.

925 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:21:51am

re: #900 buzzsawmonkey

Not renting apartments—or hotel rooms—to unmarried couples was absolutely routine well within living memory. It was not until the 1970s that the Inalienable Right to Unbridled Fornication became a secular article of faith.

We’ll have to wait some time before we can add THAT to the Constitution. I think the 69th Amendment might be appropriate.

926 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:22:04am

re: #920 lawhawk

Depends on the information provided by Madoff thus far, and whether the sons knew. Frankly, I am not sure how they couldn’t know the business was a sham.

Didn’t they say that he told them it was a scam? I seem to remember reading that when the story first broke.

927 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:22:06am

re: #912 DaddyG

Heh. You should see the prom kids in the downtown hotels in Atlanta.

Tell us, I like a good story.

928 songbird  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:22:47am

re: #916 songbird

Are they shouting “Long Live USA”?

It starts about 1:10.

929 DaddyG  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:23:10am

re: #921 iceweasel

Seriously, the world has changed. Atlanta teens freak me out (I’ve got a couple of friends there with kids)

Fortunately my kids run in different (read nerdy and churchy) circles.

930 solomonpanting  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:23:16am

re: #923 legalpad

This woman looks almost exactly like my mother..

Then your mother is a very pretty woman.
But, you knew that.

931 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:23:35am

re: #921 iceweasel

Seriously, the world has changed. Atlanta teens freak me out (I’ve got a couple of friends there with kids)

And it hasn’t changed that much for the better either, IMFO (In My Father’s Opinion).

932 J.D.  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:23:44am

re: #926 Ward Cleaver

Didn’t they say that he told them it was a scam? I seem to remember reading that when the story first broke.

They turned him in.

No one else at the firm has been charged, and Madoff has not publicly implicated others. His sons Andrew and Mark Madoff ran the proprietary trading operations at Madoff’s firm. They turned their father in to authorities on Dec. 10 after he confessed to them, their attorney, Martin Flumenbaum, has said.


Bernard Madoff Gets 150 Years in Jail for Epic Fraud (Update1)

933 KenJen  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:23:48am

I have a car question. My dad wants to give his old car to me to use for a dog mobile. Short trips to the park or vet office. He has always put premium fuel in it as the manufacture recommended. Will it hurt anything if I use the cheaper fuel?

934 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:23:51am

re: #923 legalpad

This woman looks almost exactly like my mother..

That second picture is how I remember her looking in the Amana commercials.

935 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:23:57am

re: #919 avanti

I know, I was denied a motel room for my soon to be wife and me in 1968 after returning from Vietnam. That was in Virgina, and I was not a happy camper about it.

I think this is partly generational too. I would have no hesitation whatsoever about telling a lie in that circumstance.

I think one of the things that’s eroded over time is trust in authorities/respect for authorities/telling authorities the truth.

936 lawhawk  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:24:28am

re: #926 Ward Cleaver

He told them it was a scam only right before the indictment came down. He was trying to shield the rest of his family and hoped to cut a deal that would spare his sons.

937 soxfan4life  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:24:43am

re: #920 lawhawk

Depends on the information provided by Madoff thus far, and whether the sons knew. Frankly, I am not sure how they couldn’t know the business was a sham.

Kind of like how others in the public spotlight had no idea, or just go to rehab. Are we willing to let it go with the sentence on Bernie Madoff or is our anger subsided enough? Me personally, if someone invested without doing the proper research, oh well. No one gives the kind of returns Madoff was consistently when operating above board.

938 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:24:53am

re: #930 solomonpanting

Then your mother is a very pretty woman.
But, you knew that.

I always thought she was. She was about a year younger than Ms Storm.

939 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:25:25am

re: #929 DaddyG

Fortunately my kids run in different (read nerdy and churchy) circles.

Like my friends’ kids. Very churchy. The stories I hear are about the others…and what I’ve seen when visiting.

Tell us your story about prom and hotels! It sounds interesting.

940 Buck  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:25:27am

re: #933 KenJen

I have a car question. My dad wants to give his old car to me to use for a dog mobile. Short trips to the park or vet office. He has always put premium fuel in it as the manufacture recommended. Will it hurt anything if I use the cheaper fuel?

Nope, premium fuel is a scam.

941 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:26:22am

re: #934 Ward Cleaver

That second picture is how I remember her looking in the Amana commercials.

My mother almost got into show business when she was a kid but her father wouldn’t let her.

942 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:26:32am

re: #933 KenJen

I have a car question. My dad wants to give his old car to me to use for a dog mobile. Short trips to the park or vet office. He has always put premium fuel in it as the manufacture recommended. Will it hurt anything if I use the cheaper fuel?

If the car has a knock sensor, it won’t hurt. The knock sensor will retard the timing to compensate, but it might hurt fuel economy a little bit. What kind of car (year/make/model)? I can look on some online parts sites to see if they list a replacement knock sensor for it.

943 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:26:45am

re: #920 lawhawk

Depends on the information provided by Madoff thus far, and whether the sons knew. Frankly, I am not sure how they couldn’t know the business was a sham.

Must say from what I’m hearing and reading….it doesn’t look good for them.

944 aggieann  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:26:57am

re: #884 iceweasel

Your point?

Well, to spell it out … in the post to which I was responding, you wrote, “It’s the equivalent of any business refusing to rent to a black couple, an inter-racial couple, or to jewish couples. They were legally punished— and rightly so.” My response gave two more examples where those who refuse to carry out a service should be legally punished—rightly so.

945 DaddyG  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:27:45am

re: #927 Dark_Falcon

Tell us, I like a good story.

My wife and I went downtown for a dinner date and ended up in the lobby of the Marriott Marquis. It was wall to wall prom couples getting the keys for their rooms. J. Willard would have had a stroke.

I’m not THAT old but I was completely shocked that so many parents would let their kids stay out all night after prom. (I am going to remain naive and assume they didn’t fund the booze and hotel rooms for the kids).

946 KenJen  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:28:43am

re: #942 Ward Cleaver

If the car has a knock sensor, it won’t hurt. The knock sensor will retard the timing to compensate, but it might hurt fuel economy a little bit. What kind of car (year/make/model)? I can look on some online parts sites to see if they list a replacement knock sensor for it.

Its a 1997 Mercedes E320.

947 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:29:04am

re: #944 aggieann

Well, to spell it out … in the post to which I was responding, you wrote, “It’s the equivalent of any business refusing to rent to a black couple, an inter-racial couple, or to jewish couples. They were legally punished— and rightly so.” My response gave two more examples where those who refuse to carry out a service should be legally punished—rightly so.

Oh, in that case we agree. Pharmacists who won’t dispense the morning after pill should be punished. Cabdrivers who won’t pick up a disabled person with a seeing eye dog should be punished.

948 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:29:39am
949 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:30:11am

re: #940 Buck

Nope, premium fuel is a scam.

Depends on the car. My Benz requires premium, but the computer will adjust to accept mid grade, but performance and mileage will suffer. With a pre computer high compression car, you can destroy the engine with pre ignition, holing a piston for example.

950 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:31:02am

Using religious beliefs to deny civil equality to recognized groups in society is a theocratic approach which should have no place in a country which mandates separation of Church and State.

951 avanti  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:32:23am

re: #946 KenJen

Its a 1997 Mercedes E320.

Stick with nothing less then mid grade, but even then, it won’t develop full power and fuel economy under the computer constrains.

952 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:33:56am
953 filetandrelease  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:38:01am

re: #923 legalpad

This woman looks almost exactly like my mother..


That’s nothing. This guy looks just like my mom. (her brother)

954 KenJen  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:38:28am

re: #940 Buck

re: #942 Ward Cleaver

re: #948 Iron Fist

re: #951 avanti

Thanks guys. Have not decided whether to take it. I’m sick of the dogs messing up my car. It would be nice to have something they could trash.

955 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:39:37am

re: #952 buzzsawmonkey

You are engaging in an egregious misread. I spoke of the invention of “homosexuality” and “homosexuals” as a separate subculture as being no more than 130 years old.

You are immediately assuming that with this invention comes inevitably the need to grant some kind of “equal status”—when the first question is whether the invention itself is legitimate.

Kinsey posited a “sexual continuum” running from wholly homosexual to wholly heterosexual, with most people falling somewhere in between—i.e., someone willing to engage in same-sex acts on a situational basis, more or less curious about taking a walk on the wild side now and then, etc. The quality of Kinsey’s research may be questionable, but his description of human behavior as regards the scale seems relatively accurate; it would, for example, explain the widespread practice of pederasty among the ancient Greeks, the homosexual orgies which attended certain idolatrous worship in the ancient world—and even the widespread homosexual behavior among men in Muslim countries.

This means that with the exception of a small hard core of people exclusively interested in homosexual contact, and a small hard core of people exclusively interested in heterosexual contact, the sexual behavior of the vast majority of any society is largely determined by social mores. To put it another way, does one want to alter the social mores so as to encourage homosexual activity or not? For it is, for many people, a choice—just as much as it is a choice to cheat on one’s wife or not. And, if one permits a definition to stand that engaging in a little experimentation makes one “gay”—i.e., changes one’s status to make one part of a subculture which is constantly seeking to expand its demographic definition—then what you are doing under the euphemistic umbrella of “human rights” is totally re-defining the mores of the society.

If that’s what you want to do, it would be nice if you were honest about it. If that’s not what you want to do, maybe you want to reconsider your unthinking acceptance of agenda-driven definitions.

By the way, your year count regarding slavery is also off. The US declared its independence in 1776; the Civil War ended in 1865. Slavery existed in the United States for less than 100 years.

Homosexuality is not an invention.
You admit it is a subculture of 130 years’ standing.
They desrve to be recognized.

956 irongrampa  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:40:59am

re: #933 KenJen

What year is the vehicle?

957 legalpad  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:41:11am

re: #953 filetandrelease

That’s nothing. This guy looks just like my mom. (her brother)

lol

958 irongrampa  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:41:41am

Never mind.

959 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:43:12am
960 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:43:26am

re: #946 KenJen

Its a 1997 Mercedes E320.

According to the site I checked (Rockauto.com), it has two knock sensors (one per cylinder bank), so I think you’d be okay trying regular.

Do you check the gas mileage regularly? I mean, not using a trip computer, but doing it the old fashioned way, making a note of the odometer at each fillup, or resetting a trip odometer each time? If you do, then let the tank run pretty low, then fill it up with regular. Drive it the way you normally do, at least 150 miles (that the minimum to get a valid mileage reading), and check the mileage.

What you’re looking for is whether the savings of switching to regular is offset by the drop in fuel mileage, due to the knock sensors backing off the ignition timing. My guess is the mileage won’t drop that much. Performance (like getting on highway ramps) might suffer a little bit, though. And cars tend to need a little more octane in summer, because of the hot temperatures.

961 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:45:53am

re: #754 Kosh’s Shadow

In Judaism, the tradition is that Sodom was destroyed due to its lack of charity; in fact, charity was forbidden.

I’ve heard quoted a Talmudic story about a lone desert traveler who knocked on the city gates of Sodom and begged for a little food and water — in fact, I think he even had some money to pay for it, but the Sodomites refused to give him anything.

However, one young woman took pity on him, so she set aside her own dinner along with a goatskin of water and when everyone else was asleep, she gave them to the grateful traveler through a crack in the gate, without letting him in.

In other words, she only gave away what was rightfully hers to give, and she was mindful enough to do it in a way that avoided endangering the city (just in case the man was really part of a bandit horde, trying to trick them into opening the gates).

But when the other people of Sodom discovered the girl’s entirely harmless act of mercy, they fell on her as a mob and tore her limb from limb.

Whether this incident actually happened or not, the Talmud tells this story for the purpose of amplifying the message about Sodom’s utter lack of basic human kindness.

962 KenJen  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:56:24am

re: #960 Ward Cleaver

According to the site I checked (Rockauto.com), it has two knock sensors (one per cylinder bank), so I think you’d be okay trying regular.

Do you check the gas mileage regularly? I mean, not using a trip computer, but doing it the old fashioned way, making a note of the odometer at each fillup, or resetting a trip odometer each time? If you do, then let the tank run pretty low, then fill it up with regular. Drive it the way you normally do, at least 150 miles (that the minimum to get a valid mileage reading), and check the mileage.

What you’re looking for is whether the savings of switching to regular is offset by the drop in fuel mileage, due to the knock sensors backing off the ignition timing. My guess is the mileage won’t drop that much. Performance (like getting on highway ramps) might suffer a little bit, though. And cars tend to need a little more octane in summer, because of the hot temperatures.

Ah, didn’t think of factoring in loss of mpg. That’s why I ask Lizards. I just found out the insurance is going to be high. Even for state minimums and my dad said the a/c is out. It’s starting to sound like a money pit.

963 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 10:01:58am

re: #962 KenJen

Ah, didn’t think of factoring in loss of mpg. That’s why I ask Lizards. I just found out the insurance is going to be high. Even for state minimums and my dad said the a/c is out. It’s starting to sound like a money pit.

Oh, you’re about getting this car, and don’t already own it? I would pass. Mercedes-Benzes have had a spotty reliability record in recent years. Pick up something like a Toyota Camry instead.

964 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 10:05:12am

re: #950 Spare O’Lake

Using religious beliefs to deny civil equality to recognized groups in society is a theocratic approach which should have no place in a country which mandates separation of Church and State.

I believe there can be a balance, and that balance has been upset in Massacheusetts, where much-needed services are no longer provided.

some here keep making the claim that an organization that takes “federal” money (i.e., my own money) should not be able to claim a “conscience” provision for certain aspects of the services they perform.

I have not seen any indication that Catholic Charities “takes” federal money; nor do I have information that they do NOT take federal money. I would think that in the interest of fairness, people would not throw out the “taking federal money” aspect of this without some indication that is indeed what happened.

965 sagehen  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 10:06:09am

re: #694 reine.de.tout

In the issue of Catholic Charities and their adoption services - the law REQUIRED that the organization act in a way contrary to the religious beliefs of the organization. There was no “conscience” clause.

And so what is to keep the law from similar infringement on other services provided by the religious organization? Marriage?

That’s a bigger issue than parter benefits from an employer.

And that’s the issue I haven’t seen you address.

Close. It was about state and federal funding.
[Link: www.latimes.com…]


Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state’s gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households — among those most willing to take hard-to-place children — until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church’s religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church’s adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.

How can this be? It’s a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.

**

966 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 10:09:56am

re: #965 sagehen

Close. It was about state and federal funding.
[Link: www.latimes.com…]

Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state’s gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households — among those most willing to take hard-to-place children — until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church’s religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church’s adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.

How can this be? It’s a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.

**

Well that sheds a a great deal of light on it. I was trying to find funding sources for Catholic Charities; in this case, acting as a state contractor, there would be public funding involved, and so the agency would have to do whatever was necessary to get that money (provide the services).

I just found another article that indicated that this is one diocese, and that Catholic charities may indeed be operating elsewhere in Massachusetts.

967 inldad67  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 10:30:26am

A quick question to see if anyone has an answer for me…a friend just told me how he attended a retirement ceremony for a friend.(They are both members of the US Military) When the gentleman retiring received the customary commendations that are given out, a letter of recognition to both the service member and his spouse that are usually included and signed by the President were not included. Does anyone know why Obama is not giving these out to the men and women who have proudly served their country? My friend tells me that he has attended many of these in the past and has personally handed out these awards and there was always 2 letters included from the previous President. Any thoughts?

968 rightside  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 10:36:40am

re: #967 inldad67

I retired from the Navy in March of ‘04, and those had to be requested ahead of time in my case. Although my spouse and children got letters for supporting me, they weren’t signed by the president. My certificate was signed by W.

969 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 10:48:56am

re: #959 buzzsawmonkey

Homosexual behavior is not an invention. It has existed since time immemorial. “Homosexuality” is an invention from the same period that gave use the pseudoscience of eugenics; the pseudoscience of phrenology; the pseudoscience of racial classifications; the pseudoscience of “antisemitism.”

Why should I respect this particular classification any more than those?

Because, as you yourself say, homosexual behaviour has always existed.

You are wrong to think that ‘homosexuality’ construed as an exclusive sexual/romantic preference for the same sex, was only invented 130 years ago. Your own examples give the lie to this notion: this is not how the Greeks perceived homosexuality or pederasty.

You’ve given no reason to think that ‘homosexuality’ as a category is like the pseudosciences of eugenics, racial classifications, or antisemitisim, other than your (incorrect) dating of the category to 130 years ago.

Let’s put it this way: suppose homosexuality as a category DID arise 130 years ago. So what makes it a fake category, apart from sharing the coincidence of timing with the pseudosciences you mention? — lots of REAL sciences would also date categories as arising then, or later: quantum mechanics, genetics, etc.

970 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 11:16:57am

re: #952 buzzsawmonkey

Kinsey posited a “sexual continuum” running from wholly homosexual to wholly heterosexual, with most people falling somewhere in between

Updinged this and also favorited it, as a reminder to myself because I want to revisit this topic on a subsequent open thread.

ID spokesmodel David Klinghoffer, over on his BeliefNet blog, recently brought up this same point — namely that bisexuality is much more common than homosexuality, and this has implications for how society should approach the gay-marriage argument.

While I don’t agree with Klinghoffer on very much, I think that he and BSM are essentially correct in saying that the existence of bi men and women (but bi men especially) makes various gay-rights issues a lot thornier than they would be if there were no such thing as bisexuality, and everyone were either strictly hetero or strictly homo. But more on that later.

971 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 11:17:01am
972 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 11:34:55am

re: #766 iceweasel

Look, we can agree that it’s bad that Catholic Adoption Services in MA were shut down.

Passive voice is a dangerous thing. Catholic Charities bowed itself out of the adoption business in Mass. because they were unwilling to abide by a condition that the state government had set for accrediting adoption agencies — namely, that they be willing to place kids with same-sex couples.

Arguably, this requirement should never have become state law in the first place, but given that it was the law, Catholic Charities clearly didn’t have some sort of inalienable right to be a state-licensed adoption agency. (Because NO institution, religious or otherwise, has an alienable right to be in the adoption business; the state has a legitimate interest in setting conditions and restrictions for such licenses.)

973 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 11:35:41am

re: #970 Throbert McGee

Updinged this and also favorited it, as a reminder to myself because I want to revisit this topic on a subsequent open thread.

ID spokesmodel David Klinghoffer, over on his BeliefNet blog, recently brought up this same point — namely that bisexuality is much more common than homosexuality, and this has implications for how society should approach the gay-marriage argument.

While I don’t agree with Klinghoffer on very much, I think that he and BSM are essentially correct in saying that the existence of bi men and women (but bi men especially) makes various gay-rights issues a lot thornier than they would be if there were no such thing as bisexuality, and everyone were either strictly hetero or strictly homo. But more on that later.

Excellent. I hope I’m around when you revisit that. I’ve some thoughts on it as well, and would love to know yours.

974 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 11:38:26am

re: #972 Throbert McGee

Passive voice is a dangerous thing. Catholic Charities bowed itself out of the adoption business in Mass. because they were unwilling to abide by a condition that the state government had set for accrediting adoption agencies — namely, that they be willing to place kids with same-sex couples.

Arguably, this requirement should never have become state law in the first place, but given that it was the law, Catholic Charities clearly didn’t have some sort of inalienable right to be a state-licensed adoption agency. (Because NO institution, religious or otherwise, has an alienable right to be in the adoption business; the state has a legitimate interest in setting conditions and restrictions for such licenses.)

Agreed. I’ve been correctly chastised.

i often adopt the passive voice on LGF because I am conscious of being in a minority. Sometimes that does damage to the points I’ve expressed, and sometimes even distortion. Thanks!

975 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 11:43:38am
976 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 11:46:14am

re: #971 buzzsawmonkey
What makes it a genuine category? The onus, my friend, is on you to establish that it is one, rather than merely a pseudoscientific classification like all those others that arose at the same time.

Not at all. You ae the one who has made the claim it arose at that time. I have challenged you to provide any reason, apart from timing, to think it is a pseudo category. You have not done so.

The Greeks did not perceive “homosexuality” as a different subculture; all those men who messed around with their young friends also had wives and children. They were not exponents of “gay culture”; homosexual behavior was merely something else they did—a sexual activity which the mores of their society sanctioned along with marriage and family life.

You are quite wrong. If homosexuality is defined as an exclusive romantic/sexual preference for members of one’s own sex, that is indeed what the Greeks practiced, endorsed, celebrated, and encouraged. They treated marriage and relations with women as something they thought of as necessary for the propagation of wealth, political/community connections, and to maintain a family line (i.e., bear children). They did not consider ‘love of a wife’ to be the highest form of love, nor ‘sexual love for a boy’— but rather, the love between two men who are equals.

I’ve not answered your last paragraph, as your misunderstandings about the greeks and about nature/nuture make it unnecessary to do so.

977 Mithrax  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 11:53:50am

re: #285 iceweasel

Take care Mithrax; I’m sorry to hear you have to go to a funeral. Be well.

Well not quite “Go”, more like “celebrate” or “officiate”

and it went well.

978 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:02:18pm
979 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:19:33pm

re: #978 buzzsawmonkey

you seem to think that the ancient Greek culture indulged in marriage and propagation merely as an ugly necessity, and that otherwise it was some sort of gay paradise.

Wrong. I would direct you to the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, and Xenophon— rather than the myths or Homer!— to get a better idea of what the Greeks actually thought and actually practiced. And rather than calling you or your arguments names like “absurd”, I’ll just gently point you to those sources.

Which, again, brings us back to the issue of why one should accept an extremely recent subcultural definition as being in any way more valid than the many other categorical definitions of the same vintage which have since come to be regarded as false—and whether, in the name of the current mania for the fuzzy category known as “human rights,” one should even for a moment consider reorganizing an entire society in response to the plaints of a minority whose own self-definition is constantly in the process of mutation.

Again— my issue is that you’ve done nothing at all to prove that this is an ‘extremely recent subcultural classification”. The opposite.

We’d be better off arguing about gay rights now, don’t you think? Isn’t that the real issue? It’s a mistake to base opposition to it on some shoddy history, is what I’m saying. Better to argue about it from now.

980 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:20:52pm

re: #977 Mithrax

Well not quite “Go”, more like “celebrate” or “officiate”

and it went well.

i’m really glad to hear that.

981 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:27:17pm

re: #978 buzzsawmonkey

BTW, you are right that the greeks certainly acknowledged and had a place for heterosexual romantic love, and also sexual.

But you can’t infer from the Illiad and from the myth of Eurydice and Orpheus that this was the standard— any more than I could infer, 2,500 years later, that Jackie Collins or bridges of madison county tell “the truth” about romantic or sexual love or marriage in the 20th century.

982 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:36:43pm

re: #972 Throbert McGee

Passive voice is a dangerous thing. Catholic Charities bowed itself out of the adoption business in Mass. because they were unwilling to abide by a condition that the state government had set for accrediting adoption agencies — namely, that they be willing to place kids with same-sex couples.

Arguably, this requirement should never have become state law in the first place, but given that it was the law, Catholic Charities clearly didn’t have some sort of inalienable right to be a state-licensed adoption agency. (Because NO institution, religious or otherwise, has an alienable right to be in the adoption business; the state has a legitimate interest in setting conditions and restrictions for such licenses.)

Thank you, Throbert, you seem to have the most “balanced” take on this here (possibly even more so than mine). And you are correct, CC took themselves out of the business; and I am convinced (my opinion only), that no good came of this.

983 iceweasel  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:44:44pm

re: #982 reine.de.tout

Thank you, Throbert, you seem to have the most “balanced” take on this here (possibly even more so than mine). And you are correct, CC took themselves out of the business; and I am convinced (my opinion only), that no good came of this.

Reine— I have to say that I think everyone can agree that one less (good) agency finding homes for kids is a bad thing.
I think we all agree on that, and I’d never denigrate you for saying that.

984 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:31:21pm

re: #983 iceweasel

Reine— I have to say that I think everyone can agree that one less (good) agency finding homes for kids is a bad thing.
I think we all agree on that, and I’d never denigrate you for saying that.

And there we have my biggest issue with this, even if I did not express it well earlier.

Surely some way could have been found to resolve the problem without having to lose the services to the people of that area.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
4 hours ago
Views: 45 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 161 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1