Overnight Open Thread
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?
— Albert Einstein
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?
— Albert Einstein
1 | freetoken Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:32:08pm |
If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn’t need LGF.
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 |
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 knewwhat we were doingthat men wouldn’t do evil, we wouldn’t needLGFthe 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?
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.
18 | Pvt Bin Jammin Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:53:36pm |
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.
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?
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 |
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.
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.
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!
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 |
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 |
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.
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.
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 |
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
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 |
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.
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:
83 | Gus Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:43:19am |
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.
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 |
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.
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 |
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 |
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?
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.
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 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! :-)
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 |
re: #150 iceweasel
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 |
163 | jewpublican Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:21:18am |
hello world.
:)
is anybody as upset about billy mays passing as i am?
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
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.
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
ayour 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!
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. ;-)
186 | TheMatrix31 Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:38:37am |
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?
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!
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 ;)
195 | littleoldlady Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:45:22am |
‘Night, gmsc! :-)
/great find!
//you’re too young to remember that! ;-)
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.
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.
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 |
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.
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 MeasureMaybe 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
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!
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 ;_;
226 | spinmore Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:47:53am |
re: #225 mamacares
Morning (young lizard offers up dead cricket)
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.
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.
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 |
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?
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 |
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 |
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.
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.
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.
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 |
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.
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.
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.
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 |
A view over the greater Los Angeles area.
Good morning all.
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!
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 |
330 | BlueCanuck Mon, Jun 29, 2009 5:57:53am |
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 |
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 withseafood?
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 |
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.
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 |
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 |
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.
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.
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 |
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 |
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
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’.
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 |
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 |
479 | Fat Bastard Vegetarian Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:08:18am |
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:
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!
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 |
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 |
505 | NJDhockeyfan Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:16:37am |
re: #480 SecondComing
Probably. He’s “deeply concerned” about everything:
You said it…here’s another one:
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:
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.
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 |
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.
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.?
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 |
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 |
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 |
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.
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.
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.
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 |
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.
582 | NJDhockeyfan Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:39:35am |
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.?
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
590 | NJDhockeyfan Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:42:14am |
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 |
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.
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.
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
656 | MandyManners Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:03:44am |
re: #610 Occasional Reader
I doubt it. Clear 1st Amendment “free exercise” violation.
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 |
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.
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?
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 |
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
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.
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=1-1They 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 |
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.
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 |
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:
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. §2000e 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 |
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
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 |
745 | Cygnus Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:28:44am |
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 particularRead 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 |
Here lizards, is where you can wish congratulations to the happy engaged couple!
Wedding gifts can be purchased at the Zionist Mall.
Heh.
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.
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.
768 | Nevergiveup Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:34:45am |
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 |
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
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.
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 JohnDid I just say that? Criminy! I was a fan!
No no no!
It’s “Candle in the ______”… fill in the blank.
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
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 |
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.’
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?
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.
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.
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 |
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 |
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
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)
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.
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 |
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.
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.
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.
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 |
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.
957 | legalpad Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:41:11am |
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.
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!
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.
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.