| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/26 |
| 2005/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37856 Activity:nil |
5/27 Not all republicans are anti-stem-cell... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/politics/25stem.html?pagewanted=all |
| 2005/5/27-31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:37854 Activity:low |
5/27 Spiderman will make you gay, film at 11
http://www2.b3ta.com/spidermanwillmakeyougay -John
\_ Oooooollllllldddd.
\_ you must be gay by now then eh?
\_ Ohmy, he's so gay.
\_ On a related note - dim sum girl:
http://www.jadedemerald.com |
| 2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:37739 Activity:high |
5/18 Dear German Nazi historian buffs. I've always wondered about this.
Did the Nazis ever tolerate gays and lesbians? Did they ship them to
concentration camps, or they had a don't ask don't tell policy?
\- er who do you think came up with the Pink Triangle. lesbos were
sent to the eastern front.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gays_during_the_Holocaust
"In 2002 the German government released an official apology to
the gay community." I'm still waiting for the Japs to apologize
to gay Chinese men.
\_ What did the Japanese do to gay Chinese men in particular that's
not done to Chinese men in general? I've never heard about this.
\_ They forced them to serve as comfort men to gay Japanese
soldiers in the Pacific. -John
\_ Source, John. --erikred
\_ I don't think he's being serious, guy.
\_ Source, guy. --erikred
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard
\_ Early on, the Nazi's welcomed gays, or at least tolerated them.
The leader of the Brown Shirts, Eric Rohm, was gay. During the SS
purge of the SA (Brown Shirts) they killed him and one of the stated
reasons was his moral degeneracy (code name for being gay). Soon
after that they went into full on gay hating mode. |
| 2005/5/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37628 Activity:nil |
5/11 Die liberals die! Nuke all Muslims and cure all homosexuals! I'm George Bush, and I approved this message. |
| 2005/5/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37598 Activity:kinda low |
5/9 Can this be happening? Fox News reports gay/straight men's brain
responses differ. "It is one more piece of evidence ... that is
showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said an expert
on brain anatomy. I'd expect this to be on CBS news, but it is coming
from a source that is suppose to assert that there is no global
warming, that there is WMD, and most importantly that gayness is a
choice (totally curable via religion). What's happening to Fox News?
\_ Maybe if you watched Fox News sometime instead of just hearing
about it from your moonbat friends, you wouldn't be so
confused.
\_ How is this moonbat? I thought one of the main arguments
against fundie nutcase "keep the homos away from our children"
frothing was that "you don't become gay, you are gay." That
would imply a difference, no? -John
\_ Huh? I was just saying that, for the most part, Fox just
reports news. So it's not really a surprise when they...
report news. The editorial shows are where things get
wacky.
\_ Yes. However Fox blurs the line between editorial and news.
They advertise their editorial aggressively during prime
time or whenever there's plain news. Then they make a
smooth transition from news to editorial, and do it so
well that average Joe's don't even realize they've stopped
watching news. Unlike other news they don't even
call their editorial "opinion" or "editorial." They call
it Talking Points, The Asman Observer, etc, and then
tag the word "The most watched news, fair and balanced."
Lastly, even when they present news from regular sources
like AP, they re-word it in ways that fit in their model.
For example, whereas CNN/NBC/ABC would say "Bush Visits
Iraq", Fox would say "Bush Spread The Word of Freedom in
the Middle East." It's subtle and hard to detect when you
only read one news source, but you can definitely see
it when you start reading a diverse source of news.
Lastly, during editorial, they stick in good looking men
like Brit Humes to represent one side, and then a small
weakly Colmes boy to represent the other, and call their
entire network "Fair and Balanced." This is fine because
other broadcasters do it as well, but at least they don't
advertise it as Fair and Balanced, because that's BS. No
news source is ever fair and balanced.
\_ Are you kidding? Is there any news source that doesn't
claim it's fair and balanced regardless of reality?
\_ I haven't seen CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN advertise that
they are fair and balanced. Please provide a
link. -tom
\_ I don't recall having seen CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN
admit that they are biased. Please provide a
link. -jrleek
\_ Read it again; pp said they all "claim to be
fair and balanced." That's a positive
assertion for which proof should be available.
(If true.) -tom
\_ Plenty of news sources wear their bias on their
sleves. La Repubblica is the official Communist
Party organ in Italy, for example. It is much
less common in the US, granted. |
| 2005/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, ERROR, uid:37549, category id '18005#8.55875' has no name! , ] UID:37549 Activity:nil |
05/05 What's the Matter with Liberals?
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17982 |
| 2005/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:37405 Activity:nil |
4/28 Liberal clothing store: http://www.outspokenclothing.com/catalog.php \_ Ha ha I was a gay hooker at the White House and all I got was this lousy press pass -- that's pretty good. |
| 2005/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:37396 Activity:nil |
4/28 Want to date hot big boob nice face great body Southern Republican
Belles and maybe even convert them to liberals? Now it's easier than
ever! http://www.google.com/search?q=dating+republican
Click on top 2 sponsored links (Conservative Match), or links to the
right (Conservative Singles, Republican Meet People). Check them
out, some of them are REALLY HOT (unlike our studios, mal-nutrient,
non-blond Berkeley women). No wonder they are out-reproducing
us evil moralless vegan gay/les-loving liberals.
\_ Is Conservative Singles (http://www.OtherSingles.com really for
conservatives? Looking at the way those women post, they don't look
like conservatives.
\_ Conservative Match requires membership.
\_ I wouldn't mind. But how much do they donate to the GOP?
\_ Salon/Nerve girls are much cuter. |
| 2005/4/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37358 Activity:kinda low 52%like:36226 |
4/25 So what was the gay male prostitute doing at the White House
on those overnight stays? Why is the press not reporting this?
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/secret_service_gannon_424.htm
\_ Because this is old news that Jon Stewart covered weeks ago.
\_ Weeks ago we hadn't heard that he bypassed usual sign in/out
procedures...
\_ Because the press is owned by Fox, Bush, and affiliates.
\_ Because no one cares?
\_ Because the Gannon was performing his day job on various "members"
\_ Because Gannon was performing his day job on various "members"
of the press at those times?
\_ A couple of the instances, there were no press conferences. |
| 5/26 |
| 2005/4/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37242 Activity:very high |
4/18 Am I a conservative or a liberal? I'm actually quite confused.
I don't believe in war for ANY reason (liberal), and I don't believe
in gay marriage (conservative). I do I believe in separation of church
and state (somewhat liberal), and that religious text like Intelligent
Design should be taken out of public schools (very liberal). On the
other hand, I also believe in smaller, more efficient government
(conservative), and at the same time they should provide more public
infrastructures for us, like better roads, more redundant power grids,
equal education across States, etc (liberal). I think SS and housing
projects should go away, and let low-lives learn how to be productive
members of society (conservative). I do however support better public
education and opportunity so that there will be less need for SS and
housing projects (conservative). I don't mind more taxes, in fact, I'd
delight in seeing a pre-Reagan tax rate (liberal) as long as there is
a lot more accountability in the government. I totally support in
programs that strengthen family values, like going to church or
community centers (conservative), but not at the cost of public
funding (liberal). So what am I, a liberal or a conservative?
\_ "Smaller" and "more efficient" are two separate parts. When R's
say "smaller" (at least in the last 30 years) they mean less
regulation, not necessarily less in outlays (and usually exactly
the opposite). They also most definitely do not mean "more
efficient". These stands are indeed "conservative" values, but
they are rarely expressed by R's.
\_ Neither, you're what's known as the "typical American", who
is a moderate.
\_ The typical american is real dumb, with an IQ around 100.
\_ precisely.
\_ you're just a wuss
\_ Sloppy with your labeling.
\_ So when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, you would have just ... uh,
what would you have done?
I think what you meant to say was, "I believe war is always morally
wrong, but it's at times necessary as a last resort, such as when
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor."
\_ Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!
\_ You are, for the most part, socially moderate and economically
conservative =~ libertarian.
\_ except that he wants high(er) taxes.
\_ I agree: Wanting less waste in government, while being for
higher taxes spent wisely makes him moderate. However,
wanting to get rid of social security pushes him to the Dark
^H^H^H^H^conservative side.
\_ I don't know anyone who is for less "efficient" government spending
except the politicians who favor pork barrel spending to keep their
jobs.
\_ Until Democrats work "more efficient government" into their
platform, this property is squarely in conservative-land.
Sorry, that's just public perception - I'm not really disagreeing
with you.
This is especially true now that Dubya has begun real
implementation of performance-based pay in the area of "cushy
government jobs".
\_ Don't you remember Al Gore's "re-inventing government"
initiative? He made some headway with it, too, but I guess
he didn't get any credit.
\_ you forget he invented the INTERNET
\_ Actually he wrote the bill to fund APRAnet. The big
"I invented the Internet" Lie never happened, and
would have been mostly true if it had. Take a
contrast with the Goerge Bush whopper to take credit
for the Texas Patients' bill of rights, which was
passed over his veto. He got a pass from the press
on that one...liberal media my ass
\_ I like how even in this age of unprecedented
communication and recording, something like this
so easily becomes folklore and fact, yet people
have no problem believing ancient religious texts.
\_ do you believe in civil unions, then that makes you
moderate-liberal on the gay marriage issue. As someone
moderate on the gay marriage issue. As someone
pointed out above, everyone would like more efficient
government. As for "smaller government," you need to
decide which you value more: that or "public infra-
structure, ... education, ... funding." If the latter, then
overall, you are on the liberal side concerning the "size
of government." Liberals also believe in "family values,
... church, ... community centers." The only issue above
that is a firmly conservative value is your dismissal of
"SS and housing projects." Given that, I would say you
are a moderate liberal. A lot of what you believe to be
"conservative" values that you listed are actually
media distortions that make you think "liberals"
don't approve. For the current US political situation,
it would seem that Democrats are the party of smaller government.
\_ What happened to the party of 80 character columns?
\_ fixed. |
| 2005/4/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:37178 Activity:nil |
4/13 Conservatives are getting more aggressive at attacking gays:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/04/13/dueling.days.ap
\_ Yay! A day to celebrate the stigmatization and ostracization of
gay high school students by their peers! Why didn't I think of
that? Can I start "Day of the Mean Jock" to celebrate all the times
I got beat up in high school for being a computer dork? |
| 2005/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Reference/Religion] UID:37083 Activity:high |
4/5 Terri's funeral was last night. Her family wasn't allowed to have any
of the ashes, or even a lock of her hair. Michael of course cremated
her immediately and didn't allow a Catholic funeral or burial.
[I'll keep reposting as you keep deleting]
\_ No, no bias here! Nossir! None at all! TOTALLY OBJECTIVE!
\_ The only thing not objective is the "of course".
\_ Yep, he truly "loved" her.
\_ What does love have to do with those decisions?
\_ Why is this any of your business?
\_ Why is anything any of your business? -!pp
\_ Lots of things affect me directly or indirectly. These
things are my business. This is a personal and private
issue between family members and the people who are
intruding are rude and morbid, imnsho.
\_ "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a
piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be
washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if
a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's
or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never
send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."
\- ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for terri.
\_ The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth.
\_ If they're not Catholic, why should they have a catholic funeral?
\_ Terri was Catholic.
\_ So was I. People change, swear off organized religion
entirely.
\_ What is the evidence that she did this?
\_ Uhm, she married an undevout Lutheran, maybe?
\_ If I die, I rather be cremated. I dont want put myself in box and
have the bugs eaten my body.
\_ Your English needs work. but, why do you care if bugs eat your
corpse? You're dead! I guess it means future anthropologists
can't dig up your old bones or fossils. Personally, assuming
I live to old age I'll look into the cryogenic shit. Why not.
I KEEP MOVING THIS INTO THE PROPER PLACE IT BELONGS UP HERE
\_ Smart choice. Now he won't have to go through all the bullshit
in the future when her family and Congress decide the doctor
performing the autopsy was liberal, or gay, or pro-choice or had
the wrong color hair or who knows and they need to exhume the body
to prove she actually had an IQ of 210 right before they pulled
the feeding tube. If I was in his shoes I would do anything to
bring closure to 15 years of this garbage.
\_ Your English needs work. but, why do you care if bugs eat your
corpse? You're dead! I guess it means future anthropologists
can't dig up your old bones or fossils. Personally, assuming
I live to old age I'll look into the cryogenic shit. Why not.
\_ Is she brain dead now? No, not yet, run more tests, file suits.
\_ If you thought Terri's parents have been total assholes, especially
in the last couple months, maybe you'd do the same thing. |
| 2005/3/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36821 Activity:moderate |
3/23 Mother arrested for attempting to intervene
in her 14-year old's decision to have abortion
http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=23788
\_ Yeah, let's protect family values by letting 14-year-old rape
victims have children! -tom
\_ Yeah, let's protect family values by allowing non-relations
to take 14 year olds out of school, and disallow them from
speaking with their parents! -jrleek
\_ Sorry, "family values" isn't the Democratic party line.
\_ Perhaps it should be. They've lost the last three elections.
\_ well, no they haven't. -tom
While how this was done may not have been totally appropriate,
the result is certainly better than the alternative. -tom
\_ Perhaps it should be. They've lost the last three elections.
\_ well, no they haven't. -tom
\_ well, no they haven'T. -tom
\_ And you're deluded if you think "family values" is
is the reason for that.
\_ Wow, you must be reading a different article where
they describe in deatil what the alternitives were.
-jrleek
\_ you're right; one alternative would be to send her
moronic parents to somewhere godforsaken like Utah;
that probably would have been a better alternative.
-tom
\_ I don't think you understand the case.
\_ Are you responding to tom? It's hard to tell.
\_ Hard-core liberal (tom) vs. hard-core conservative (jrleek) fight
round 1!
\_ tom and jrleek, I'd like to hear from 2 very different perspectives
as I don't have any opinion on this. What is your opinion on the
idea of Federalism, where you move a lot of the government powers
to individual States, or even counties. For example, a system where
people in the Bay Area can have abortion, gay marriage, etc, and
where people in Utah can go to jail for abortion, gay marriage, etc.
In another word, do you believe in one government for all, or do
you think Federalism has merits? -a curious moderate w/no opinion
\_ I would be more interested in California (or just the Bay Area)
seceding. The idea of the US as an entity dilutes if the laws
are totally different in every state. -tom
\_ According to the Christian World View Weekend web site
(http://www.worldviewweekend.com/test/register.php it is more
sinfull to have no opinion on abortion (-2 points) than it is to
to think abortion is ok (-1 points). Try it! !tom !jrleek
\_ The problem being the people wanting to travel to the 'less
restrictive' states to get away from laws in the 'more
restrictive ones.' What's to stop them? Fencing in the
citizens of the more restrictive states?
\_ I already escape to Las Vegas so that I can legally gamble my
life savings away and live in a life of debauchery for a few
days before I become broke, and I'm sure I'm not the only one
doing it.
\_ The concept of states rights doesn't mean that the states have
the abs. right to create any laws that they want. What laws
they do create must be consistent w/ the constitution. In the
instances that you cite, there may be greater federal interests
in consistency btwn the states than in allowing the states to
make their own rules. BTW, in terms of criminal law the system
does largely operate the way that you describe, almost every
state has a different set of rules for most serious crimes. |
| 2005/3/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36751 Activity:moderate |
3/18 gay marriage people, i liked the following:
http://csua.org/u/bey (sfgate.com) - danh
\_ uh, so how many gay people find this funny? I mean, do Polish
people think Polish jokes are funny?
\_ Wow. idiocy reigns supreme |
| 2005/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36729 Activity:nil |
3/16 Homosexual birds (Yahoo News): http://tinyurl.com/696dp |
| 2005/3/15-16 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36697 Activity:very high |
3/15 A few months ago, the East Bay Express had an excellent article
profiling six same-sex couples who got married during the time SF
was issuing licenses.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2004-10-13/news/feature_1.html.
If you can read this article and still oppose gay marriage, you have
no soul. These are human beings, just trying to live their lives.
-tom
\_ I hate gays because they have subverted so many English words like
"gay". And "fruity". And "queer". Fucking homos.
"gay". And "fruity". And "queer". And "pirate". Fucking homos.
\_ I thought it was my fellow het's who did this. ashamed. --het
\_ I can probably find equally convincint stories about father/daughter
brother/sister mother/son.
\_ if they can share the pain of going thru child birthing together
then okay..
\_ i guess couples with fertility problems are not okay.
\_ or couples over age of 60.
\_ Ah, tom. Always the paragon of tolerance. "If you don't agree
with me, you have no soul!"
\_ Ah, anonymous coward with the ad hominem attack. Did you read
the article? -tom
\_ I read it when it came out. I never said if I was for or
against gay marriage did I? I'm just pointing out that
your statement is stupid on it's face. BTW, that's not
ad hominem.
\_ There is something karmic about an obvious grammar error in
a clause which begins with "your statement is stupid". -tom
\_ Same sex marriage always results in the Best Motd
Discussions.
\_ Dude, someone just called tom a "stupid face". Apparently
the CSUA is allowing junior high school students to join.
\_ So, your whole argument is "tom sux." Could you just post that
and save us all the drama? --erikred
\_ tom, why are you wasting your time convincing us that same sex
marriage is not evil? Almost everyone on motd is liberal and
tolerate same sex marriage. The exception would be the religious
Christians and Mormons, and you can't possibly convert them. So
why waste your time. -evil satanic liberal who agrees with tom
\_ BTW, Mormons are Christians. -emarkp
\_ Only Mormons think this.
\_ Oh, Mormons are Christians...they're just wrong.
-Snide Catholic Troll
\_ Now that's more like it. -emarkp
\_ Sign your name troll. -emarkp (And this is a false
statement you're trolling with.)
\_ It's a false statement to you because you are
Mormon. Do any non-Mormons think this?
\_ I work with several non-Mormon Christians in my
office, and they have told me that they consider me a
Christian. Since we talk about the Bible and Christ
as a group a lot, I'm not surprised. -emarkp
\_ I posted it because it is the best portrayal of the reality
of the issue that I've seen; that gays are not trying to subvert
the institution of marriage, or overthrow society, but are just
trying to enjoy some of the same rights that the rest of us
take for granted. And that one of those rights is the right
to get "married," not "civil unionized." I think there are
still reasonable people who believe that gay marriage is not
OK but civil unions are; I think that's a cop-out position.
[For the record, I'm neither gay nor married.] -tom
\_ Remarkably, I don't think gays are "trying to subvert the
institution of marriage, or overthrow society." But the
argument "they're just trying to get the same rights as
everyone else" avoids debate and trivializes the issue. It's
the equivalent of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"--just the
other side of the issue. -emarkp
\_ I don't see your point. They *are* just trying to get the
same rights as everyone else. How is that avoiding
debate or trivializing the issue? I think the issue is
totally fundamental. -tom
\_ I've heard that "Adam and Steve" crap since I was a little
kid at the Christian school I went to. You are a fucking
bigot Mark.
\_ Huh? Try re-reading the post. He says that's a
stupid thing to say. Sheesh.
\_ Wow! pp really hates gay marriage! emarkp says
the phrase about "Adam and Steve" is dumb, and this
guy calls him a bigot! Bravo!
\_ Bad comparison (my fault). The typical response is that
they do have the same rights as anyone else. A gay man
can marry a woman just like a straight man can. Now
can we both agree that your statement and this
counterstatement are equally useless? -emarkp
\_ No we can't. The response is a stupid response.
As was mentioned before the argument could be
rephrased to deny mixed race (for the commonly
used version of race) marriages because then
everyone has the same rights, the right to marry
a member of the same race.
\_ I concur. -tom
\_ But then the pro-SSM side argument can be disputed
by pointing out that not everyone else can marry.
We have restrictions on who can marry left and
right (close relatives, adults/minors, etc.).
-emarkp
\_ So the debate is more Pro: "Gays
should have the same rights as heteros."
Anti: "No they shouldn't." The problem
when put in those terms it is hard for the
Anti side to keep pretending it isn't being
prejudiced, and so the anti side conviently
tries to pretend there are other issues at
stake. Embrace your true nature and just
admit that you don't think gay people deserve
the same rights as everyone else.
\_ They do have the same rights. I can't marry
someone of my own gender and neither can
they.
\_ Hello Mr. Trees, you seemed to have
missed the forest for yourself. -dans
\_ I used to think this argument was just
hypothetical. But I forgot that Mormons
actually hold out hope that they can marry
their brothers/sisters, have sex with their
daughters, etc. So, good point emarkp.
\_ Woo! Where would we be without the
clueless anti-mormon troll?
\_ The response is not stupid. The comparison
btwn gay marriage and mix-race marriage is
flawed. The denial of marriage rights to a
mix-race couple was based on a false concept
of race. The denial of marriage rights to
gays is not based on any such false concept.
Gays want more rights than other people in
society and there is no compelling reason
to grant them these rights.
\_ What more rights? You will have the
right to marry the same sex as well.
And mix-race marriages were illegal because
it was against the laws of nature. We don't
do that sort of thing. Ick! Oh my god
that is wrong and an abomination. That is
for the same reason you oppose gay marriage.
\_ You really don't understand the
arugment do you?
My opposition to gay marriage has
nothing to do with the law of
nature (by these I'm assuming you
mean something like maxwell's laws
or the uncertainty principle,
which couldn't care less whether
a person is gay or not).
My opposition to gay marriage is
based on the fact that there is
no basis on which to claim that
these people have been denied a
right that all other people w/
their same real characteristics
have. (Mixed-race is irrelevant
to the discussion b/c race is
not a real characteristic, please
go read some human evolutionary
studies, if you think that race
is really a true concept).
If two gay people are allowed
to marry, then why should a
schizophrenic not be able to
marry herself and claim a dual
tax deduction? What about a
person and his imaginary best
friend?
BTW, I don't want more rights,
I'm perfectly happy w/ the rights
I have.
\_ including, apparently, the right to
be a complete fucking moron. -tom
\_ If anyone but tom had posted this, it would have slid by with
no comment. Oh, wait, ilyas, John, and emarkp have their
tormenters as well.
\_ And funny enough, I don't think any of "us" take them at all
seriously. Frankly, I'm a bit worried about both ChiCom
Troll and heil cherman john guy--I hope they're ok, I haven't
seen them around. After all, an integral part of being a
responsible troll farmer is paying good attention to your pet
trolls' well-being! That said, I think both ilyas and
emarkp are occasionally full of shit, but there seems to be
an interesting tendency for people who stand behind their
arguments and who sign their names to attract morons.. -John
\_ And speaking of motd regulars, where's BDG to rant for half
a screen about how gay marriage will allow gay people to
ruin the lives of other gay people?
\_ I discovered you are actually a closet commie, so I no
longer troll you - Chicom Troll
\_ Well, there's a price to be paid for being a consistent
asshole. I don't give a shit about tom being a fag. I have
fags for friends. tom's just an asshole. If I ever met him
I'd pound his face into the street, clear and simple.
Being a gay misanthrope doesn't excuse him of anything.
\_ I'm usually the last one to say this, but post your
name, tough guy. --erikred
\_ use kchang's intellicrap.
\_ the what? what does it do?
\_ blames ilyas for everything.
\_ This is pretty funny. Run it through b1ff for it to be
taken extra-serious! -John
\_ Vell, zeere's a preece-a tu be-a peeed fur beeeng a
cunseestent esshule-a. I dun't geefe-a a sheet ebuoot tum
beeeng a feg. I hefe-a fegs fur freeends. tum's joost un
esshule-a. Iff I ifer met heem I'd puoond hees fece-a intu
zee street, cleer und seemple-a. Beeeng a gey
meesunthrupe-a duesn't ixcoose-a heem ooff unytheeng.
\_ I don't oppose same-sex civil unions, but I think marriage
is a religious institution and should not be in the dominion
of the government. A priest can already 'marry' two gay
people. We're talking about the government, in which case
I think 'marriage' is the wrong term to use. --dim
\_ In which case, we should abolish the use of the term
"marriage" in any secular description of a contractual
binding of two consenting adults. Go ahead and start that
movement, then report back on how that works for you.
\_ Well, then failing that I am opposed to using the
term 'marriage' to describe same-sex unions. |
| 2005/3/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36686 Activity:moderate |
3/14 FYI, don't forget: Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts.
A gay or lesbian married couple can file jointly for the MA state tax
return, but that same couple can't file jointly for the federal tax
return (Defense of Marriage Act, 1996, signed by Bubba). Also, a gay
or lesbian partner won't have death-of-spouse Social Security benefits,
unlimited marriage gifting, or all the other federal tax/SS benefits.
\_ Do'h! I already forgot. What was that again?
\_ http://tinyurl.com/5ofuh
\_ Dem gays are already gettin' MARRIED!
\_ This gay marriage thing sounds pretty good. If all the gay guys
get married and don't reproduce, w/in a few generations we won't
have any of the buggers around to bother us. Gay women, now that
is another story...
\_ You are more brilliant than the lovechild of Hawking and Einstein
\_ We don't need a few generations, we just need lots of gay
guys and no gay women. Soda brothers, we have hope now! |
| 2005/3/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36685 Activity:low |
3/14 In the Gay Marriage post, it doesn't mention this was a ruling by a
county judge. And the article mentions 13 states last year passed
state amendments that banned gay marriage. I thought it was 11. Which
are the 13 states?
\_ Yerright - the judgment was made by a San Francisco Superior Court
judge. It's expected to be appealed all the way to the California
Supreme Court, but until then, gay marriage is nazi'd. |
| 2005/3/14-15 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36682 Activity:very high |
3/14 The argument for gay marriage is that it's their own business and
doesn't affect anyone else, since its private matter between
two grown up adults and they have the rights to choose how
they live. But why does the argument breaks down for other
things that both party agrees to, like marriage/sex with a
minor, hiring someone to kill myself (doctor, give me the
death pill)? It seems if we allow gay marriage, then we should
not ban other types of marriage as well, as long as both party
are ok with it, such as multiple marriages, father/daughter,
mother/son, brothers/sisters, humans and animals, etc. Any
thoughts? Just because gay people are on TV doesn't make it
more 'right' than any of the other banned marriage types.
\_ Not to mention the fraud implications of instituting gay
marriage...
\_ uh, what?
\_ uh, think about it?
\_ uh, what?
\_ you can't be that dumb.
\_ Part of marriage is consent, and legally being able to enter into
a contract -- children and animals cannot give consent. Polygamy
is a more grey area but it can be argued that divorce situations
would become too difficult to resolve. The real solution is for
the government to get out of marriage altogether and just issue
civil unions, with only churches being able to marry people. The
civil unions give you all the legal rights marriage does today,
while the churches have the right to grant marriage to only those
they deem fit. And this argument isn't that persuasive anyhow,
for the simple reason that saying "giving rights to group X means
we'll have to give it to group Y" doesn't mean group X shouldn't
get said rights. Does "If we give black people the right to sit
at whites-only lunch counters, that means we'll have to let horses
and sheep in as well" make any sense?
\_ yes you are right, giving various rights to married woman and
man doesn't mean we have to give similar "rights" to garried
man and man.
\_ Except there are very good reasons to let men marry men
and women marry women, just like there are very good reasons
to let black people sit at whites-only lunch counters.
\_ Pray tell, what are these good reasons?
Racial segregation was based on the false
premise that there were "races", whereas
the denial of marriage rights to gays is
not based on any such false premise.
\_ The good reasons are obvious to anyone but a bigoted
moron. Two men or women in a long-term committed
relationship deserve visitation rights, survivorship
rights, etc. -tom
\_ Go man! Thanks for fighting for my right to enter a marriage with
my lovely sister!
\_ Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of a
healthy society tested over thousands of years. Other forms
of unions like father daughter, gay men, etc. are not.
Hire a lawyer and draw up your own legal documents if you want,
just don't call it marriage.
\_ Not to mention the inevitable consequences of evolution,
extinction.
\_ Yes, since once gay marriage is legal, hetero marriage will
become illegal -- And the world's population is already
shrinking at an alarming pace.
\_ The world's population is shrinking???
\_ Your sarcasm detector is in need of repair
\_ Your claim about history is simply not true. -tom
\_ Really? Prove it.
\_ How about we say a civil union can be between a man and a woman,
or a couple of the same sex -- all other laws about bigamy and
incest still applying. Then good Christian churches in San
Francisco can call civial unions between gays and lesbians
marriage, and you can retain your right to not call such civil
unions marriage.
\_ A dog is a dog. A cat is a cat. you can try
calling a dog a cat, but it's still a dog and
everyone will think you are an idiot.
\_ your troll-fu is weak!
\_ You do realize not all the rights of a married couple can
be solved with a legal contract don't you? For instance
I can't file my taxes as a married couple (just one of
many examples.) Oh and metal protests to the contrary you
many examples.) Oh and mental protests to the contrary you
a bigot and a homophobe. Have a nice day.
\_ you should ask the question why there should be such
a relationship called marriage that allows two people
to file a joint tax return in the first place.
\_ One of many rights. One of the most obvious because
everyone does taxes every year so they are aware of the
laws. Not everyone has to deal with, say, custody battles
every year. Or medical emergencies. Etc etc. And if
you want to get rid of marriage altogether, well, I
wish you luck. I'm not sure it is a good idea but
if you can make a compelling reason for there to be
no "special couple (or group?)" rights at all, then
by all means convince me. That's another conversation.
\_ what I mean is that there are reasons why we attach
various legal rights and responsibilities to
marriage (the one between a woman and a man).
Those reasons no longer apply when it's
garriage.
\_ joint tax return and partner benefits should be
100% applicable to gay marriage. Why wouldn't they
be? -tom
\_ I don't think you understood what I was saying.
\_ Then perhaps you should explain it better.
All you did was make an assertion. -tom
\_ you're an idiot. -Tom
\_ Genocide, slavery, discrimination, religious persecution, etc.,
have been part of history for thousands of years as well.
\_ you got the "thousands of years" part, but you forgot the
"foundation" part.
\_ That can be argued
\_ Not supporting gay marriage is in no way comparable to
these things. Please tell me how the rights of a gay
man (or woman) have been abridged.
A gay man has the same rights as any other man to marry
any woman he choses. Similarly a gay woman can marry
any man she choses. Gays and non-gays have the same
exact set of rights.
What gays are asking for is EXTRA rights above and
beyond what the average person is entitled to. What
is so special about them that requires that we give
them something which all other people do not have?
It is not as if they are blind or deaf or cripple,
or were formerly treated as chattel. Why should a
person's private choices about their lifestyle
entitle them to EXTRA public rights?
Now if you want to tell me about sex-change people,
then perhaps I can agree that these people may have
less rights.
\_ And when mixed race marriages were illegal everyone
had the exact same rights, they were allowed to
marry someone of the same race. Gee why all the fuss?
\_ The issue of mixed race marriage is wholly
different than that of gay marriage b/c
there is really no such thing as separate
races. To abridge the rights of a person
based on a false characteristic violates
the fundamental principle of equality.
Unless you are willing to claim that gender
is a false characteristic, look elsewhere.
NOTE: I don't care what gay people do w/
their lives and I think that it is wrong
to discriminate in hiring, &c. based on
the fact that a person is gay (or watches
B5 instead of Star Trek).
\_ There is no such thing as separate races? Next thing
you'll tell me is gays are human beings!
\_ There is no such thing as separate races?
Next thing you'll tell me is gays are human
beings!
\_ That there cannot be separate races
is obvious from evolutionary theory
and has been generally confirmed by
genetic studies. There is also no
doubt that gays are human beings.
So what? It leaves unchanged the
idea that the private choices of
some people ought to create some
extra right for them.
\_ I think if the current trend continues, assisted suicide will
eventually become legal. So are polygamy and father/daughter, etc.
if the laws can be modified such that the involved people can sign
declarations like "I hereby declare that I only deserve one third
the right of being the wife to Mr. X" or "We hereby irrevokably
sever our relationship as brother/sister" so as to avoid legal
nightmare. But marriage/sex with a minor or an animal will probably
never pass, since a minor or an animal can't give consent.
\_ you're an idiot. -tom
\_ That's such an insightful comment tom!
\_ It's insightful because it is true
\_ I agree with tom. -!tom
\- Hola, if you are interested in one perspective on the
history of homosexuals in "christendom", you may wish
to read John Boswell of Yale (dead?). He has at least
two books on the subject:
http://csua.org/u/bcs
http://csua.org/u/bct
\_ If a man marries a man and a woman marries a woman, they
will become extinct. If for thousands of years the
foundation has been based on that, human race will be
extinct. It's not the way nature intended it to be. I am
certainly not advocating we kill them all, like we do when
chickens and cows catch a disease, but it is a 'problem'.
It especially sickens me when gay couples wants to adopt a
child. It's like you proudly declares to the world you cut
off your penis, and then wants to surgically install a
penis because you need one. If you want to be gay, don't
fucking complain about not able to have a baby.
\_ you're an idiot. -tom
\_ Should single people be able to adopt?
\_ I hope this is a troll, it would be hard to imagine anyone
being so bigoted in the 21st century. I assume you are against
IVF, viagra, birth control, etc.?
\_ No, only gay that wants to have kids.
\_ Do you have any idea how many kids are abandoned every
year? Fuck you.
\_ And all the sex change shit.
\_ Gay marriage advocates, I want to "union" with my sister (or
maybe brother) with all the rights and responsibilities of
a garriage. However, I want to cut out anything that has
to do with sex with said sister (or brother) cause I am not
interested in their respective sexual organs. What do you
think of that?
\_ I think you're an idiot. -tom
\_ why?
\_ Because you exhibit so much evidence of it?
\_ How come you can redefine marriage and I can't?
What is the basis for marriage?
What is the basis for marriage? Just because
a relationship is consensual, doesn't mean it
should have the rights and obligations of
marriage. Being consensual, alone, is not
enough.
\_ The consensual part was in refence to people
marrying sheep and children.
\_ Why not?
\_ Why not? Why isn't it being consensual enough?
\_ What does being married mean? How is it
different from other types of relationships?
While you can try to define a marriage in legal
terms, ultimately, our laws surrounding
marriage were made to cater to this age old
relationship between a man and a woman which
is the foundation of society. The laws are
for the relationship and not the other way
around. Now, the question is, should the
laws be extended to a gay relationship?
\_ Times change, people change. Slavery
was the foundation of society for thousands
of years. And then it wasn't.
\_ The comparision btwn gay marriage
and slavery is intellectually
dishonest. A slave had virtually
no rights under the law whereas
a gay man or woman enjoys all
rights that every other person
of their gender enjoys.
BTW, slavery was not the basis
of every society for thousands
of years.
\_ And after slavery, blacks had all the
rights of whites--they could still ride
the bus, they just had to sit in the
back. -tom |
| 2005/2/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36226 Activity:high 52%like:37358 |
2/18 Latest news on the Gay Male Prostitute at the White House story:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=92
\_ Real title: "Washington reporters skeptical of photograph
purporting to show hard pass; 'Inconclusive'
\_ Actually, the latest is that he was in the press room before
his "employer," Talon "News," was in existence.
\_ http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005127.php
\_ Why is this such a big deal? Other than lofting a few
puffballs at Bush, what did he do that was so wrong?
\_ After all, Pravda is always true!
\_ How am I going to explain to my children that the President
had a gay male prostitute working for him?
\_ How was this guy "working" for the President?
\_ He was planted by the administration to ask softball
questions. |
| 2005/2/10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:36125 Activity:insanely high |
2/9 Ok you pinkos. Tell me why we should support him? Free speech?
Ripping on the dead is free speech?! I esp like how he says he
doesn't work for the taxpayers of CO. Who else pays his salary?
The "students" ? Future commie pinkos.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/09/colorado.prof.ap/index.html
\_ Is David Horowitz a pinko?
"David Horowitz, a champion of conservative causes who has long
accused American universities of overstocking their faculties with
leftists, has said firing Churchill would violate his First
Amendment rights and set a bad precedent." Supporting someones
*right* to make an ass of themselves is not the same as supporting
them. David Horowitz can understand that, why can't you?
\_ Anyone to the left of John Birch is an America hating
communist.
\_ *righteous indignation*! *spittle*! ...happy now?
\_ He's an asshole, but you have to be an asshole to get your point
across when everyone else is whistling the Star Spangled Banner
and waving flags and shushing anyone who speaks ill of American
foreign policy. If he'd published an essay in which he took the
US to task for its corporate-profit-driven foreign policy and its
hypocritical refusal to forgive the massive debts owed it by the
very countries it bankrupted, you would never have heard his name.
\_ You probably agree with this commie liberal lawyer-scum
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/10/terror.trial.ap/index.html
"To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of
capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism
and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently."
\_ Well, since the Holocaust didn't happen, comparing them to Eichmann
isn't so bad. -tom
\_ So is this someone trying to make tom look bad (like that's
necessary) or tom making a point I don't follow?
\_ I'm pointing out that there are wingnuts on both sides. -tom
\_ Both sides? Holocaust deniers are conservative? And
do Holocaust deniers have tenure? -- ilyas
\_ Are you trying to say Holocaust denial is a conservative
opinion? Apparently, you're an idiot on a scale I never
before imagined.
\_ Wow, this guy got way more protection in his speech than
conservative speakers at Berkeley every do.
conservative speakers at Berkeley ever do.
\_ churchill never spoke at berkley, what you talk about
\_ Never said he did. In the linked article it talks
about his talk at some other college.
\_ do you mean security wise? maybe berkeley students
aren't stupid enough to attack conservative speakers?
\_ When David Duke spoke on campus, there was blood
on the sidewalk from both sides. My communist roommate
said the other side started it, but he showed up with
a roll of quarters, and both sides were expecting a
fight. That was about 10 years ago, I think.
\_ Never said he did. In the linked article it talks about his
talk at some other college.
\_ do you mean security wise? maybe berkeley students aren't stupid
enough to attack conservative speakers?
\_ When David Duke spoke on campus, there was blood on the
sidewalk from both sides. My communist roommate said the
other side started it, but he showed up with a roll of
quarters, and both sides were expecting a fight. That was
about 10 years ago, I think.
\_ "He started it after I hit him!"
\_ david duke spoke at berkeley? i don't remember
that. anyway he should get his head smashed in.
\_ david duke spoke at berkeley? i don't remember that. anyway
he should get his head smashed in.
\_ heh, right.
\_ Gee, I haven't seen Berkeley try to fire a tenured professor for
being conservative. -tom
\_ That's because they simply don't give them tenure.
\_ BS. My Chem 1 prof spent three lectures telling us
how great nuclear power was. There are lots of
conservative profs at Berkeley, but most of them
are in the sciences. -MCB grad
\_ Uh, liking nuclear power = conservative? Maybe you
should let peterm know. -- ilyas
\_ Yes, in America being pro-nuclear power is considered
a conservative position. Just as being anti-abortion,
anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights, etc. I don't
decide these things, by the way, but I do know
enough about American politics to be able to
report them accurately. Very few people are 100%
in line with the stereotypical view of their
politics.
\_ So you concluded from the one position he did take
he was a conservative? Good job you. -- ilyas
he was a conservative? Good job you. Almost
every single liberal friend of mine here on soda
would prefer nuclear power over oil dependence.
-- ilyas
\_ He did not get fired for being a conservative,
even though he used his position of authority
to lecture to 4000 students off topic on a
conservative topic. And yes, he was
conservative in other ways as well.
\_ This guy:
http://www.polisci.berkeley.edu/Faculty/bio/emeriti/Muir,W
is an irritating conservative. |
| 2005/2/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36094 Activity:insanely high |
2/7 If human beings have gay genes, how about other animals? Is there
such a thing as say, gay monkeys or gay dogs? Is it documented
in any reputable scientific journals?
\_ My gay dog was always humping other male dogs.
\_ There are hundreds and hundreds of documented species engage in
gay sex -- In fact, there are way more bizarre forms of sex in
the animal kingdom than in just humans -- the only kind of sex
life I know of that has NO counterpart in the animal kingdom is
voluntary celibacy when willing mates are available (think priests)
\_ This is also not true, some animals mate for life, and if their
mate dies, do not take a new mate. -- ilyas
\_ That's not *exactly* the same thing but I'll concede that
my original statement wasn't precise enough.
\_ What about this? http://csua.org/u/azg
23 year old virgin gorilla
\_ Does it wear comfortable shoes? -John
\_ Yes, gay animals exist. -- ilyas
\_ Gay as a preference or gay out of necessity? It seems
unlikely there is a 'gay gene' since it would not be passed
on. 'Bisexual' maybe.
\_ There are documented cases of exclusively gay animals that
have normal mates available. In particular one zoo has a
pair of gay male penguins that seem to have mated for life
and ignore females.
\_ There was a well-documented case I read about gay necrophilic ducks--
one drake chased another into a window, then fucked it in front of
some biologist.
\_ Some animals are gays by 'preference,' and will not mate with
animals of opposite sex at all (although I don't like the
word 'preference' since it implies this is a behavioral issue,
rather than genetic). I don't know how this gene
gets passed -- genetics are complex. A gene for homosexuality
does reduce fitness, but it might be linked with a useful
gene, a la sickle cell anemia/malaria immunity, etc. etc.
-- ilyas
\_ gay is a preference. what's wrong with gay being a
preference? some men prefer having a dick up their
anus, or put their dick in your anus. You have a
problem with that?
\_ Nothing, if you consider heterosexuality a preference
also. I don't consider my heterosexuality any more a
preference than the fact that I have to urinate, or
breathe. I consider it builtin hardware stuff. -- ilyas
\_ And why are you so convinced that being gay is also
built-in hardware stuff?
\_ Have you read any of this thread? Your brain =
small (sorry psb). -- ilyas
\_ I haven't seen anything in this thread that's
convincing. How come so many people in Ancient
Greece engage in gay sex. Are gay genes
particularly prevalent among ancient Greeks?
\_ Homosexuality in Greece was likely mostly
behavioral. Some homosexuality is
behavioral. Some is genetic. You are
really dense. The existence of homosexual
animals should put the doubts about that
last part to rest, unless you believe
animals have the capacity to sin (not
supported by the Bible), or that
homosexuality is only sinful in humans, even
if God 'made them' homosexual. -- ilyas
\_ Greeks were not homosexual. They were
bisexual. Most had wives and kids. They
just thought REAL LOVE was with a man.
\_ you are being silly comparing animals
and humans. some animals have many
husbands (eg. queen bee), so the queen
bee must be a big sinner. why do you
want to model your behavior after
animals? Hey, it's okay for a pig, so
it's okay for me too?
\_ Because if my preference is inborn,
it's not a sin? Unless you somehow
feel genetic homosexuality is part of
that whole original sin deal... in
which case why are only some people
genetically gay and not others?
God, some motd Christians are dumb
in a scary way. I am hoping someone
like emarkp will comment on this.
-- ilyas
\_ You are running in circles.
I asked you why do you think being
gay is in born. You gave me
all these examples in the animal
world, but we are talking about
humans. Just because some spiders
are cannibals doesn't mean humans
should be cannibals, and no,
Jeffrey Dahmer is not genetically
a cannibal.
\_ I didn't choose my heterosexual preference. It was
pretty much built-in as far as I could tell. Are you
telling us you made a conscious decision to feel
attracted sexually to your own sex rather than the
opposite?
\_ Yeah but hetero is normal. If you're going to be
all weird and gay, you have to choose it, right?
\_ You should spend more time exploring your gay
side and gay potential. You will discover a
whole new world, and new sexual yearnings.
\_ The motd made me gay!
\_ anonymous trolling made me gay!
\_ There is some scientific evidence that there is a
"likes to have sex with men" gene which causes women
to have more sex and therefore more children but in
the rare case of a double expression in a man causes
homosexuality. It is probably even more complex
than just that.
\_ There is also evidence that homosexuality is a way that
overpopulation is controlled, at least in humans. Younger
brothers are more likely to be gay than older brothers,
and people in cramped conditions are more likely to be
homosexual. -tom
\_ Citation or Reference?
\_ http://www.marcbreedlove.com.
Marc Breedlove (formerly of Cal) has published tons
on the subject. -tom
\_ Tom, are you gay?
\_ yer mom doesn't think so. -tom
\_ oh, very mature, what we expect from a
mature 38 year old man. i hope to be like
tom when i grow up -anon coward
\_ I think tom gave the best possible answer
\_ Okay, we have *got* to have all women tested for this
one prior to marriage as part of the blood test.
\_ We? Fuck you and your government mandated blood tests.
\_ There was a well-documented case I read about gay necrophilic ducks--
one drake chased another into a window, then fucked it in front of
some biologist.
\_ My dog humps stuffed animals. I guess the 'Furry' fetish is found
in nature.
\_ gay is sick!
\_ I'm waiting for Christians, Republicans, and Conservatives to say
something about this topic. emarkp? jrleek?
\_ Most if not all of the cases of homosexuality arise from
stress on the population in some way, such as
overpopulation, environmental changes or the toxins.
overpopulation, environmental changes or the introduction of
toxins.
\_ Hormones in factory-produced chicken. Chemicals released from
Tupperware and styrofoam containers to food. These are less
widespread in less-developed countries.
\_ I know of an insect who after mating with a bunch of females will
change its apperance to look like a female and allow other males to
'mate' with it so they don't mate with females and only his genes get
passed on. That is an example of gay sex by necessity I guess. |
| 2005/2/5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Military] UID:36069 Activity:kinda low |
2/4 Gays w/ Guns in SF:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/03/BAGMTB4NTL1.DTL
\_ 'Edward, a self-described "libertarian, anarchist, socialist" with
a "small arsenal" of guns at home, didn't want to give his last
name.' Uh... libertarian, anarchist sure... then add socialist?
How does that work?
\_ Wow, sounds like most of our motd posters! |
| 2005/1/27 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:35929 Activity:nil |
1/27 Gotta love this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/24/national/main668665.shtml
Jerald Newberry says that anyone who would criticize 'No Name-Calling
Week' are people with bad hearts. Was I just called a bad name? |
| 2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35614 Activity:very high |
1/8 Why are movie stars mostly liberal democrats? I thought most people
with seven figure incomes were ususally republicans. Doesn't this seem
odd?
\_ First, just how "usually" would you expect 7-figure-makers to be
Republican? There are large numbers of wealthy people who are
liberal. Secondly, acting requires a very empathetic personality.
People that are drawn to it will tend to have a circle of concern
well outside themselves, and a curiousity in humanity that
supercedes the urge to condemn what they don't understand (or simply
don't like). Do you know any actors?
\_ This argument is amusing. Why does having an empathetic
personality and having a tendency to curiosity over
condemnation make one a liberal in the US sense? Those
virtues belong to western secular liberalism as a whole.
The distinguishing characteristic of a US liberal is a certain
frame of reference that sees government as 'family,' and
prefers communal decision making at the expense of individual
wishes. See Lakoff for more on this. Anyways, liberals, if
soda is any indication, condemn what they don't like with far
more spittle than pretty much any other group. -- ilyas
\_ You have the definition of the liberal world view from
non-liberals. This discussion will go nowhere.
\_ Lakoff is a liberal. Not a stupid one, either. -- ilyas
\_ Uhm, huh? Have you visited freerepublic? I don't exactly
think of that site as 'spittle-free' or even 'spittle-
reduced'. I think this tendency of vocal condemnation has
far more to do with people as a whole rather than a single
unrealistically simplified political affiliation. -mice
\_ Eh. Freerepublic people are idiots. Soda people are
Berkeley students or Berkeley graduates. I hold soda
folks to a much higher standard. -- ilyas
\_ "...liberals, if soda is any indication..." This
would seem to imply that you're extrapolating
liberal behavior based on the soda population...
which you just said you hold to a higher standard,
in effect implying (perhaps not correctly, I hope)
that you're holding liberals to a higher standard.
A system of labels that reduces the political
landscape to one of two affiliations doesn't seem to
be serving a very useful purpose in this
conversation -- esp if you're going to start holding
specific segments to variable standards. -mice
\_ It's very simple. I accused liberals of 'spittle.'
You countered with freerepublic. I pointed out
that freerepublic are random internet idiots, whereas
soda people are Berkeley students/grads. The cream
of the crop, so to speak. It's not really reasonable
to expect a 'better behaved statistical group' among
liberals than college grads from such a good school
as Berkeley. So I am extrapolating from this group
to liberals as a whole, who, I conclude will likely
only be worse than soda people. Is anything I said
unreasonable to you? -- ilyas
\_ Some of it, yeah -- but it's the weekend, so I
hope you'll not be too hurt if I take my toys
and play somewhere else. Have a decent weekend,
ilyas! -mice
\_ The fact that you regard soda members as
representative of anything forces me to downgrade
my opinion of your intelligence. -ausman
\_ My intelligence seems to come up a lot on the
motd. In the interest of avoiding useless
repetition, let's just all agree I am an idiot,
and move on to other things. -- ilyas
\_ Cf. talk radio, the neocons, Safire, Davids Brooks
and Horowitz, Orson Scott Card, and Fox News in
general for a rebuttal of the spittle comment.
\_ DailyKos, DU, Al Franken, etc. on the
democrat side. He's talking about
average people. I'm not saying he's
right, but I am saying you're argument
misses the point.
\_ Good point. Cf. Freeper troll, ChiCom
troll, etc.
\_ I find white liberal guilt pretty odd too. -- ilyas
\_ 1) Hollywood is a liberal town, and most actors are stupid. If
Liberal arguments are the only ones you hear, and your stupidity
makes you easily influenced, then you'll be liberal, too.
2) Making millions acting is mostly a matter of luck. They may
suffer and work hard, but making it big is a matter of luck, and
is much less correlated with talent than in the business world.
Hence the guilt and resulting liberal bleeding-heart mentality.
3) But where does the liberalism originate and renew itself
from? This may smell racist, but I think it comes from the Jewish
contingent in Hollywood. The Jewish faith and culture has a long
tradition of liberal views of peace and justice, and Jews are much
contingent in Hollywood. The Jooish faith and culture has a long
tradition of liberal views of peace and justice, and Joos are much
more likely to retain these values even as they grow older and
rich. They are also much more likely to be strongly steeped in this
culture as children, as opposed to WASP and Catholic families.
Later in Hollywood, among a lot of stupid people, their conviction
wins out. And it certainly has its merits. But there aren't many
fundamentalist Christians in Hollywood to compete with their
"eye-for-an-eye, the poor get what they deserve" mentality.
\_ 3) doesn't make you a racist, it makes you a moron. If "exposure\
to Joos" infects people with liberalism, how come the finance
industry is so god damn conservative?
\_ Wow. Stupidity incarnate.
\_ such guilt made more sense in the era when blacks had to sit in
the back of the bus and many whites thought this was a fine idea.
\_ You don't have to be dumb to embrace a worldview, left or right.
If you are dumb, however, I'll mock you whichever way you lean.
\_ One party makes money off the way they make you feel when you watch
them on the silver screen.
Another party makes money by dicking you around, and say "suck it
up, it's America, land of equal opportunity" when you complain.
What's so surprising?
\_ I don't understand how they make money in the 2nd part.
\_ you must be a movie star!
\_ Much of wall-street and hollywood is leftist because secular
jews (and higher % gay) wield much power in these areas.
joos (and higher % gay) wield much power in these areas.
\_ Next time someone brings up the tired The Left Is Anti-Semite!
crap I'd suggest they remember this stupidity first.
\_ The left *is* anti-semite. Jews vote Democratic anyway
as a lesser of two evils. On most issues, Jews lean
\_ The left *is* anti-semite. Joos vote Democratic anyway
as a lesser of two evils. On most issues, Joos lean
Republican but Republicans won't have them. As for
actors, it's because most are not businessmen and as such
have no ties to big business. It really is similar to
a lottery winner. Most wealthy people are tied to
big business and hence are Republican.
\_ Care to back up your left = anti-semite claim? Come on I
dare you. I double dare you. Oh and neocon = filthy jew
dare you. I double dare you. Oh and neocon = filthy joo
is not backing up your claim, cause that is patently false.
\_ God damn it, would you please use that brain of yours to
get your mind around the idea that you can be against the
Israeli government's handling of the Palestinian issue and
not be anti-Zionist or anti-semitic?
\_ most of the earliest Communists / leftists in USSR and Europe
were Jews. There are historical reasons for this - look them
up rather than revealing your ignorance. "Jews lean
were Joos. There are historical reasons for this - look them
up rather than revealing your ignorance. "Joos lean
Republican" ... WTF are you talking about. Where do you
people come from - your knowledge of history is appalling
and dangerous.
\_ Are you judging by numbers or by influence? If by numbers
then can you back up the 'most' claim? If by
influence, was Vladimir Lenin a joo? How about any
USSR Gensec? I say you are full of shit. -- ilyas
\_ Most single digit millionaires are Republican but most wealthier
people are Democratic. There is an amusing article about f*ck you
money and how it influences people's politics in a recent issue
of The Economist. |
| 2004/12/1 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:35150 Activity:high |
12/1 "Republican Alabama lawmaker proposes banning gay books from
public libraries" -- http://csua.org/u/a66
\_ Will that include the Bible? -tom
\_ I'm sure the ACLU will like that.
\_ Gay man should be lined up and shot. -gay hater
\_ Gay men should be lined up and shot. -gay hater
\_ Does it arouse you to think about a bunch of gay men all lined
up?
\_ There is only one gay man? Damn he gets around a lot |
| 2004/11/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34946 Activity:nil |
11/17 Interesting. A blog dedicated to a group strategizing on how to
push the Democratic party in a libertarian direction.
http://libertariansforamerica.blogs.com/index
\_ what. ever. Conservatism is in, everything else is out. Get
on with the program. -liberal converting to conservative |
| 2004/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:34730 Activity:very high |
11/5 So the Texas Republican Party has a plank that calls for the
criminalization of homosexuality. Now that they have both
houses of the legislature and the Governorship, how long before
they start rounding up all the gays and lesbians? Right now
the Supreme Court will stop them, but how long is that going
to last, with GWB getting two or maybe even three or four
appointments in the Clarence Thomas mold? Sure, once they
start doing this, gays will leave Texas en masse, since
being an out gay in the Texas Penal System is tantamount
to a death sentence, but how long after their success
in Texas will it take for them to try and replicate
this nationwide? -gay sodan
\_ Well, the amazing thing about our two party system is that
those bastards from Texas and these guys actually share a party:
http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/home.html
The question is: are the neandrathals from the gulf coast of
texas more powerful, or are guys like the above more powerful?
I'm guessing that the ones who actually produce something useful
in our economy and can read will come out on top.
\_ Actually, I believe that certain states still contain buggery
and sodomy statutes. During the founding of this country
virtually all the colonies had bugger and sodomy statutes so
in a sense this is criminilazation of homosexual practices, but
just a re-affirmation on what's in the books. There's actually
a rather interesting discussion on Locke v. Rose in which
the court is trying to graple whether or not cunnilingus is
actual sodomy.... Anyway, the point is that you need to pro-actively
pursue changing the laws instead of assuming it's the GOP's fault
that homosexual activities are illegal. I would assume that
would come in the form of either a state statute or a challenge
of the existing laws' constitutionality. However, stare
decisis has it that homosexual activity isn't exactly protected
by the constitution. Probably there needs to be enough momentum
in the electorate to change this type of attitude, which I doubt
you will find in Texas. Take home message, don't live in Texas if
you're openly gay. -williamc
\_ Am I missing something? This is the Texas GOP's platform, according
to them:
http://www.texasgop.org/library/platform.php
The only thing they say about gay issues is
"We believe that traditional marriage is a legal and moral
commitment between a natural man and a natural woman."
I'm a supporter of gay marriage, and I dislike the GOP for all sorts
of reasons, but opposition to gay marriage is also the position of
Kerry and most other democratic politicians.
\_ Download the entire platform:
Homosexuality: The Party believes that the practice of sodomy
tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the
breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of
dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is
contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have
been ordained by God, recognized by our country.s founders,
and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must
not be presented as an acceptable .alternative. lifestyle in our
public education and policy, nor should .family. be redefined
to include homosexual .couples..
Texas Sodomy Statutes: The Party opposes the legalization of
sodomy. The Party demands Congress exercise its authority
granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction
from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
\_ This is not "criminalization". This is advocating keeping it
illegal. Minor semantic detail, same difference. -John
\_ Wow. Ok, never mind.
\- this is in part why the oconnor dissent was interesting
in the lawrence case.
\_ The party platform often bears little to no resemblance to reality.
Planks are put in the platform to support special interest groups
within the party, but it's clear to all observers that those planks
are not nor will ever be action items for the party.
\_ That's true. However, Texas did ban gay civil unions, right?
[ you have bitch. ] |
| 2004/11/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34714 Activity:nil |
11/4 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0102-04.htm Brazil, yes BRAZIL to start their own nuclear program. What would happen if all the other countries simultaneously do so? |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:34626 Activity:nil |
11/3 BTW, fellow liberal hosers:
The number one problem we have is the image of the "liberal elite":
Unpatriotic, not proud to be an American, rich, not hard-working
and lounging at sushi bars (thanks psb for that latter idea),
saying and believing anything to win the election (gay marriage?),
valuing spotted owls above jobs, being critical instead of optimistic,
and not supporting our soldiers.
(I'm stressing "image" of the liberal elite. I am not saying this
is how it actually is ... if you don't know what I'm talking about,
do two things. (1) Watch Team America: World Police. (2) Read this
thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1269267/posts
\_ I did a study 1998-ish where I tried to talk to the occupant of
any house that sported an American flag. Most of them are
initially surprised by my knocking on their door, but they became
quite talkative once I explained myself. Out of 23 houses that
I visited in Northern California (mainly around the Peninsula)
and in suburban Boston (around Wilmington and Norwood), 21 self-
identified as Republican. The other 2 households were around
Boston and were Pats fans. This has no scientific value, but I
thought the result was interesting nevertheless.
\_ I disagree. It's a combination of uncharismatic leaders, the
image of giving free stuff to poor "welfare queens" etc. and
the abortion/gays/guns/god stuff. Culturally, John and Teresa
are out of step with regular people, just the way they talk.
A guy like Clinton had much better rapport with people.
\_ Yeah, I also wanted to add "out of touch with the average
American" to the list. Remember, it's the perception of
what a liberal is. All those freeper posts about how happy
the libs lost -- they are talking about this image. -op
\_ bullshit. the liberals tend to lose because of pussies like
you. do you think that if bush lost, they'd all be sighing
on the freeper boards about how their extremist rightwing
religious agenda is out of the mainstream? of course not.
they'd be shaking their fists over it, and demanding blood
in 2008.
\_ Whatever you say man. -op |
| 2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:34390 Activity:high |
10/27 Three busloads of schoolchildren from the Heritage Christian School
waited for an hour and a half to see Cheney and clap for the man they
said speaks to the issues important to their lives. Asked to name the
country's biggest problem, 12-year-old Vivian Resto said,
"Homosexuals. I think it's kind of gross, and my mom and I believe it
should be a man and a woman." Her 7-year-old classmate, Kevin
Strickland, said the most significant issue facing the country is stem
cell research. And 13-year-old Marcus Kleinhans said he was most
worried about abortion.
\_ *bangs head against wall* Make it stop, please, make it stop.
\_ Mohammed Atta thought girls were icky too! - danh
\_ Yes, and? Now you know why children aren't allowed to vote. I
think moving it to 18 was a mistake, too, but since very few of
them vote, the damage is minimal.
\_ Yes, and: That's the story. Spin it yourself, as you've done.
\_ It's so cute when the Fundies brainwash their children from
an early age.
\_ Where as your opinions will have no effect on your child at
all?
\_ I will teach my children to think for themselves.
\_ also means: Let the left brainwash them instead.
\_ Liberal elementary schools, junior high, and television
advertising for kids! Oh my!
Has the liberal ivory tower elite spread to Barney??
I knew that Pink Television Tubby was gay!
And Sponge Bob, always with the pants off!
Scooby shouldn't be craving "scooby snacks"; those
meddling kids should be breaking up Commie abortion
rallies!
\_ I take it you know nothing about children aged below
18.
\_ There's a difference between "an effect" and a kid being
coached by his mom about the icky homosexuals or the
baby killing abortionists and stem cell researchers.
\_ Are you objecting to coaching itself, or the issues?
\_ Is this from The Onion? |
| 2004/10/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34291 Activity:high |
10/22 Watch Fahrenhite 9/11 for free. http://csua.org/u/9lq \_ Huh? Is this the right URL? \_ Fixed. Sorry. \_ What for? It was discredited. \_ If the right-wing tells you F9/11 is left-wing propaganda, then you're saving time by not seeing it. Yay! \_ If it's left-wing propaganda then you're saving time by not seeing it. Yay! \_ Right-wing Wins! Yay! \_ Gay! \_ Is there a refund for the first time viewers who had to pay? Where's your link to Celcius411? How about some fair n balanced? |
| 2004/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:34202 Activity:nil |
10/18 Talk about an unfortunate title for the article:
http://www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=3515
\_ Talk about an uninformative title for a motd post!
\_ "Anglicans deal major blow to gay priests" |
| 2004/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34195 Activity:kinda low |
10/18 For the guy who claimed that the majority of geeks lean left...
still waiting for the url backing that up. -- ilyas
\_ I don't think anyone has specifically surveyed "geeks," ilyas,
so you're probably not going to get an url from him. But I believe
there have been surveys showing that the more educated a person is,
the more likely they are to be center/left leaning. Geek doesn't
necessarily correlate with "more educated," I admit.
\_ Actually, I heard it's more of a bell shape -- the richest
and poorest tend to vote DNC, the middle tends to vote RNC.
Similarly, for education, high school dropouts and grad students
for DNC, the rest for RNC. -- ilyas
\_ I thought I said education, not income level, but whatever.
\_ Reading comprehension >>> you.a
\_ Reading comprehension >>> you
\_ I got what he said. I just don't know why he started
talking about income level, because that is not what
we were talking about.
\_ 2000 election
No HS degree: +20% Gore
HS degree: +1% Bush
Some college: +6% Bush
College grad: +6% Bush
Post-grad deg: +8% Gore
Just goes to show, a little education makes you smart enough
to watch O'Reilly and think you're smarter than those damn
tax-you-to-death, government-handout, eternal victim, take
no personal initiative / responsibility liberal elite.
\_ This left-right thing needs a lot more defining. There are
anti-abortionists who support gun control and pro-choicers who
oppose gay marriage. If you're talking pro-DNC or pro-RNC, I
think ilyas has answered well above.
\_ saved by the Jargon File
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/politics.html
I have found much evidence to support the JF's claim that many
geeks (hackers, whatever) tend to be libertarian leaning. I
think framing this discusion in terms of right/left is really a
bad way to look at it right now in our current politcal climate
where even the repub pres is not really a conservative by
most definitions. - rory
\_ I ll buy that geeks tend to lean libertarian, because that
actually matches my (anecdotal) experience fairly closely.
-- ilyas
\_ Hey, if someone told me:
Liberal Democrat = more freedom, more government
Conservative Republican = less freedom, less government
Libertarian = more freedom, less government
... I'd go libertarian every time. It's not that complicated:
"Duh, hey, I'm a libertarian, I'm fucking 1337! Go away tax-and-
spend liberals, go away nazi pro-lifers."
The key criticism with libertarianism is that the U.S. is still
a two-party country, and well, there are a lot of libertarian
geeks, and who wants to hang out with the nerds?
\_ If Bush is anything to go by, Conservative Republican =
less freedom, more government.
\_ exactly my point. Bush is not a conservative Republican
by the traditional def.
\_ It seems that once the Republicans became the dominant
party, after years of playing the underdog, they realized
that they didn't hate this government stuff all as much
as they thought they did. Spending is much easier to
support when it benefits you directly.
\_ its easy to say you want to shrink govt when you
disagree w/ the people running it.
\_ THAT is the "key criticism" of libertarianism?
\_ Okay, let's just say "An important criticism".
Then you can tell me what the key one is.
\_ libertarianism appeals to nerds (esp mathematically
minded ones) because it is based on a supposedly
objective series of rules and says that, if left to
their own, these rules will naturally and justly
govern people. The key criticism of it is that these
rules are not as natural as people think... they are
based on societies and social order, etc. ie, people
say, "hands off, let the market regulate"... but
the fact is you cant have good markets w/out good
gov'ts. - rory
\_ I wonder sometimes where 'good governments' come
from. Lately, I've been leaning towards 'good
culture' as the wellspring of 'good
government.' -- ilyas
\_ why is that any easier to define?
\_ It's not. But I am not sure good government
can spontaneously happen if the culture is
not ready for it. Introducing a representative
republic in Dark Ages Europe would have done
no good. To respond to rory, you are thinking
of anarcho-capitalism (which I admit I find
appealing, I just don't see how it would work).
Libertarianism has inherent tensions because
it generally dislikes government but
acknowledges its necessity (i.e. it's not a
'terse' belief system like A-C). -- ilyas
\_ gawd, if libertarianism is this complicated, I can
understand why it's not popular. I would much prefer
it if it were described just as "more freedom, less
government". Otherwise I'd just settle with
calling myself a small-government Democrat or
personal-freedom Republican. (Yeah, silly, but not
as bad as objectivist Libertarian.)
\_ Can I still have the FDA, fire departments,
health inspections of restaurants, product
safety commissions, etc., or will I just have
to gamble with my life and hope for the best
anytime I eat something, buy a new product,
buy prescription drugs, or need emergency
services?
\_ It will be just like ebay ratings! You go with
the ones with good feedback. Sure, sometimes
someone decides to screw over a few thousand
or million people and then move to Turkey, but
think of the freedom! |
| 2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:34114 Activity:very high |
10/13 http://cbsnews.com - "But on one point, Kerry was disgraceful, and that is too weak a word. His mention of Cheney's daughter was gratuitous and heinous. I agree completely with Mrs. Cheney, who said tonight, 'This is not a good man. This is coming from a mom. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.'" Momma is wrong. Kerry told it like it was. The vast majority of gay men and women are born that way. It is not a matter of choice. Sorry. This needs to be said more often by a leading American presidential candidate. I also happen to remember now that I had lost all respect for Mrs. Cheney in her comments about the "sensitive war on terror". It's not Kerry who is evil - it's Mrs. Cheney. \_ You're missing the point. There was no need to bring up the VP's daughter's sexuality to say what he believed about sexuality. It was a weak attempt to split the conservative vote by reminding them Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Everyone groaned because they say it for what it was and it wasn't good no matter how you want to spin it. But Kerry did something far worse which will hurt him with women everywhere. I knew his last answer was bad but the women in the room dropped their jaws. Kitty Dukakis anyone? \_ No, YOU'RE missing the point. You and Mrs. Cheney see something where there isn't. The truth is that being gay or lesbian in the vast majority of cases is not a choice. If this splits the conservative vote because their brains are so small that they'll not turn out to vote because Cheney's daughter is lesbian, then that's their problem. They'd already know this fact if they watched the VP debate, anyway. \_ Being gay or lesbian IS a choice, dumbass. What are you going to claim next, that abstinence isn't a choice, that being a liberal or conservative isn't a choice, that committing suicide isn't a choice? There isn't anything physical that makes you gay or straight. Some people are gay and end up being bi, some are straight and end up being gay. Just because you have a sexual preference doesn't mean somehow you're branded with it. Certainly some of us have a strong reaction towards something, but making sexual orientation sound like it's a physical attribute is just plain wrong. Unless you want to get into a big debate about the concept of free will, then you cannot simply posit that sexual preference is not a choice. \_ (a) There are genetic gays. Some animals are born gay. Did they choose it? (b) I don't think my heterosexuality is a choice in a sense that I don't think I can wake up one day and decide to be gay, and have it be anything more than massive self-delusion. -- ilyas \_ Come on ilyas. You know those big gay pandas are just lying to themselves. We need to bring them in with the LORD! \_ You're simply wrong on this, and it's unlikely that your mind will be changed until you talk about it with someone close to you who is gay. I hope you will be willing to listen. \_ The emerging scientific (and public) concensus is that homosexuality is largely genetic. Obviously choosing to engage in gay sex is a choice, but since most people's attraction to the opposite sex seems ingrained, how can you say attraction to the same sex is not also ingrained? \_ Wow. You *really* need to get out and meet some new kinds of people. \_ Out of curiosity, do you belong to a church that teaches that gays are going to hell? \- the "armies of compassion" have been dispatched to come get you. \_ I don't think that this statement of yours is a proven fact. \_ a big part of the Gay Agenda is to convince heterosexuals that \_ a big part of the Big Gay Agenda is to convince heterosexuals that they are gay so they can have sex with them. \_ Proven schientifically! \_ at least my gay friends tell "warn" me about it \_ Hope your gay friends are more comprehensible than you. \_ grammar are teh gay! |
| 2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33935 Activity:high |
10/4 bipartisan name calling contest. I'll start:
Republican: red-neck, suv lovers, blue-blooded deficit-spending elites
\_ motherfucker (implied by red-neck)
\_ spend and spend, free-labor conservative
\_ trigger happy bible thumping earth rapers
\_ drunk driving, draft dodging, bible-thumping morons
Democrat: hippy, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend liberal, baby killer,
limousine liberal
\_ Aren't more "blue-bloods" Democrat these days?
\_ No. They're actually pretty evenly split. The
nouveau-riche, however, are almost exclusively Repubs,
Soros gleefully excepted.
\_ We don't know where he gets his money, whether it's
from drugs or what.
\_ pot smoking, draft dodging, free loving dropouts
\_ Lying piece of sack of shit slut trashcan scummest dirtbag...
Bitchhhh!
Democrat: hippy, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend liberal, baby killer,
limousine liberal
\_ Aren't more "blue-bloods" Democrat these days?
\_ No. They're actually pretty evenly split. The
nouveau-riche, however, are almost exclusively Repubs,
Soros gleefully excepted.
\_ We don't know where he gets his money, whether it's
from drugs or what.
\_ pot smoking, draft dodging, free loving dropouts
\_ sounds good to me
\_ you're a right wing nut job!
\_ you're a liberal weiner!
\_ communist treehugging homosexual godless traitors!
\_ Republican: fag haters Democrats: fag lovers
\_ This whole thread is stupid. |
| 2004/9/24-25 [Recreation/Computer/Games, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:33743 Activity:nil |
9/24 Scott Kurtz breaks down the proper use of the word "gay"
http://www.pvponline.com
\_ I would add another use of the adjective "gay." Using it
sarcastically in a context where some dickhead 17 year old
meathead jock might, but around people who know you don't mean
it in the same way is a subtle way of making fun of the
17 year old meathead jock, which I don't feel the slightest
bit bad about.
\_ scott kurtz = teh ghey
\_ w00t! scott kurtz = pwned |
| 2004/9/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:33578 Activity:very high |
9/16 The motd in a nutshell:
http://www.mrandmrswheatley.co.uk/2dudes.html
\_ that is teh gay.
\_ By all that is holy, you are gay
\_ Gay. Perfect, but gay. -John
\_ You are so gay. |
| 2004/9/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:33463 Activity:insanely high |
9/10 What Alan Keyes really said about Gay marriage. (Interview,
not one question. Doesn't fit in 10 second sound bite.)
Particularly interesting in its detailing of media tactics.
http://www.dailyherald.com/special/election/ele_story.asp?intID=38232320
\_ please promote alan keyes as much as possible, thanks
\_ Telling the full truth is not promotion. Everyone will make of
it what they will but they should have access to the full story
before deciding.
\_ why are you trying to defend alan keyes? he's
hilarious but even i will admit he does not speak
for the republican party. - danh
\_ I'm defending truth and honest debate. I don't care
either way about Keyes. I would say the same thing
about anyone. I don't know that much about Keyes and
don't care to. But, if people here are going to talk
about the man's positions they should know what they
are, not a sound-bite. See the line below calling him
a whackjob? Based on what? Nothing I can see
explained on the motd. Just the smear.
\_ He's still a whackjob, whether it's a 10 second sound bit or
and hour long talk.
\_ Can you argue that homosexuality isn't inherently
hedonistic?
\_ Sure -- why wouldn't you be able to?
\_ Go ahead.
\_ it's no more inherently hedonistic than any other kind
of sex.
\_ What's wrong with hedonism? -- ilyas
\_ this is the correct question. -phuqm
\_ For the question of marriage, I think most
would agree that the main rationale is the
encouragement of stable families. It's up
up to homosexuals to make the case that
society should formally sanction gay unions.
Of course, marriage is already a lot weaker
culturally than it ever was, with premarital
sex expected and divorces near-customary,
and the stigma of "born out of wedlock"
pretty much nonexistent.
\_ Also you can bring up childless marriages
which are sort of pointless except from
a symbolic standpoint, and gay couples
with children. -John
\_ My proposal is to separate 'marriage'
(a private/religious/personal thing) from
'union' (a public/bureaucratic/legal term).
'Unions' are granted to anyone, 'marriages'
are up to people themselves. Everyone is
happy, except Christian statists. -- ilyas
\_ Exactly. I think that hedonism has already
become a big part of our culture. But
people think of it as a bad word, and so
they don't want to call a spade a spade.
\_ one could make a reasonable arguement that the sex
one has in an attempt to procreate is not
"inherently hedonistic". Not an argument I'd want
to be forced to defend too seriously though.-phuqm
\_ Ban sex! Artificial insemination only!
\_ "you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything" -tom
\_ "when I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
say something once, why say it again?" -TH
\_ Are you the lips that do not speak? |
| 2004/9/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:33333 Activity:high |
9/3 Name your favourite work by Sergei Rachmaninoff.
\_ Why do you hate Tchaikovsky?
\_ gay. literally. -russian gay hater
\_ Why do you hate gays?
\_ Actually, he's a gay russian who's also a hater.
\_ Can you try someone easier like Beethoven or Chopin? I can't name
one single Rachmaninoff piece.
\_ he has several nice pieces that are pretty popular. the rach 3
made famous by the movie "shine", of course. the rach 2 is
nice as well. the darkish, brooding prelude in c# minor (iirc)
is popular too. as is rhapsody on a theme by paganini.
\_ they say that he didn't like c# minor, but everyone else
liked it and asked him to play all the time and he was
so sick and tired of playing it that he just got mad
and walked away the stage whenever people asked him to
play it.
\_ More obscure: Favorite prelude/fugue from Bach's "Well-Tempered
Clavier"?
\_ The piece based on the Paganini Caprices is fun to listen
to, as are some of the Preludes.
\_ Rach 2, II Adagio Sostenuto |
| 2004/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:33247 Activity:nil |
8/31 Co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment is forced to resign after
allegations surface that he is...gay.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47194-2004Aug30.html
\_ He just wanted a little federal legislation to help him stay in the
closet.
\_ Feel that conservative compassion!
\_ "In 2000, the Virginian-Pilot said of Schrock that he favored ending
the Clinton administration's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on
gays in the military. He supported asking enlistees whether they
have had homosexual experiences in an effort to try to keep gays
from serving.i"
"You're in the showers with them, you're in the bunk room with them,
you're in staterooms with them," Schrock told the Virginian-Pilot.
"You just hope no harm would come by folks who are of that
persuasion It's a discipline thing."
\_ Since when are allegations worth anything? How would you respond if
Drudge made the allegations?
\_ Well, since he dropped out of the race over some allegations
made on a gay activist website, I'd say these allegations
probably hold water.
\_ What if he genuinely thinks being gay is wrong (e.g. he thinks it's
a sickness from which he suffers)? Then he is being consistent when
he supported anti-gay decisions. A drug addict can think that drug
is bad, and can support rehabilitation programs, for example.
\_ It may be logically consistant, but it certainly is ironic and
adds to some people's (myself included) suspicion that a lot of
anti-gay political posturing is really about self-loathing
\_ I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
conservatives in the closet. |
| 2004/8/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:33232 Activity:very high |
8/30 So, Bush is spending more than a Kennedy on a bender, Cheney supports
his gay daughter and opposes an amendment to ban gay marriage, and
the Administration is supporting international aid in the form of more
outsourcing. How can traditional repubs possibly support these guys?
\_ principles
\_ Traditional Republicans don't care about gay marriage because it's
your business. TR are concerned about the spending but it hasn't
gotten out of control yet. Your outsourcing thing is just weird.
We send billions around the world every year on all sorts of stuff.
Bush has put way more money into international AIDS causes than
Clinton ever dreamed of doing. And?
\_ I think you meant "principal on my investment."
\_ !Kerry | !Democrat
\_ Totally unrelated, but I just got the pun of Bender's name (a
hard-drinking robot in the cartoon Futurama).
\_ wow, you're slow
\_ The Dems are the party of institutionalized 'victims' and
government dependents, why vote for losers? And you invoke
Kennedy - a man who essentially murdered a woman and later
became a Senator because of his name - disgusting.
\_ Careful, your small dick is showing.
\_ Funny you would be looking.
\_ Gayness: inherently funny!
\_ It's spelled Ganus.
\_ GNUS NOT GANUS?!
\_ Traditional Republicans don't care about gay marriage because it's
your business. TR are concerned about the spending but it hasn't
gotten out of control yet. Your outsourcing thing is just weird.
We send billions around the world every year on all sorts of stuff.
Bush has put way more money into international AIDS causes than
Clinton ever dreamed of doing. And? [too bad one of you idiots
deleted this. restored]
\_ ...and removed funding to any organization that promotes the
use of condoms-- in other words, removed a working solution and
then threw money at the problem. How is this traditional Repub? |
| 2004/8/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32991 Activity:high |
8/17 Kerry's impassioned defense of ... gay marriage
http://csua.org/u/8nf
\_ He was right before, now he's occupying the center so he can win
the election. A flip-flop, kind of, but one I actually don't mind.
\_ Well, no. There's no flip flop. "Kerry was on record
saying that every state in the union should be required
to recognize gay marriage if one states courts decided
it should exist there..." Well, yeah. That's what the
federal law on recognizing out of state marriage contracts
says. There's nothing here that goes against what he's
saying now. He's not pushing for recognizing gay marriage,
but if it were to happen somewhere, it must be transferrable
across state lines.
\_ Except the DOM Act says otherwise.
\_ Which is what he was decrying (and voted against)
in the article that they were talking about. |
| 2004/8/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Computer/SW/Languages/Web] UID:32988 Activity:very high |
8/17 http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/223286p-191854c.html Gov. McGreevey: I am married to a woman, and had a gay affair with Cipel, aiding his emmigration from Israel to be with me by giving him a cush homeland security director job although he wasn't qualified. He was going to sue for sexual harrassment unless I paid him $5 million. But he sure is cute. Cipel: It's true! Not only that, I'm straight. All his advances were unwanted! Gay college professor: Cipel had a relationship with me! \_ What is McGreevey's wife's stance on this? I don't see it mentioned in the news. \_ She thinks Cipel's kinda cute too. \_ The wife almost never speaks when a politician is forced to go public as a scumbag cheat of any sort. They "stand by their man" because what else is she going to do if she helps his career go down the drain? He's the gravy train. \_ Did Hillary express support during the Monica scandal? \_ She's still married to him, isn't she? \_ Am I the only one who thinks McGreevey's wife is hot? \_ Yes. \_ I haven't even seen a pic in the news yet. URL please? \_ Pic? \_ There is a shot on Rush Limbaugh's page: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081704/content/cutting_edge.guest.h tml http://tinyurl.com/54kj8 \_ Thanks. Hmm, hard to tell from that pic if she's hot. \_ CNN had a pic a few days ago when this was news. She's aged milf at best and that's only with full make-up. \_ Yes, I think waking up to his wife everyday turned him gay. HOTTER!! GAYER!! \_ she might have been hot 20 years ago. \_ homophobic bigot! |
| 2004/8/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32961 Activity:high |
8/17 Best take on recent events award goes to http://TheOnion.com: "Homosexual Tearfully Admits To Being Governor Of New Jersey" \_ Also from todays onion: "The court struck every single one down? Well, that makes the failure rate for gay marriages almost double that of straight marriages." \_ Heh. My personal favorite Onion article was: "Former Weightlifter Elected Governor of California" The article was 100% factual. \_ Hardly, McGreevy (and NJ in general) is completely corrupt. This guy wanted to appoint his lover, who was unable to obtain even the lowest security clearances, to head Homeland Security in NJ after 9/11. Real funny. \_ You mean politicians actually give jobs to their friends? I for one am shocked! \_ Huh? Corruption: Everybody's doing it. \- best onion was "bush finds error in fermilab calculation" \_ You don't get it. It's the headline itself that's funny, not the incident. |
| 2004/8/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32894 Activity:nil |
8/13 Hahahahahahaha - The http://cnn.com Quick Vote on the front page is: "Would you vote for a gay politician? (Yes) (No)" Guess what the breakdown is ... \_ I'd be more interested in "Do you think *your* governor is a closeted homosexual?" \_ See, I find questions like this sketchy, since while I have nothing in particular against gay people, I have yet to meet one that I agree with politically. |
| 2004/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32865 Activity:nil |
8/12 Whoa. The governor of NJ just outed himself as gay. I bet CNN wasn't
expecting THAT, HAHAHA.
\_ He's sacrificing his wife's face for political gain. He'd better
run for president before Newsom gains enough momentum some day.
\_ What the hell are you smoking?
\_ Please give me a hit on that crack pipe. He admitted he was
gay, he admitted he had an affair, he resigned, and now he is
free to pay the personal consequences with his wife, family, and
friends. I think you would only be satisfied if he condemned
homosexuals and became born again.
\_ It would have been sweet had he been a Republican.
\_ Yeah it would be sweet if scumbags like that were Republican.
They are Democrat though. Democrats have a firm grasp on
sexual misconduct in this country.
\_ Sexual misconduct? He didn't molest a kid (or a box turtle,
sigh), he's gay.
\_ Hello!? Affair? HELLO? ANYONE UP THERE IN YOUR HEAD?
And to the guy below, going to a sex club is not misconduct.
\_ You're a dumbass. If you had referred to the sexual
harassment suit against him, you might have something
to stand on.
\_ Uh, it is not "going to a sex club" that was the big
deal -- c'mon, don't tell me that's what you truly
thought was the worst of what he did?
But the previous poster was an idiot -- the sexual
misconduct is not in being gay, but in having sex with
someone else while married. Being gay makes it only
a tiny bit less bad.
\_ The sexual misconduct that has any bearing on his
holding office is getting his lover a security
position which he didn't have clearance for. If
he made a personal decision that the affair itself
affected his ability to govern, then that's his
call. Not yours.
\_ Google "Jack Ryan" Illinois
\_ Yeah, I think Jack Ryan (wife is Seven of Nine) and Bill
Clinton are the champs right now, as far as combining
fame and the offensiveness of the deed(s).
\_ Let's not forget about convicted pedophile Barney Frank
and his predecessor.
\_ Huh? Got any URLs for this one? |
| 2004/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32858 Activity:very high |
8/12 Same sex marriage nullified, yeah!!
\_ Why is this even a surprise. Newsome himself knew this would
happen. He carried out the marriages because:
1) he wanted to shed his image as a prviliged yuppie by breakin'
the law
2) he was pandering
\_ Do you honestly believe that being a pimp helps you get
votes in San Francisco? Or do you mean pander in the more
general "this guy is appealing to a group I don't like"
lazy incorrect fashion that some politicians like to use?
\_ Wow, like this isn't even a good troll.
3) increased revenue from all the licenses
\_ Now I know you're joking. SF collected $200k from the
4000 couples. Compare that to the city budget of $5B.
Less than 4/1000s of a percent.
4) increased tax revenue from all the rings and wedding cakes and
such
If he really cared about the issue, he would have challenged this
through the courts.
\_ You think he handed out gay marriage licenses to get increased
revenue from the the licenses and wedding cake sales? You're
friggin nuts. I don't agree with the pro gay marriage thing,
but I think you're even nuttier.
\_ No, I think the primary reason (the one which I listed first
for a reason and the one you didn't comment on) was to
project an image of a rebel, since Gonzales made it a closer
election than anyone expected. I think the increased revenue
from gay tourists flocking to the City was just icing.
\_ Can't agree more. I'm not against gay marriage, but I'm against
breaking the law, especially while representating a govt body.
\_ Whew! That's good, 'cause I was about to start smokin' pole any
second...
\_ Libertarians to thread...
\_ I think the libertarian position on gay marriage is that
marriage is between two people or two people and their church,
and government shouldn't have anything to do with it one way
or the other. Is that about right?
\_ I doubt that's right--there are legal aspects around things
like inheritance which can't be decided by the church.
\_ Sure they can. The old Church said you should give
everything to them to avoid going to Hell.
\_ Probably, but some of the local Libertarians go through some
amazing contortions to toe the Republican party line...
\_ The government is the recording authority. Beyond that, it
should get out of the business of deciding who or what can
marry and leave that up the the individuals involved. Is
that the Republican line?
\_ no, it isn't.
\_ As a (R) the last thing I want is Libertarians at my party.
\_ More to the point, Same-sex marriages illegally performed in CA were
nullified. Everyone should be glad about this, or any Mayor could
start changing state law any way he or she pleased.
start changing state law any way he or she pleased. (this was the
original text of the comment below)
\_ Agreed. If you don't like the law, change it, don't break it.
Especially don't make a City break the law.
\_ More to the point, Same-sex marriages illegally performed in CA were
nullified. Everyone should be glad about this, or any man could
start marrying any dog or box turtle he pleases,
\_ By reading this post, why do I feel like I've gone back in time
50 years?
\_ Because you've missed the point. The courts ruled that the
marriages were carried out illegally. Rather than challenging
the definition of marriage through the courts, Newsom took
the law into his own hands. The above poster is basically
saying he's glad any other mayor cannot now just take the law
into his own hands to marry whatever to whomever. You probably
also thinkthat Clinton got impeached for receiving a bj.
\_ lol. I can't believe you fucking guys. All we ever hear
from you is the evils of "activist judges" legislating
from the bench, and now you want it challeneged through
the courts? man, this would be hilarious if i didn't
have to share a country with you fuckers.
\_ Please tell me this is some kind of troll. No one here
could really be THIS dumb, could they?
\_ It's pretty dumb. Please read my response below:
\_ These judges are enforcing existing law; if they were
"activist", they would leave the marriages legal.
That's what you get from the first look at it.
On a second look, any conscientious judge would feel
ashamed 50 years from now to take part in enforcing
the no-gay-marriage law, as it is clearly a "separate
but equal" issue; and "separate but equal" has been
shown to violate the Constitution.
\_ What "no-gay-marriage" law?
\_ The federal DOMA as well as the California state
initiative. Everyone knows these laws are
unconstitutional - why do you think there's a
rush to desecrate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hamend the
constitution before the Supremes take a look at
DOMA?
\_ Nonono, you got it all wrong: Gay marriage
desecrates the sanctity of Marriage!
\_ Sanctity is a religious concept. Here in the
USA, we have a secular government. Religion
is a private matter. Why is this so hard for
some people to understand? If you really
want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.
\_ Inasmuch as Jefferson wrote volumes on
separation of church and state, he is
only one guy, and there is a good
argument that the U.S. was founded on
Christian values and the belief in God.
Between having a government where
mentioning religion in a public place
is illegal, and the "establishment of
religion" clause, there is a lot of room.
\_ It clearly was not "founded on
Christian values". The republican
concepts were lifted from classical
(pagan) philosophy. Christian values
involve strong church authority. They
don't mention anything Christian,
but merely the generic "God" and
"creator" which signify nothing.
\_ They do? What about Protestants?
The whole issue with Protestants was
rebellion against Church authority.
You are spouting, my friend.
-- ilyas
\_ If it is so clear to you, please
show me evidence that this country
was founded on classical (pagan)
philosophy without regard to
the dominant Protestantism at
the time. I also think this
sentence is flat out wrong:
"Christian values involve strong
church authority." C'mon. We
have Christian values throughout
the U.S. today, and there is no
strong church authority.
\_ BZZT! Homosexuals have the same right to marriage
as any straight person. They have the legal right to
marry someone of the opposite sex. The law does not
care about love or personal taste or desire. The
law is only about strict factual concepts like your
gender, age, and race in regards to equality issues.
\_ Sexual orientation is, for the vast majority of
cases, something someone is born with. Over time,
it will be more concretely established in U.S.
law that it deserves the same level of protection
as gender, race, and age -- because it is
something someone is born with.
\_ Url on the statistics on that? Or is this just
a liberal article of faith?
\_ actually, I think it was the part about the dog and box
turtle
\_ Its possible to both support Newsom's actions and the actions
of the court. You may wish to look up the definition of
"civil disobedience."
\_ You may wish to take English 1A again. Box-turtle guy
explains why he thinks this is good news. Critic calls
box-turtle guy intolerant slut. All I said was that
box-turtle guy's statement doesn't have anything to do
with intolerance and everything to do with following
legal procedures.
\_ The fact that you don't think there's anything
intolerant about comparing an expression of love
between two human beings to an expression of "love"
between a man and a turtle is quite revealing.
\_ Love has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage
is a legal state that all people have equal access
to. All people have the legal right to marry
someone of the opposite sex. There is no equal
rights issue here.
\_ Love has nothing to do with marriage? Boy,
I REALLY hope you're not married.
\_ Actually, all I said was that the dog and turtle
part sounded like it came from a stodgy old guy
from 50 years ago with the thick-rimmed glasses.
\_ It actually came from a guy who's covered in
KY and feces.
\_ Actually, it came from some jerkoff (pun
intended) who change my original post.
\_ Civil disobedience isn't an elected official ignoring
the law. It's private citizens disobeying the law. A
Mayor's job is to enforce the law, and if he's unwilling
to enforce it, he should step aside and act as a private
citizen.
\_ This is a stretch when we are talking about San
Francisco, and I think you know it.
\_ Just because San Francisco is full of wackos
doesn't mean it's elected officials shouldn't be
held to their oaths.
\_ I think you're stretching, and I still think
you know it ...
\_ I'm not the above person who thinks SF is
full of whackos, but he does have a point.
Consider racist southern sheriffs who would
refuse to enforce the law against whites
who attacked and murdered blacks.
\_ What about an activist sherriff before
emancipation who refused to track down
escaped slaves, or refused to prosecute
the people who helped slaves escape?
\_ Slavery is a way of making people
unequal and is thus a violation of
the Constitution's equal rights
sections. Allowing marriage only
between those of the opposite sex is
not a violation. All adults are
allowed to marry someone of the
opposite sex and not marry someone of
the same sex. This law is applied
equally to all people. No issue here.
\_ "The law, in its majestic equality,
forbids the rich as well as the
poor to sleep under bridges, to
beg in the streets, and to steal
bread." --Anatole France
\_ Scuse me, Junior Scalia, but I think
your legal analysis is a wee bit
lacking here. But thanks for
posting it three times, repetition
definitely increases the
effectiveness of your arguments.
\_ Not to be too weasely or anything but he took
an oath to uphold the law, and made a
calculated judgement that the (dominant)
equal-protection clause contradicted with the
no-gay-marriage law. Elected officials have to
interpret the law all the time, but courts have
the final say on interpretation of law. |
| 2004/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32376 Activity:insanely high |
7/20 Where do people here come up with all the interesting (and not so
interesting) links? Do you start off from a random site and
does tree traversal on all the links all day and all night?
\_ No. Sites like these do all the work for you:
http://www.metafilter.com
http://www.memepool.com
http://www.obscurestore.com
Those should get you started, young Jedi. |
| 2004/7/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:32339 Activity:high |
7/18 Why euro-peons hate amerika:
http://hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html
\_ would anyone be willing to comment from experience on where
canada stands on the statism spectrum? closer to the US or to
Europe? would his criticisms apply to canada?
\_ Wow. That's so formulaic, it's amusing.
Part 1: what he used to think (establish author as fair and
unbiased critic who's seen both sides of the issue)
Part 2: his "enlightenment"
Part 3: occasional acceptance of some small flaw is his new
perfect XYZ, usually revoked by some later "but..." section
to further the appearance of objectivity
Part 4: set extremist work from opposing view up as strawman, and
use it to demonstrate validity of all arguments
\_ So.. uhh.. what's your point? Perhaps it's formulaic
because that's what his experiance was actually like? That
formula of thinking is very common when you live for a few
years in a foriegn country. Although I don't know that
part 4 was particularly useful. Are you saying the article
is invalid or untrue because it is formulaic?
\_ interesting article (ostensibly a book review) on this
subject:
http://snipurl.com/7uhd [nytimes] |
| 2004/7/15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32309 Activity:nil |
7/15 The Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage was defeated in the
Senate by a 48-50 vote. It needed 60 votes to pass.
\_ We're here, we're queer, we don't want anymore bears.
\_ "It's a net loss for Republicans politically," said one prominent
Republican in Washington who works closely with the White House.
"It does nothing for our base, because they're grumpy about not
having it, and it energized a significant portion of their base. I
guarantee you that the gay community will give twice as much money
and work harder for Kerry now, not so much because they care about
marriage per se, but because this effort plays to their fears that
\_ Just go to Orange County, California, you will find
that Bush is a lot more popular than you think :p
we're homophobic."
\_ so? California is still the minority state. It'll be one
of the very few states that'll vote against Bush. The
fact of the matter is that Bush is still popular and
will most likely win again.
\_ Popular? Read any polls lately? Less than 50% approval
is not "popular." And also note that gay marriage has
been gaining more and more acceptance in polls as time
goes on.
\_ Everyone I have talked to at my church is voting
for Bush. So is my entire family back in Oklahoma.
I think you Bay Area liberals are going to be in
for a surprise come November.
\_ Same here. My hometown is TN.
\_ Bush is polling well in North Carolina, too.
I recall last time that if Gore had managed
to win his own home state....
\_ Gay marriage: yet another "law" created by judges,
not our elected "law making" officials.
\_ You have seriously drank the electoral college kool aid.
\_ Why are you arguing with a fellow Republican?
He probably already agrees with everything you wrote.
\_ He isn't arguing. He's discussing. Everything
doesn't have to be a big fight or shit fest.
\_ Sigh. Don't they teach US Gov in HS anymore? The bill needed 67
votes to pass as a constitutional amendment. What the Senate voted
on whether or not to officially vote on the "Ban Gay Marriage"
bill. There's a difference.
\_ The vote was for cloture.
\_ Mr. Government Studies Scholar doesn't know what that means.
\_ I really love Cheney for this. He once said that this issue
should best leave the state to decide. Then, as soon as Boston
try to legalize it, then, he suddently become "defender of
marriage." This is typical of Bush-Cheney ideology: "We respect
your freedom and choice, as long as you agree with me."
\_ Boston is a city, dumbass, not a state. The problem with
the whole gay marriage thing is that cities like SF are
deciding that gay marriage is legal while the state says
it's not. Again, if you are going to allow gay marriage, pass
a damn law that says so. These legal shenanigans are going
to create a major problem over the interpretation of the law. |
| 2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32274 Activity:high Edit_by:auto |
7/14 How do i find out how each senator voted on a given bill?
In particular, I'm trying to find out how each senator voted on
the gay marriage ban today, and I can't find the actual vote in
the senate records.
\_ http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00155
\_ you rock. thanks.
\_ DUDE U R TEH GAY
\_ Post it if you find it.
\_ do you want to OUT them?
\_ http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm
(just google for: how senators voted)
\_ You can figure it out from this article. They list the
party members who crossed lines:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49537-2004Jul14.html
__,-~~/~~~~~~`---.
_/_,---( , )
/ < / ) \
| ( / :: \ / : \ |
\/ ::::::: :: \ :::) :: /
(_(::::\::( ::::>::::::\)
\\_(:_:<:::>_>'::::/ //
~~`-i########|--~~
:/OVIVBV|v\:
,Z/V7V|HIH\\..
/V|ViI:i\
I;|.|.|
<|i::|i|`.
- ------===;;;'====------------------===;;;===----- - -
` ^'"`-' "
/V|ViI:i\
:/OVIVBV|v\:
__ __ ,Z/V7V|HIH\\.. _ _
__/~\___/ \_/ \XX/~~\##/~~\\\_/ \/ \__/~~\_/\_
__,,,----(::/::\:/:\:==@@@@@############@@@@@===/;;\;;);;);;)-----..____ |
| 2004/7/6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:31182 Activity:very high |
7/6 Old news, but interesting
Sources: Cheney curses senator over Halliburton criticism
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy
\_ This was already discussed on the motd and there's nothing new.
Perhaps you should read the motd archives.
\_ What was the conclusion from sodans?
\_ http://csua.com/?entry=31000
\_ Why the hell do we need some UCLA guy archiving the
Berkeley csua motd??? :)
\_ It's better than some Stanford guy, hehe...
\_ Looks like the curse word was debated for exactly
one entry before the whole thing turned into an off
topic pissing match about Al Qaida and Iraq. So it
would still seem worthy of discussion.
\_ Cursing is only bad when Democrats do it.
\_ Ah, go fuck yourself. -a Demo
\_ Best take on the whole thing was Jon Stewart's: "This shows that
Cheney is coming out in support of gay marriage." |
| 2004/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:31099 Activity:very high |
6/30 I'm being oppressed by Bay Area liberals!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030306.shtml
\_ Why has he forgotten about hispanics? Their population rise
all across bay area. In a sense, you can say they are driving
out the blacks and putting increasing pressure on the asians.
\_ Stop bringing facts into the equation.
\_ This is plain stupid, and racist. I use to live in a black
\- hello, are you saying Thomas
Sowell is a racist who hates
black people? --psb
\_ I think he is referring to
the motd commentator, as
indicated by the indentation,
not the Thomas Sowell article.
neighborhood. I still live at the same address, but most of
this area is now filled with white people (near Alamo Square
in SF). They tend to be young wealthy-enough white yuppies
who are buying victorians in the area. They have bought out
the black families who use to own these homes, and who knows
where they've gone now. The only blacks in the area live in
the nearby projects.
\_ have you caught gay yet?
\_ only for you.
\_ So the solution isn't to make sure all races have equal access to
education so that you can have a nice mix of affluent races in the
area, but rather to kill open spaces that are one of the things that
make many bay area communities such a nice place to live. Good plan!!
\_ Wow, you're really stupid. He's a nationally syndicated
columnist. That page has all his columns, and yet you know
nothing of his opinions, and instead of finding out, (by
reading one of his columns about education) you make really
stupid assumptions. Way to go!
\_ yeah, if you read more of his opinions, you'd realize he's
a total wack job and not waste your time responding to his
idiocy
\_ I'm not sure who the object of this sentence is. |
| 2004/6/14 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30797 Activity:nil 72%like:30887 |
6/14 Look, The Army goes gay!
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6042 |
| 2004/6/7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:30647 Activity:nil |
6/5 We have Lifetime and Spike TV, why not have a Gay network too?
http://csua.org/u/7mg Wierd.
\_ One thing to remember is the "most popular president ever"
meme which I've seen a lot of in the last couple of days.
Apparently it was actually Clinton:
link:csua.org/u/7mh (pollkatz chart) |
| 2004/6/7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:30645 Activity:high |
6/5 The virtues of gay marriage. Poor kid...
WAR OVER BOY RAISED BY GAYS
http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/24903.htm
\_ And the idea that the kid might be messed up by two 50-ish
parents bitterly fighting for custody never occurred to anyone.
As you said, poor kid.
\_ I don't know, the main feeling I got from the article is
that everyone involved is stupid.
\_ It says right in the article, "The boy's problems may be
partialy due to the stress betwen his parents." ALthough it
doesn't state which parents.
\_ I'm REALLY curious where he got the ideas to sexually molest
his classmates.
\_ How many 6 year-old kids have you been around? Kissing and
grabbing other people's private parts are common behavioral
problems for kids who are acting out. Ditto biting, kicking,
and punching. The kid needs counselling, just like any kid
whose parents are divorced or separated.
\_ Admittedly, not many with divorced parents and
behavioral problems. Most of my friends with kids are
still married.
\_ I thought 6 year olds running around kissing and
grabbing at people was par for the course. Guess I
grew up with some messed up kids. I also disagree that
_every_ kid who has divorced/separated parents needs
counseling....
\_ Good point. Let's put it this way: if your kid is
acting out and seems uncommunicative and the only
big stressor seems to be a divorce or separation,
consider counselling. If your kid isn't acting out,
talks to you about his/her feelings, and generally
seems to be fine, you're probably all right. |
| 2004/6/4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:30597 Activity:high |
6/4 Religious leaders write open letter to Congress opposing amendment
banning gay marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/04/politics/04gay.html
\_ I like that last bit: "the amendment would define marriage in
civil law, not religious ritual" but would use religion as a
basis for the morality supporting the amendment.
\_ You should look up the word 'morality'.
\_ Do you think the President knows the difference?
\_ mo-ral-i-ty, n.
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or
good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
3. Virtuous conduct.
It's wholly possible to have a morality not based on religion.
\_ Of course, there is no amendment proposed to ban gay marriage. And
having the Episcopalians (who recently consecrated an openly gay
Bishop) on in this group isn't exactly any different than having
Planned Parenthood object to a ban on partial-birth abortion. |
| 2004/6/4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:30594 Activity:very high |
6/3 ilias, do you take pride in everything that's Russian? Do you feel
proud of Tchaikovsky, Barishnikov, and other Russians?
\_ The 'clever young russian' thing I wrote earlier is a paraphrase
of Martin Davis' quote. Davis conjectured that Hilbert's 10th
problem will be solved by a clever young russian. His conjecture
was proven true in 1970 by Yuri Matyasevich (who was 22 at the time,
and obviously very clever). -- ilyas
\_ IN SOVIET RUSSIA, NATION PROUD OF YOU!!!
\_ Or borscht?
\_ I love borscht! I also take great pride in op's spelling
of my 5 letter login. -- ilyas
\_ Do you take pride in vodka?
\_ I take my vodka with pride. --erikred
\_ I love borscht as well. And I'm not Russian. -emarkp
\_ Or Bolshevism?
\_ Ilyas is a big fan of the Russian custom of administering beatings
to lusers. Sign your posts!
to lusers. Sign your posts! -idiot
\_ both Russians above are homosexuals. You got a point?
\_ Baryshnikov is not a homosexual, although you might have to
wonder about someone who slept with Liza Minnelli.
\_ How come all the russian girls are so hot compared to american
girls? |
| 2004/6/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30557 Activity:very high |
6/2 Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer out. http://www.michaelmoore.com -motd censor (bush #1 fan) \_ may be the most important film of this decade, opens 6/25 --darin \_ I'll make a point not to see it. Hes a flatulent slob. \_ yes. it is important to see the propaganda early so one can refute it at the water cooler, motd, etc, when the ignorant try to quote it as fact. i had to help a friend detox after bowling for columbine but she made it with some patient help. now she's an informed citizen who casts her votes on facts, not distorted half truths, faked interviews that never happened, and lines ripped out of context from multiple public speeches sewn back together to say something entirely different. \_ what did michael moore lie about? \_ links all over the motd and google. \_ Ya know, it's different in other parts of the country - sitting here in your comfortable Safe San Francisco Home; you can nitpick about various little things, but try living in Lumberton, Miss or Beldoc, SC. Ever seen a real lynching? My girlfriend has. Sometimes movies like this need to be made - to get at least one voice of dissent out. \_ ok thats nice and it has what to do with Moore's lies? \_ it's ok to lie if it's for a good cause? \_ Does the act of lying hurt anyone? \_ Someone's always hurt. The question is how many people are hurt and how many people are helped. \_ it's not really a lie, is it? just the difference between one interpretation of events versus another. \_ Bush lies all the time, but for *his* causes. \_ Does one man's lies excuse another's? \_ Link? \_ http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html \_ Man, this link is seriously short on Vague hints and shadowy references. http://www.mooreexposed.com http://bowlingfortruth.com \_ Useful, thanks --darin \_ In the interests of reading both sides, Moore rebuts: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/index.php And Hardy re-rebuts: http://www.hardylaw.net/MoorereplyHeston.html \_ I'm no fan of Michael Moore and there must be better rebuttals. This guy is nit-picking. \_ His rebuttal also requires that you didn't read the transcript of Heston's speech, which Moore wisely includes. You can call someone a liar as much as you want, but for god's sake, at least TRY to back it up. \_ What are you talking about? He links to the speech too. I think Mike's rebuttal is pretty sad. He doesn't bother with the stronger points at all. Nor does he deal with the fact that taking people's statements out of context isn't honest. \_ Small nitpick: Hardy says there was no rally. Moore points to a transcript of Heston's speech at the rally. Wtf? Also, Hardy says that Moore took Heston's words out of context, but Moore's tran- script of Heston's speech has the words as Moore portrayed them in the movie, including phrases Hardy explicitly accuses Moore of leaving out. \_ First Nitpick: Read more carefully. Hardy says the annual "rally" was almost entirely canceled except the voters meeting that is required by state law. (Which is where the speech was given.) I'm not sure what you're saying on the second one. Moore's transcript of the speech posted on the website is NOT entirely in the movie, only about 4 sentances are. \_ Yawn. Make a website refuting the movie, then post the URL. Vague hints and shadowy references do not a credible review make. \_ oh my God! you're cluesles, this is old. columbine movie was whacked!! ahaha and now you think F 9/11 is not? sorry ass \_ OMG WTF! U = TEH GAY! \_ You're kidding, right? This has been covered to death. No one who can read and has a browser or ever touched a printed newspaper thinks Moore is honest. \_ Thanks to whoever posted the links above. That was much more helpful than this hyperbolic assurance. \_ The links above were already there when I posted that this is a done and dead "we all know he's a liar" issue. I've never posted a link proving the sky is blue but I'm sure we could both find one if it mattered. Michael Moore doesn't matter. \_ You sure are spending alot of time worrying about something that doesn't matter. \_ Clarification: I'm talking about F9/11, not Columbine. |
| 2004/5/23-24 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:30376 Activity:high |
5/23 Lessons of the same-sex marriage debate in the Netherlands
http://csua.org/u/7ez
\_ I was kind of surprised by how bad this article is, given it's
from the Hoover Institute. They generally do better than this.
I counted about six crossed narratives, none of which tied the
central "history of gay marriage" narrative to the marriage data
on the chart. It seemed more like one person's opportunity to
vomit up a bunch of their readings into gay politics in the
Netherlands than any kind of research results. You know what, I can
read crap written by far-left academics and come up with alarming
statements, too, and I doubt I would get paid as much the author.
\_ The Hoover Institute has a glorious history of trying to draw
dubious correlations, then trying to claim causation.
\_ The chart makes no distinction between planned and unplanned
occurrences of children out of wedlock.
\_ Given the argument, I'm not sure it matters. Would in
increase in unplanned out of wedlock children be good or bad
of this page's statistics? The both show a break down of
the family.
\_ If the chart showed an increase in planned out-of-wedlock
births, it would show that more people think that being
married is not essential to having a kid. It is misleading
to describe this as "a break down of the family".
\_ yea... having two parents is old hat.
\_ Mmm.. obtuseness
\_ This article is a religious article, their
assumption is that children should be raised by
married parents. Not to meantion, cohabitating
families are statstically shown to be less stable.
With these facts in mind, it is hardly surprising for
this article to call a high percentage of out of
wedlock births a breakdown of the traditional family.
\_ Mmm.. statistics
\_ Mmm.. meaningless comments |
| 2004/5/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29964 Activity:insanely high |
5/3 Are you offended?
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2004/04/15/protesting_details.php
(Gay or Asian article in Details magazine)
\_ Welcome to two months ago.
\_ s/months/weeks/
\_ Two weeks old. How was the protest? |
| 2004/4/29 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:13475 Activity:nil |
4/29 Dey're tekkin rrr jebbbs!
\_ I find South Park to be both very pro-gay (Big Gay Al and his
Big Gay Sanctuary) and to be very anti-gay (turning people Queer
so that the future people wouldn't take their jobs). What's up
with this love/hate relationship? Are the makers gay?
\_ Answer 1 is that they see both sides of the issue. Answer 2
is that they weren't being anti-gay last night, they were
just playing with idiot redneck solutions and idiot redneck
latent homosexuality. -- aging liberal hippy douche |
| 2004/4/21 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:13306 Activity:nil |
4/21 Andrei Codrescu had a poem on All Things Considered last night,
regarding gay marriage. Does anybody have the text? And before
you accuse me of being an uppity NPR listener, I also watched Law
& Order SVU, which really is the worst show on television.
\_ Does this mean you have poor TV choice as well as being
a commie pinko?
\_ poor tv selection.
\_ http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2004-03-09/penny.html
Not as impressive in print though; it loses his timing.
\_ A *poem*? that's a poem?! Wow. I'm 100% pro gay marriage,
but I don't find myself hating NPR any less than before.
What shit.
\_ He's a poet, he wrote an essay, it sounded good in traffic.
Like I said, it loses something in print. You don't have to
be a philistine about it.
\_ That must have been SOME traffic. |
| 2004/4/21 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:13304 Activity:nil |
4/21 German Army Turns Into Gay Orgy:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040421/325/ernky.html
\_ Ok, the way it's written in the article makes it sound like a
horrible idea. In practice it will probably just be a bad
idea.
\_ Come on, the Spartans didn't do too badly, although I'm sure
it sucked to be a Messenian.
\_ If this is true, it will destabilize the Middle East
for years to come.
\_ Was college a gay orgy for you?
\_ No, but if it had been all male, it probably would have been.
\_ That's what the Boy Scouts is about. |
| 2004/4/20 [Recreation/Humor, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:13279 Activity:nil |
4/20 YA Unfortunate Headline: Gay Clergyman to Hold England Church Post
http://csua.org/u/6z8 [yahoo.com]
\_ If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of
them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
death; their blood shall be upon them.
\_ Do you plan on enforcing all the Old Testament laws now?
\_ The simple execution of everyone working on the Sabbath
will suffice, and William Hung too.
\_ This is exactly the kind of attitude that will
destabilize the Middle East for years to come.
\_ It's a joke boy. <Slap> A joke! "Gay Hold Post" Get it? Sigh.
\_ A really bad joke, you mean.
\_ Yeah I got the joke. I just thought an apropos excerpt
from the holy Word would be a nice addition. |
| 2004/4/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:13217 Activity:nil |
4/15 Why are conservatives so hostile to Open Source software?
\_ You mean conservatives like this?
http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns
\_ But Eric Raymond is an idiot. He doesn't count.
\_ "From age twelve I always wanted to be a Heinlein
character when I grew up."
\_ Isn't ESR a libertarian?
\_ Because they hate freedom.
\_ Why do liberals have to make up lies about conservitives to make
themselves seem reasonable by comparison?
\_ Why do conservatives have to impugn the patriotism of those who
disagree with them? (See "Why do you hate America")
\_ Why can't conservatives spell "conservative?"
\_ http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/05/1081017093699.html
Both the IPI and the Alexis de Toqueville institute have
\_ Tocqueville
\_ jackass <----------\
\_ You seem torqued. |
\-----------------/
now denounced open source.
\_ Why? Because there's no money in it? Because it's "communist"?
\_ Open source == (UNIX) rw-rw-rw- == 666 == numba da beast!
\_ But open-source binaries are code 555
\_ Open source software starts as code. Like marijuana,
it soon leads to voting Democratic, gay marriage,
and betraying America to communis...Islamic fanatics.
\_ Not to mention commie mutant tratiors. They
endanger the future of Alpha Complex.
\_ If the comuputer really is your friend, you'd
use MicroSoft. It's what the computer ask for
by name!
\_ Because Jesus hates it.
\_ Because it's unpatriotic. |
| 2004/4/12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Kinney] UID:13156 Activity:nil |
4/12 Sorry, I just don't get the idea of a guy blob. The idea of a guy
blob is gay, and the idea of reading a guy blob is gayer. Kinney
is gay. |
| 2004/4/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:13053 Activity:high |
4/7 Are there any studies correlating political belifs? ie, If
a person believes gay marriage should be illegal, how likely
are they to also believe that vouchers are a good idea?
\_ how about this. poll:
\_ Perhaps rather than studying correlations, it would be better to
try to figure out what things cause what beliefs. Correlations
are boring and uninformative, it's causes people want. -- ilyas
\_ Well, interesting and useful are two different things.
People have been studing causes for a long time, it's very
difficult to pin down. On the other hand, correlation
just takes a very large detailed survey. Also, I think it
would be very interesting. We tend to make Politics black
and white, one or the other, Republican or Democrat. In
reality things are much more complicated, and I'd like
to see some of the real patterns, not jsut what you can get
most people to buy.
\_ Read a book called 'Causality.' -- ilyas
sysadmin, right of center:
sysadmin, left of center:
engineer, right of center:
engineer, left of center:
scientist, right of center:
scientist, left of center: .
scientist, conservative libertarian: .
\_ Out of curiousity, why do you care? -- ilyas
\_ Republican = evil reactionary corporate oppressors.
Democrat = good progressive heroes of the people.
\_ I support vouchers for gays to marry
\_ I support a constitutional amendmant banning gay schools. |
| 2004/3/26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12877 Activity:nil |
3/26 Clarke lied under oath? Whoopsie!
http://csua.org/u/6lv (Yahoo News)
\_ Frist declares Clarke '"the only common denominator" across 10
years of terrorist attacks that began with the first attack on
the World Trade Center.' Clarke _is_ UBL!
\_ Lack of gay marriage was another common denominator. I bet if
we legalize gay marriage, all the gay terrorists will get
married and settle down.
\_ For that matter, Bill Frist was a Senator throughout that
period. Perhaps if we lynch him, the gods will spare the
rest of us?
\_ Jerry Falwell was a preacher during that whole period. It's
obvious that his blasphemy caused god to withdraw his protection
of the US. |
| 2004/3/22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12803 Activity:nil |
3/22 Gay marraige, is it inevitable?
http://newyorker.com/talk/content/?040315ta_talk_hertzberg
\_ isn't this were the X-men start popping up? |
| 2004/3/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12662 Activity:high |
3/15 Sigh. Another Monday, another edition of the motd censors' favorite
bland, vanilla topics. Bring back the Mormon thread! Let's laugh
some more at the FreePer goons!
\_ So what was the conclusion? Was Smith a total freak or what?
\_ If having 52 wives makes you a freak, then I don't want to be
normal.
\_ Nothing wrong with 52 wives. They are all willing partners,
just like in gay marriages.
\_ It may or may not be wrong, but it IS very weird.
\_ Polygamy is widespread in many species, and in human
history. Nothing weird at all.
\_ it leads to social problem since the male/female
ratios are roughly 1:1 at birth. what happens to
the other 51 guys with no spouse?
\_ that's their problem. the same thing happens
when they are more gay marriages than
lesbian marriages.
\_ There are roughly equal numbers of gays and
lesbians, whereas polyandry is very rare
compared to polygamy.
\_ Yeah, I had to read the archive to see some of the more luidcrous
attacks on my religion. -emarkp
\_ Ya know, the motd makes 1000% more sense now that I know there
is at least two Mormons on it.
\_ So, soda's motd is some sorta mission?
\_ Really? How so? -jrleek
\_ The continuing comparisons of gay marriage and polygamy.
People upset at the increasing societal acceptance of a
form of marriage their religion denounces, and the
continuing societal disapproval of a form of marriage
embreaced by the founders of the Mormon Church.
\_ Well, that's a reasonable conclusion, excpet me and
emarkp usually sign out posts, and I know it
wasn't me posting that. That's a comparison that's
frequent in conservitive radio anyway. -jrleek |
| 2004/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12602 Activity:nil |
3/10 Kerry backs gay marriage ban:
http://tinyurl.com/24gas (boston.com)
\_ flip
\_ flop
\_ Nice that you go the RNC memo, but you are full of it. Read the
article moron. Kerry has consistently said this issue should
be up to the states.
\_ uh whatever, I've read his record and his past statements.
the only thing he's got going for him is the unnamed foreign
leaders who he claims support him. hehe.
\_ You apparently only read the "analysts" breakdowns. He
hasn't flipflopped on this. He's been almost superhumanly
consistent. He supports preserving the current def'n of
marriage, but wants "civil unions" to be available for
homosexuals. He also doesn't believe the federal
government should legislate the point. This panders
to the general public and matches the polling numbers,
but is less than ideal in terms of progressivity. Not
having federal protection for recognizing these civil
unions across state lines make this a pretty clear
"separate-but-equal" debate. I expect you'll see a true
flip 5-10 years down the line because of this. --scotsman
\_ states, shmates. it's just an end run and an obvious one to
making defacto federal level gay marriage. when you and
your husband move to a state that chose not to have gay
marriage are you going to try to force that state to provide
full marriage rights? yep. so transparent. next!
\_ How can you "force" one state to enforce another
states laws? Laws can and do differ from state to state.
\_ Exactly, so what does your insurance company who is
based somewhere else do? What happens if one of you
changes states and files for divorce? Etc, etc. |
| 2004/3/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12518 Activity:nil |
4/3 Bush is doomed! http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak04.html \_ Bush is no conservative. |
| 2004/3/3 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29851 Activity:high |
3/3 *This* is the absolute best reason I've seen yet for why gay marriage
should not be allowed to happen.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/169838p-148291c.html
\_ Obviously you missed this fine example of why even heterosexual
marriage is doomed:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004060632,00.html
\_ obtheDudeIsGay
\_ So what? If marriage is between a man and a woman, lots of
gay guys will still get to marry their fag-hags. |
| 2004/2/29 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29840 Activity:insanely high |
2/29 Russian Male Bride website opened up for Gay weddings.
\_ Nice troll! You're going to get the anti-Russians, the anti-gay
marriage people, the anti-illegal alien people, and well, no, sorry
actually no one is that stupid, even on the motd. You get: C- |
| 2004/2/28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12441 Activity:nil |
2/27 To all you constitutional revisionists who think gay marriage is
somehow implied or sanctioned by the US Constitution, you guys are
full of shit. 200 years of history and there was never any
ambiguity about this point. If you want to play this bullshit
game of "interpretation" you should really get your head out of your
ass. The whole bending of words to support gay marriage is an
anathema on common sense. If you really want to recognize gay
marriage then fucking pass a law stating as such. Otherwise,
leave it the fuck alone. This type of revisionism is setting a
bad precedent for the rule of law. We might as well dump the whole
thing into a fucking shredder.
\_ It made me chuckle to hear the president talk about the brushing
aside of 200 years of american jurisprudence, yet he had no trouble
with brushing aside habeas corpus...
\_ The constitution was always meant to be interpreted differently
in its day (it is kinda vague, but has certains truths and ideals).
"We the People" meant white men in their day, but now it includes
men and women of all races, persuasions, etc. If you want strict
interpretations of anything, join the Taliban or Al Queda.
\_ The is a mechanism for additional interpretations
of the Constitution, they are called Amendments.
There are 17 of them.
\_ umm, dude, it's 27.
\_ U.S. Constitution, equal protection clause -- this is why gay
marriage can go to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Notice how I never
say anything about whether it will be voted up or down.)
\_ They said the same thing about slavery, but not as eloquently
as you do. |
| 2004/2/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12436 Activity:high |
2/27 Civics lesson 101: Marriage is not mentioned in the US
Constitution. Marriage is not restricted in the CA Const.
CA State Law defines marriage as being between a man and
woman, but relegates issuance of marriage licenses to cities.
By allowing gay marriages in San Francisco, Newsom is defying
CA State Law. In order to censure him, however, the Judicial
branch has to find the state ban on gay marriage constitutional
according to CA Constitution, which is unlikely after the
recent Mass. Supreme Court decision. Until the court rules,
the marriages are presumed legal and legitimate. If the court
rules that the ban is constitutional, the marriages will be
rendered null and void (and Newsom could face criminal
charges); if not, the law will be struck down, and the
marriages will stand and continue.
\_ Wouldn't Newsom only face charges if he violates a court order?
\_ His opponents might charge him with some abuse of powers
charge. Hm, then again, if that's illegal, why's Willie
Brown a free man?
\_ Well since there is some legal ambiguity about state law vs.
the US constitution, he could argue he was just making a good
faith effort to satisfy the needs of his constituents. His
opponents wouldn't have a very strong case unless he violates
a court order telling him to stop.
\_ BS. He modified state documents w/o state authority. He's
a felon many times over.
\_ You're frothing at the mouth. Would you like a napkin
to wipe it off. (At least I hope it's froth...)
\_ Hmm... the mayor modified the city marriage license.
That seems like it would be in his authority to do...
\_ good luck, the liberal courts are in his pocket
\_ See, this is why nobody likes you.
\_ Plus, there's this little matter that in order to get
convicted of a crime, you have to commit one.
\_ Nice universe you live in, how do I get there?
\_ Step one: take off the foil helmet.
\_ U.S. Constitution, equal protection clause -- this is why gay
marriage can go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
\_ equal protection clause exist for 3-somes, 4-somes, 5-somes,
etc.. too right? who says that marriage should be only for a
man&woman or man&man or woman&woman... what about 2men&woman or
2women&man or 2women&2men or etc... if gay marriage can go to
the U.S. Supreme Court..polygamy will follow by the same premise..
\_ Unless the States have anti-polygamy definitions in their
Constitutions. Fed > State, unless Fed doesn't exist.
\_ Gay people have equal protection under the 14th amendment.
All men have the right to marry a woman, similarly all women
have the right to marry a man. No man has the right to marry
a man and no woman has the right to marry a woman. Since
the marriage rights are applied in a equal and fair manner
to all citizens there is no claim under the 14th amendment.
\_ I'm disinclined to agree with you: see the 1st amendment
where is mentions something about making no laws that respect
an institution of religion....
\_ Not institution, but 'estalishment'. While ignored today
establishment refers to a state established church as
existed and still exists in England, as well as most of
the Thirteen Colonies at the time.
Hence antidisestablishmentarianism. In the mid 1900's
leftists twisted this in an attempt to secularize US
society. Finally, the Constitution was written to
limit the scope of Federal power.
\_ What does religion have to do with it? Are you implying
that by not providing for gay marriage the federal gov
is somehow establishing a religion?
\_ "And what else floats on water? ... And therefore..."
\_ This exact same argument was used to rationalize
anti-miscegenation laws, too.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/106us583.htm
\_ so? The link refers to fines / incarceration for
miscegenation. No such equivalent exists today.
In fact homosexuals are a celebrated 'mascot' group
with special privileges such as hate crime statutes.
One could argue this is because of all the homosexuals
in academia and media. The analogy fails.
\_ Wrong, the argument was made by people just like you
that miscegenation laws were okay and did not violate
the 14th Amendment, since blacks could still marry
and have sex with blacks and whites could marry and
have sex with whites. The analogy stands. Gays
are still incarcerated and are subject to losing
their jobs for having sex with other gays. And
there have always been all those homosexuals in
there have always beens all those homosexuals in
academia and media and everywhere else. Now, with
lessened persecution, they are just finally coming
out of the closet where you can see them.
\_ You know nothing about the arguments I make
so please don't assume. If you have any
appreciation for history whatsoever you would
recognize that the 14th amendment was explicitly
aimed at free slaves. You see I have no problem
with you passing whatever legislation you want
through the legislature or referendum. Instead
you want to subvert the republican process to
atone for your bizarre notion of social justice.
Many states have anti-sodomy laws, so what?
You are a boderline fascist and remind me of the
homosexual elements of the Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
\_ And the point you're (purposefully?) missing
is that there is nowhere in the Constitution
a definition of marriage that excludes same
sex marriages; there is only the SC's
interpretation that marriage falls under the
umbrella of "life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness." Until there is language
explicitly defining marriage as being between
a man and a woman, any law to that effect
will be unconstitutional. So, no, they're
legislating from the bench; they're doing
their job of making sure the legislature
does no pass laws contrary to the US
Constitution.
\_ Defense of Marriage Act signed
by President Clinton Sep. 21, 1996.
Except Hamilton, Madison, Washington
Adams and Jefferson were all closet
homosexuals and really meant to provide
for uninhibited sexual gratification
regardless of gender, age or species -
right?
\_ Defense of Marriage Act is a law,
not a Constitutial Amendment. It's
been sitting pretty, waiting for
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
by President Clinton Sep. 21, 1996.
a challenge for quite some time. |
| 2004/2/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12377 Activity:high |
2/23 Washington Post/ABC News poll shows only 38% of Americans support
amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. 58% said it should
be left to the states to decide. Bush is on the wrong side again!
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?date=2004/01/22/3
\_ So should I point out the bias of your source or point out that
the issue has barely hit public conciousness so the poll is invalid
or should I point out that like a lot of fuzzy feel good issues the
public is always willing to go along until they see their little
girl playing with the little girl across the street who lives with
2 lesbians and their little girl wants to spend the night there?
I'd go find the polls from last month that show the opposite but I
really don't care.
\_ Which judges? Are you just pulling stuff out of your ass? The
only court that's made a ruling on this so far was...wait for it...
a STATE court.
\_ Which judges? Are you just pulling stuff out of your ass? The
only court that's made a ruling on this so far was...wait for it...
2 lesbians and their little girl wants to spend the night there?
I'd go find the polls from last month that show the opposite but I
really don't care.
a STATE court.
\_ Well we might need an amendment that says the courts
they can't make legislators pass _new_ laws. Seems
pretty obvious already to me, but sometimes you need an
amendment to drive the point home. Maybe another one that
says once a law is passed, government officials have to obey.
-- ilyas
\_ No one said anything about judges. What are you talking
about?
\_ Agreed, brother. The constitution also finally needs to be
amended to stop all that flag burning, to keep people from
driving drunk, to make sure software jobs don't go to India,
to make sure people follow speed limits, yeah! -John
\_ Oh my god! We all know all lesbians are child molesters!
\_ what about filing Federal Taxes as a married couple? it
should be on a federal level
\_ Unfortunately, those 58% won't have their way if the judges have
their way. The only way for those 58% to get their way is to have
the constitutional amendment.
\_ You don't care so much that you overwrote three other people's
posts! Way to go asshole! You're also claiming that the WaPo
has a liberal bias which makes you an idiot AND and an asshole.
\_ Serious question and not a partisan troll: Is the primary reason
why conservatives keep wanting to add all sorts of crazy
amendments to the Constitution a direct result of judicial activism
by the Supreme Court during the 60's? That is, are they just trying
to pre-empt justices legislating from the bench?
\_ You don't care so much that you overwrote three other people's
posts! Way to go asshole! You're also claiming that the WaPo
has a liberal bias which makes you an idiot AND and an asshole.
\_ Overwrote? Nonsense. You was nothing new here the split
second before I hit save. The rest of your reply is just
ad hominen ranting trash. |
| 2004/2/23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29827 Activity:high |
2/23 What we can expect post- gay marriage.
'I'm tired of being forced into the shadows by society'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083245/posts
\_ They're still upset that they don't get to keep all the white women.
\_ I'm pro-Gay marriage, and I still have no trouble telling you that
this guy is sick and that his proclivities should never be
legalized. It all comes down to consenting adult human beings.
See how easy it is to differentiate? Now stop whining about how
teh Gay is going to open the floodgates. |
| 2004/2/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:12346 Activity:nil |
2/21 Just a rumor at this point, but...Wife of Texas Governor divorcing him
because...she caught him in bed with another man, the Secretary of
State?!
http://austin.indymedia.org/newswire/display/15577/index.php
\_ If you scroll down, they also accuse Bush of extramarital gay
affairs. It's like Matt Drudge...only on the left. The only
difference is when leftists spread obvious bullshit it's treated
as such, but you fucking rightwingers believe whatever Drudge
feels like making up this week.
\_ Drudge has an excellent track record. He's been wron exactly
once and got sued for it. He pulled the posting the same
day which is better than the NYT has done. It's easy to sit
here and toss around vague and unsubstantiated accusations
but the fact remains that drudge has an excellent record.
\_ Didn't Drudge break the Lewinsky story?
\_ Drudge is a mouthpeice for right wing smears. Some of them
turn out to be true, but that doesn't make him any less of
a mouthpeice. His basic problem is that he heavily promotes
stories for which he has no second source to confirm, and often
with a questionable source to begin with. As for the Texas
story, likely not true, but his wife IS divorcing him.
\_ As always its the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, right?
\_ Drudge differentiates between rumors and true stories. He
leaves it for the reader to decide instead of media
sources like the NYT which print a brief mea culpa after
years of publishing false stories.
\_ False stories? Besides Jaysun Blair, can you back this
up? Woops, I didn't think so!
\_ Idiot. Go read the god damned thing. It's chock
of retractions, errors, slanted word choice,
misleading headlines and editorial dressed up as
news. I'm not going to respond to your trolling
ignorant ridiculous nonsense anymore.
\_ Ha! As usual not a single real fact. And at
least they print retractions when they make
a mistake, unlike Drudge.
\_ Wow. You just argued that Matt Drudge's journalistic
integrity trumps that of the New York Times'. Are you
stupid or just a troll?
\_ Not author of comment but:
Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts
the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted
http://csua.org/u/64e
The Gospel According to the New York Times: How the
World's Most Powerful News Organization Shapes Your Mind
and Values
http://csua.org/u/64f
New York state of mind ~ A Navy officer's encounter
with The New York Times
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/978483/posts
The Times' Designated Man in the Street
(Coulter outs Times)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927766/posts?page=1,50
Just How Gay is the New York Times? Ask Richard Berke
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/913302/posts
The Times has not endorsed a Republican Pres.
candidate for 40+ years.
It's publisher was a very active anti-war protester
during Vietnam.
\_ So apparently you don't understand the difference
between having an editorial viewpoint, which is
ethical and reasonable if you state it outright,
and silently shaping your output to promote a
certain viewpoint, which is not. Compare, say,
Fox News to the New York Times. And just to
show this isn't a conservative/liberal thing,
the Wall Street Journal presents a consistently
conservative editorial viewpoint, but is
ethically on par with the New York Times and
both have vastly more integrity than Fox News.
\_ The NYT does not state outright that they're
left wing and their _news_ stories are
biased in that direction. They silently
shape their viewpoint in every run.
\_ But the NY Slimes maintains it has no
bias; yet they don't limit opinion to the
editorial page. Compare the
audience of Fox News to the nationwide
broadcast news programs:
~3 million to 30+ million for the
networks. And yet Jennings and Rather
maintain they are independent
journalists.
\_ Christ, learn to use an apostrophe'.
http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
\_ The very idea that the NYT is neutral and
doesn't slather every story with bias is
painfully obvious. I've subscribed for
years but not because it is neutral in any
way. I understand what I'm reading. Do
you? Are you even a daily reader? |
| 2004/2/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29820 Activity:high |
2/18 California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last night called for San
Francisco to terminate its ongoing gay-marriage marathon.
"Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they
overwhelmingly approved California's law that defines marriage as
being between a man and a woman. I support that law, and I encourage
San Francisco officials to obey that law," the former actor said.
\_ "I vill tuhminate your fag marriages!"
\_ I encourage Arnold to shut the hell up and concentrate
his amazing energy on fixing California's fiscal health.
\_ We put him in office to just do that one thing and ignore the
rest of the state's issues. not.
\_ "I believe that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."
- Arnold Schwarzenegger (this is a real quote)
\_ this was one of the la times' stupid quotes of the year
\_ URL?
\_ "Maybe you ahr all homosexuals!"
\_ You know, I could imagine being gay except for the part about
buttsex with guys. Actually buttsex with girls doesn't appeal
to me either.
\_ you can be gay and not engage in anal sex, ask tom.
\_ Tom holum is gay?
\_ yeah well oral sex is pretty ridiculous too. basically
I need that pussy. two cocks just doesn't work.
\_ You don't like blowjobs? You must be the only
guy in the world that doesn't.
\_ He probably prefers the softer lighter fur on his
gf's mustache to a man's coarser facial hair.
\_ "Give me your boots, your clothes, and your motorcycle."
\_ I had temporarily forgotten we have an Austrian former
world champion bodybuilder as governor of one of the world's
largest most important economies, thanks for the reminder.
\_ Better than a career politician doing nothing but lining his
pockets and selling to the highest bidders.
\_ not by much |
| 2004/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Tax] UID:12276 Activity:kinda low |
2/16 I totally support gay marriage. I'm single and straight but don't
have a gf, but I would like to have all the tax advantages of being
married. My roomate and I discussed it and we think it would be cool
that we sign marriage papers for the sake of tax benefits.
\_ For many couples, there's a significant tax "marriage penalty".
And are you sure you want to assume all your roommate's debts?
You get married, that's what you do.
\_ You haven't been paying attention, have you.
\_ To what? The elimination or reduction of the marriage
penalty will, at best, make being married not-a-penalty for
tax purposes. It is never better and there are no laws
coming up to make it better.
\_ Right now, it it is a tax disadvantage to be married,
if both of you are working and making decent money.
Perhaps this will change, but it has not so far, in
spite of Republican promises.
spite of Republican promises to fix it.
http://www.savewealth.com/news/9905/marriagepenalty.html
\_ If all married gay, there would be no kids to power the economy
and pay taxes. Since this would destroy our country, this
should be discouraged.
\_ wacky troll
\_ Our economy is doomed once the prime ingredient, cheap oil
goes away, anyhow: http://www.peakoil.net
\_ ASPO! |
| 2004/2/16 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12269 Activity:nil |
2/15 Is there more to love than lusty impulse?
\_ They have nothing to do with each other.
\_ Would you still be capable of love if you had been fixed?
\_ There is a documented case of just such an unrequited love.
\_ If everyone acted on lusty impulse all the time,
society would fall apart. Gay marriage, adultery,
targeting unmarried 20 year olds when you are married
and in your 50's are not "counter-culture," it's
selfishness and it destroys society.
\_ dude! who gave ashcroft a csua account?? - kane
\_ Acting solely on impulse would be bad, whether it were gay
impulse or the kind approved by your mother.
\_ last time I check, someone acted on impulse and invade
Iraq, he sure is not a Liberal nor leftist. |
| 2004/2/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12271 Activity:kinda low |
2/15 Seth Schoen w/the best reporting I've seen on the new SF gay marriages:
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/2004-02-15.html
\_ What's so great about this article, compared to other articles
written on this topic?
\_ How delightful! WIsh my wedding was that spontaneous.
\_ How delightful! Wish my wedding was that spontaneous.
\_ Yeah... Britney Spears spontaneous... I am willing to bet that
the more thoughtful members of the gay community are not very
happy about all the activism, because of the inevitable backlash.
The fact of the matter is that a good sized majority of Americans
think "marriage => man + woman." Gay rights must be protected,
but hijacking words will earn the gay community nothing but
resentment outside of enclaves like SF.
\_ WTF are "gay rights"? Do gay people have rights that
everyone else does not have? Are there black rights?
Midget rights? White heterosexual male rights? -John
\_ Settle down John. I just mean the rights of people who
are gay to the same stuff as other people. 'Gay rights
= rights of gays.' Settle down.
\_ Yeah, speaking of backlash, I will never vote for any more
protections for gays, etc. in my life. It's clear that gays
aren't for the rule of law. I didn't feel that way when it
was the mayor and some radical activists, but with gay couples
flocking to SF over the weekend, I've changed my mind. Also,
the argument that conservatives are "just forcing their
morality on everyone else" is irrelevant now.
\_ By definition, yes, marriage is between a man and a
woman. But honestly, I don't give a rats ass whether or
not gay people get married. Are you really that offended
by it? There are other groups of people I would rather
see having the priveledge of marriage being denied to
(like terrorists, criminals, assholes, etc.)
\_ It's not a matter of being offended. It's a matter of
sticking to word meanings. Word meanings and politics
are tightly linked, something noticed by a number of
people, including Machiavelli, Orwell, etc. Redefining
words to suit one's agenda, however laudable, sets a
very bad, very dangerous precedent.
\_ They're welcome to get married as long as they are required
to go through the same ugly divorce procedures and all the
brutal unfairness involved. And if there's any children
involved you'll be seeing the genetic parent screaming
bloody murder and denying gay marriage can exist. This is
going to be fun to watch. Marriage? You're welcome to it.
\_ BDG, is that you?
\_ Not this time. I'm happily married but marriage is
tough. It takes real work and effort and requires
real sacrifices. They seem to think it's some
utopian panacea of happy fun ball inspired legal
rights and benefits with no costs and *that* is what
I find offensive about the whole thing. I'm looking
forward to seeing the ugly gay divorces and child
custody battles and the support payments and wage
garnishings and all the rest. Gays seem to think
they're better than straights and only need a chance
to prove it. They're doomed if they get the same
rights *and* responsibilities as married people.
\_ Well, gays do have ONE advantage. I think
most of the problems in my marriage stem from
the fact that we don't understand the
opposite sex worth crap. Of course, that's
what makes it great too...
\_ "happily married"? That doesn't sound bitter
nor divorced.
\_ gay marriage, whether you support or not, is not legal because one
state/city can not impose such a legal transaction on another
\_ Interesting. So if I, say, get married in Arizona, it's not
legal in California because Arizona can't impose its legal
transaction on California? What a refreshing legal theory!
\_ Yeah, fuck that full faith and credit.
\_ Pretty much except for other laws that say marriage in one
state is accepted in others if the couple is male/female.
This is different from SF deciding to hand out marriage
licenses which are illegal because it's a state issue, not
a local one. A city has no legal authority to invent new
marriage laws. However, CA could decide to allow gay marriage
but Arizona would not be required to accept it.
\_ Liberals completely miss the mark again (and again and again).
The issue is not innately gay marriage, but the process you
go through to legalize it. As with every other leftist cause you
go through activist judges and subvert the republican process.
\_ That's the only way to get your agenda through when the majority
of the voting public doesn't agree with you because you have an
extremist position well outside the mainstream.
\_ I'm personally for male homosexuality. It helps to reduce
mating competition for the rest of us. Lesbianism, on the
other hand...
\_ removes a lot of bulldykes from the pool.
\_ that's great and all for men, but women... they'd rather
date a queer guy
\_ no, they'd rather date a guy acts queer, dresses nice,
smell nice, but pay for everything and fuck the hell out
of them behind closed doors.
\_ the term is metrosexual.
\_ Yeah, if we don't like a law, we'll just ignore it. It's open
rebellion. The governor should declare martial law, remove the
Mayor from office, and appoint a new mayor. |
| 2004/2/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29801 Activity:very high |
2/12 SF mayor marrying gay couples
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040212/D80LTLDO1.html
\_ How many is he going to marry? I thought polygamy was outlawed in
all 50 states? Isn't he straight? And why would any lesbians
want to marry him?
\_ Bravo! *clap* *clap* *clap*
\_ Thank you! Thank you! --AMC
\_ maybe let North Korea take out SF before we take them out?
\_ Good idea! Considering the blast radius of even a small nuclear
weapon, Soda would be a goner. No more motd flamewars to worry
about!
\_ I like the flamewars -psb #7 fan
\_ Not really. If they set off a fission bomb, Soda would be fine
except for downwind radiation. A large fusion bomb would be
another story.
\_ So you're saying the EMP won't be a factor, and we can
still maintain a server in Berkeley even after catastrophic
fallout? Cool beans! NUKE THE FAGGOTS!
\_ wasn't soda built near a nuclear reactor?
http://tinyurl.com/3c2de
\_ It doesn't mention this, but it was a tiny research reactor
that couldn't have melted down.
\_ Radiation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous
lies about it. Half-baked goggle-boxed do-gooders
telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense!
Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year.
They ought to have 'em too. When they canceled the
project it almost did me in. One day my mind was
ready to burst. The next day nothing swept away.
But I showed them. I had a lobotomy in the end.
\_ "People get so hung up on specifics, they miss out on
seeing the whole
thing. Take South America for example. Every year
in South America
thousands of people turn up missing. Nobody knows
where they go. They
just disappear. But if you think for a minute,
realize something:
there had to be a time when there was no people
right? Well, where did
all these people come from? I'll tell you where:
the future. Where
did all these people disappear to: the past. How did
they get there?
Flying saucers, which are really, yeah, you got it:
time machines."
\_ Scumbags.
They ain't scumbags; they're trolls just like us.
\_ #4 in the link hints of the reactor.
\_ Duh. I was just giving more information.
\_ Why are Christians so full of hate? I thought Christ
told you guys to love everybody and here you are
advocating killing 750,000 people because a few
of them disagree with you. You people are really sickos.
\_ Looks like they've hooked another mark.
\_ exactly, only a hand few of people pushing shit down
people's throats.
\_ how did Christians get into this? Don't other religions
such as Islam also go against gay-marriages?
\_ I think it's just a troll. I can't see what else he might
be thinking. |
| 2004/2/4-5 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12098 Activity:moderate |
2/3 Massachusetts high court:
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom,
if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage
wrote in the advisory opinion. A bill that would allow for civil
unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional,
inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."
\_ Hear hear
\_ If you're going to troll you need to spice it up a bit. This
blatant bait isn't going to catch anything.
\_ same troll |
| 2004/1/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign] UID:11879 Activity:nil |
1/21 "Dictionaries are opinion, disguised as fact, in alphabetical order."
-- A wise man
\_ Maybe I haven't been following the news, or am just one of the
many unelightened allued to below, but what does this quote
have to do with forms of government?
\_ Look, you have to pick. If you don't like democracy, like me,
you should be busy thinking of a better form of government, since
it's a larger problem than gay rights (no offense to homosexual
americans). If you do like democracy, you should learn to bow to
the opinions of the majority in political matters. -- ilyas
\_ Just do it like th greeks. Land owners and people who have a
reason to give a shit about society get to vote. All the teat
sucking proles continue on as before and maybe their offspring
will do better than they did in life.
\_ Plato called democracy the second worst form of government
(after tyranny). I agree with him. The problem with any
form of democracy is that masses of people, land-owners or
not, do not make good decisions. -- ilyas
\_ So what about a republic, which is the form of
government we have. Wasn't Plato speaking of
direct democracy? I agree with you that
direct democracy is horrible (look at CA's
initiative system), but I disagree with you
about republics.
\_ Introducing layers of indirection does not address the
basic problem. I don't really know what the answer is,
and neither did Plato. Plato wanted some sort of
enlightened monarchy, but he couldn't solve the throne
inheritance problem. -- ilyas
\_ "Do not make good decisions"? that's a bit much isn't it?
surely they sometimes do, sometimes don't. there are a lot
of factors that can affect the quality of the democracy.
How much incentive is there for the "good" decision-makers
to be in politics? Also, in this country, political parties
have become a joke due to the 2 party dominance. If we
had proportional representation, real parties and coalitions,
and something like instant runoff voting, I think we would
get government that is more representative of society. I also
think more power should rest with the more locally elected
people, instead of governors, senators and presidents who
have become television actors. I believe that the federal
government has gained a lot more power than the founders
envisioned.
\_ Sure, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And
you are also right in that there are factors affecting
the quality of a democracy. Nevertheless, I can't help
but feel that there is something fundamentally wrong
with democracy itself. -- ilyas
\_ The PRC is probably the closest alternative, where
you have a ruling elite who select each leader
in turn, and control accession to their group. But
anything other than democracy requires crushing
freedoms to maintain control, and will be prone to
a lot of inherent corruption.
\_ I am not sure you are right, which is why I am
still thinking about it. To use Plato's analogy
of the State as the soul, there are more kinds of
souls than those of serial killers and
schizophrenics. -- ilyas
\_ What's your metric of a better government?
Happiness of people, national power...?
\_ I don't really know the answer since if I
did I would have a better idea of what
kind of government is best. I do know that
a prerequisite for the kind of government
that doesn't make me cringe is some sort of
universal morality. Without this, it's just
competing warlords with perhaps a civil
veneer (or perhaps not...). -- ilyas
\_ SERVICE guarantees CITIZENSHIP!
\_ Enlightened beings rule themselves. They dont need a government
to rule over them. We earthlings, however, are not very enlightened
most of the time.
\_ you mean most of us don't think like you? |
| 2004/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11873 Activity:nil |
1/21 What the fuck is the "sanctity of marriage"? If politicians are
bold enough to support it, they should be bold enough to say
"outlaw gay marriages".
\_ They're bold enough to pay lip-service to religious supporters.
\_ possible amendment.
\_ pro-choice defenders should be bold enough to say "kill fetuses"
\_ how about 'remove fetal infection'
\_ Idiot. Making a law against something says "don't do this".
The absence of a law does not say "do it". There's no law
against you cutting your ear off. I guess you should do that.
\_ And where would you be if your parents decided to abort you?
\_ back pushing up daisies, which are probably prettier than you.
\_ where would you be if your parents never made it? think
of all the babies that could have been born if only they
had more sex!
\_ Not complaining on the motd, that's for sure.
\_ Here, "Outlaw gay marriages". WTF do you think Bush and others
are saying when they propose a Constitutional amendment that
would outlaw gay marriages? They're not hiding their views or
calling them something other than what they really believe.
You, sir, are a troll, and an ignorant slut.
\_ No I'm no troll. I'm bringing up a topic of
discussion the same way that most people do
here in the motd. I was wondering why they
have to give a nonsense euphemism for what they
want. And YES, they are partially hiding their
views when they say "preserve sanctity of marriage"
because that does not indicate anything about
gay marriages. But nice try, bitch. |
| 2004/1/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11773 Activity:nil |
1/14 How gay.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/14/reckless.driver.ap/index.html
\_ '"That's where she put him -- in a casket. That's what she did
for him. I'd just shut my mouth if I was her," [the victim's
mother] said.' Me, I think we should beat her with a baseball
bat until she has brain damage. That would send the right message.
\_ Only 30 days in jail for killing someone and putting another one in
coma? What justice is that?
\_ She will also have financial repercussions for a long time.
Read up on DUI enforcement. |
| 2003/12/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29734 Activity:nil 100%like:11570 |
12/23 There is no http://internationaljewishconspiracy.com/ \_ And there is no sense of humor on the motd. QED. \_ Look, if I had no sense of humor, I would have deleted your post instead of denying the existence of something that obviously exists... oh nevermind, you just don't get it. |
| 2003/12/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11491 Activity:nil |
12/16 Follow-up on the Orson Scott Card thing. If you want to know why
he's a loony, read this old interview with him:
http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/index.html?pn=1
\_ Ok I have got to be one of the most liberal posters on MOTD and
Card does NOT sound like an asshole to me. He calmly states the
standard Mormon reason for "protecting marriage" only when pressed,
and never states any kind of "affection for communism," so I can
only imagine what you think you are talking about. If anything
the lesbian author of the article editorializes far beyond the
limits of responsible journalism and comes off as shrill and
intolerant. I don't know what her problem is, and she wouldn't
last two seconds outside of her safe little lefty bubble. As for
Card... writing off all Mormons as "loonies" is basically what you'd
be doing, which is of course your choice.
\_ But actually, his repugnant views on just about everything are
right in line with typical motd thinking, besides the weird
affection for communism that he displays...so never mind. Don't
bother. --op
\_ what "repugnant views" would you be talking about?
\_ " I believe government has a strong role to protect us
from capitalism." C'mon, don't you find that repugnant!?
\_ No. I'm a full on right wing conservative and I do *not*
believe in full on fuck-you-all capitalism. That sort of
thing leads directly to slavery. No thanks.
\_ Child labor laws, the EPA, and the weekend are all things
the government has instituted to protect us from
capitalism.
\_ jeez, he's just a sci fi writer. the amazing thing is that
it would appear that the motd wants to hold its novelists
to higher standards than its political pundits.
Card never really claims to be an authority on modern politics,
just a science fiction writer.
\_Was this somekind of wierd troll? The woman interviewing him
is obviously an idiot. Card sounds very reasonable, and has
some interesting points.
\_ Oh, like that gay rights are "ridiculous," communism is
something that hasn't even been properly tried yet, and the
Vietnam war was a heroic and selfless sacrifice? Its amazing
how predictable the soda motd can be. We should just change
the name of the file to /etc/motd.public.fundies
\_ the gay rights thing is a little much, but he doesn't say
gay rights are ridiculous... he is parroting the same
Mormon notion that "marriage" means a particular thing.
He also doesn't say the Vietnam war was a selfless
sacrifice... he says FIGHTING in it was. And no, communism
was NOT tried in the USSR. Communism can work on a small
scale- go get pizza at Cheeseboard. |
| 2003/12/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:11421 Activity:high |
12/11 Are the Swiss Guards at the Vatican related to the military in
Switzerland in any way?
\_ STFW:
http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/S/SwissGua.html
http://www.italiansrus.com/articles/swissguards.htm
(Read: sort of. They are required to have basic military training
in the Swiss army, but are a separate group.)
\_ Yes. They have to have gone through military training, and are
dispensed from the normal reserve duty (and have to be Catholics.)
We think they're all repressed homosexuals. -John
\_ That would be a convenient explanation for the outfits. |
| 2003/12/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11339 Activity:high |
12/5 YAMP:
gay marriages are ok by not polygamy:
create whatever wacky marriage you want: ...
(assuming consenting adults)
man-woman is the only marriage gov should recognize:
polygomy is ok but not gay marriages: .
\_ For phuqm:
You're right, on the face of it, polygamy and incest are not acts
against which a blanket law would take into account all of the
circumstances surrounding any any given situation. Unfortunately,
we lack the means of divining whether a relation continues due to
active, participatory consent or because of undue influence
exerted by one of the individuals. In effect, we lack a law
against emotional blackmail and psychic domination. Current
incest laws seek to provide legal recourse to individuals who may
otherwise be kept in relationships against their will because of
the inherent authority some family members wield over other family
members. Current polygamy laws are a reflection of the growth of
women's rights, a set of rights that are often denigrated or
diminished in a traditional polygamous relationship; the goal is
to provide a legal means of protecting people who may not
understand that they have the right to be other than barefoot and
pregnant and in the kitchen. What about the rights of the
individual? In incest, if an adult and fully consenting brother
and sister really love each other _that_ much, they could maintain
their relationship with little fear of public persecution provided
that they exercise a modicum of discretion. How many people have
been prosecuted for consensual adult incest? (Don't bother
mentioning Lord Byron; we're talking modern.) As for polygamy,
well, as has been mentioned here, as long as you don't obtain a
marriage license for each of your marriages, it's not a crime to
simply cohabitate.
\_ But those who cohabitate with you would not qualify for domestic
partners benefits...
\_ http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2003/04/03/57389-ap.html
\_ phuqm, is this you?
http://www.museworld.com/archives/2003_06.html#001027 |
| 2003/12/6 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11335 Activity:nil |
12/5 Santorum: That frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is
sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Love
\_ Somehow I'd expect no less. Charming. The irony is he is
right. Polygamists and pedophiles have already invoked
Lawrence. Are you a member of NAMBLA?
\_ url?
\_ He can't give you an URL, because he's a lying troll.
\_ link:csua.org/u/55w
For the polygamy claim. Haven't seen one for pedophilia, but
you can expect it.
\_ ZEDO is an add server. I can't get this link. could
someone provide a text version? thanks.
\_ awesome. the term finally found a meaning!
\_ Umm, I don't really see what Dan (funny fucker btw) was upset about.
I didn't see the original article but in the quote given at the wiki
there is no mention of pedophelia. Obviously Lawrence can not be
effectively used vis-a-vis pedo. But why not polygamy? Who here
thinks polygamy is a LESS valid form of marriage than gay marriage?
Anyone? Of course it's not. People (consentingable) should be able
to enter into any kind of "marriage" contract they like and the
gubmnt should respect it. -phuqm
\_ no one's stopping you from living with a bunch of chicks and
calling them your wives, as long as they don't mind. the
government doesn't have to legally recognize them as your
wives though. maybe i'd like to call you my bitch, but the
government doesn't have to recognize that either. at least
theoretically, what the majority decides is valid is what
will, eventually, come to pass in this country.
\_ I was a bit confused. This is about sodomy not gay marriage
That being said, I still don't see what Dan was upset about
Do you think that the courts SHOULD allow laws agin' incest
but not against sodomy? Clearly they shouldn't. Clearly
incest and sodomy are equally repugnant to some and there is
no reasonable basis on which to say one is worse than the
other. Or that only one should be prohibitable by law -phuqm
\_ phuqm is my hero. Can I sodomize you, phuqm?
--phuqm #1 fan
\_ If you were REALLY my #1 fan you would ask if you
could by sodomized BY me. Still, i've been waiting
to have someone sign a post this way, and the bright
sunshiney day has finally arrived. -phuqm
as for the generally accepted "coming to pass". That may be
true but far from optimal. One generation has been taught
that it's ok to be gay and says "o.k. same sex marriages are
ok, but you guys and your polygamy that's just perverse.
We're not standing for that." Is this reasonable? I'm
really curious to know what you CSUAers think. Poll Time:
(poll moved to top).
\_ "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest,
prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality,
and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers'
validation of laws based on moral choices." -Antonin Scalia
There are laws against masturbation? Wow, some CSUAers are
really hardcore criminals then, I guess.
\_ right, so Scalia and I basically agree (It is amazing how
it is in the disscenting opinions of the
supreme court where reason is most likely to be found):
Either legislators have the right to enforce their own
moral code in regards to sex between consenting adults or
they don't (I exclude bestiality, being an animal rights
nut). Though Scalia abhors this decision and I applaud
it. (From a "this is the way *I* think it should be
libertarian view, not a legal one, which i haven't
considered in this case.) -phuqm
gay marriages are ok by not polygamy:
create whatever wacky marriage you want: .
(assuming consenting adults)
man-woman is the only marriage gov should recognize: |
| 2003/12/2 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11282 Activity:nil |
12/2 Gay Recap:
Liberal: As long as it's consensual, let me do what I want to do,
it's my choice if I want to corrode the moral fabric of our society.
Conservative: Gay sex is on par with polygamy, incest, and bestiality.
\_ Christian: how do pin angels on the Christmas tree?
Satan: how to stick a pin through angels?
Atheist: how come there are so many pinheads in this world?
\_ How nice, a Fair And Balanced (TM) summary.
\_ It was ruled that the Fox Trademark "Fair and Balanced" was
unenforceable when throwing out their inane suit against the
Al Franken book "LIES and the Lying Liars who tell them, a
Fair and Balanced look at the Right"
\_ He didn't rule that it was unenforceable, just unenforceable
in that instance.
\_ Being gay is not a choice.
\_ But having sex is.
\_ Do you accept that being gay is not a choice?
Just want to make sure.
\_ What I accept is that there is a spectrum of sexual
attraction, and that it appears in most cases there is
little or no choice involved in attraction. However, I have
seen anecdotal evidence to the contrary--men who lived
promiscuous homosexual lives who then married women and
lived happy lives (likely they were somewhere in the middle
of the sexual attraction spectrum). I also knew someone who
viewed a *lot* of pornography went from straight porn to gay
porn and suddenly "discovered" that he was bisexual.
\_ And at least one lawyer is arguing it:
link:csua.org/u/54r
\_ wow, way to make both sides look bad.
\_ that was my goal, i feared that i was bashing one side more than
the other. --'some of my best friends are gay'
\_ dude, being gay is not a choice
\_ neither are psychopathic tendencies
\_ only a motd person could equate love with psychosis.
\_ The man makes a point. Why is homosexuality not a
disease? It is certainly not normal, regardless of
whether it's a behavioral or a genetic condition.
It's certainly debilitating (it results in effective
sterility in most animals). Humans find ways around
it, but they find ways around blindness too. Blind
people don't drive cars.
\_ Are you against the use of birth control? Do
you believe propogation of our species is the
point of sex? I'm talking about human society,
not biological precepts.
\_ No I don't believe that to be the point of
sex. However, inability to procreate
conventionally is certainly a debilitating
effect, would you not agree?
\_ Er, no. As people have searched over
the multitude of millenia for ways to
prevent pregnancy, i most certainly do
not agree.
\_ More common is regulating pregnancy, not
avoiding it entirely.
\_ What relevance does this have? --not the
person asked the question
\_ Drawing a parallel to illustrate the
fallacy of the argument?
\_ Drawing a fallacial parallel won't
illustrate a thing about the argument.
\_ Indeed, it was listed as a mental disorder by the
APA, but was removed from the list without
review.
\_ http://www.sissify.com/juice/dsm4.html#orient
If you want the other side, visit http://narth.com
\_ But why did homosexuals fight to have this
classification removed? You can mount much
more effective lobbying if you, as a group,
are considered to have a disease. You can
tug at more heartstrings that way. Look at
the blind and the deaf.
\_ Probably because classifying it as
a disorder is incorrect.
\_ Ah, but why without review? Was it
determined to be incorrect based on
scientific grounds? Or on PC grounds?
\_ The point is that tendencies are often not choices,
but actions are. Alcoholics are alcoholics whether
they drink or not. |
| 2003/12/2 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11268 Activity:nil |
12/1 Donald Rumsfeld wins Foot In Mouth Award:
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/footinmouth.html
\_ "I believe that gay marriage should be between a
man and a woman." - Arnold Schwarzenegger
\_ George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946:
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html
\_ Which is bizarre, because his quote makes perfect sense.
\_ It's a logical tautology:
Things we know we don't know = Everything - Things we know
In a logical sense, he's saying we are aware of fewer ignorances
than we have, which would not be the case if we knew everything
we know, got it? ;-)
\_ You must not see some of the questions he gets from reporters.
Sometimes he has to talk real slow, with short words.
\_ Bzzzt. Things we know we know.
Things we don't know that we know.
Things we know we don't know.
Things we don't know that we don't know.
\_ I knew someone would say this. Typical computer people. Just
because it makes logical sense, doesn't mean that its clear
English. Its very deserving of the award, which is meant to
encourage clear public speaking. I bet you think Stroustrup is
a well written piece of literature.
\_ Okay, so what was not clear about it? I fully understood the
intent of the statement the first time I read it with little
difficultly.
\_ Forest. Trees. Try the Orwell article, it might make
things a teensy bit more clear to you.
\_ Non. Sequitor. I read the Orwell article. Did you?
There's nothing like that at all in what Rumsfeld said.
The only thing I see at all that MAY confuse someone is
that the words "unknown" and "known" are used many times
\_ I'd like to see a transcript of the whole interview. He
sometimes says inane things to point out the inanity of the
questions he gets.
\_ Oh I see, so sounding inarticulate is like a Jedi Mind
Trick?
\_ No it's more like: "look you dumb asses, maybe if I talk
to you like you're a 3-year-old you'll understand"
\_ So wait. I have to be a 3 year old to understand
what Rummy is saying here? Are you a 3 year old?
\_ Bush Good, Saddam Bad.
America Strong, Terrorists Weak.
\_ No you moron. It makes perfect sense, but normally
you wouldn't be so verbose in pointing it out. I'd
like to see the transcript because it's most likely
he already answered the question several times and
was spelling out the obvious when it was clear that
the reporters were idiots. |
| 2003/12/1 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29676 Activity:nil |
12/1 So, I know people are probably tired of this topic but how about
polygamy? Are any of you pro-gay-marriage but anti-polygamy?
\_ My only problem with polygamy is figuring out how to handle
things like the tax laws, or divorces. I'm fine with the idea, it
just isn't as much as a legal nobrainer. We could have gay marriage
tomorrow, polygamy would take a little longer to get all the issues
settled out. |
| 2003/11/27 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11245 Activity:nil |
11/26 Massachusetts Supreme Court abolishes capitalism!
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35848
\_ Ugh. Coulter. Nothing this woman says is remotely interesting
or credible. She's Goebbels with tits.
\_ She makes a good point. Mass. constitution has been
around over 200 yrs, why now?
\- Helo you may wish to read "The Nature of the Judicial
Process" by Benjamin N. Cardozo. --psb
\_ Sigh...Must we go through this argument AGAIN? Just give
up, you'll never win. |
| 2003/11/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11221 Activity:low |
11/25 "Considering how miserable weddings seem to make straight people
-- the work, the expense, the seemingly inevitable conflicts with
your parents, the 50 percent chance of a divorce -- shouldn't people
who don't like gay people want us to get married, just to make us
miserable?" -- Dan Savage
\_ I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. Marriage is an
institution between a man and a woman ... and our constitution
and laws should reflect that. -Massachusetts gov
\_ I agree with thousands of years of recorded history. Slavery
is an institution between a master and a servant.. and our
constitution reflects that. Let's bring it back.
\_ talk about missing the point.
\_ No point to be missed, just some bigotry to be pointed
out.
\_ No, the point was "-Massachusetts gov". Care to
try again?
\_ The governor of Massachusetts is a Mormon.
No surprises here.
\_ Yeah, I see clearly in our Constitution where it
says slavery. America - love it or leave it.
\_ Taxation and Representation - Article 1 Section 2:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be
apportioned among the several States which may be
included within this Union, according to their
respective Numbers, which shall be determined by
adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including
those bound to Service for a Term of years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all
other Persons."
\_ superceded , 14th amendment section 2.
\_ Which was exactly my point. Sometimes,
you have to make changes.
Slave Trade - Article 1 Section 9:
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any
of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior
to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,
but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation,
not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
Fugitive Slaves - Article 4 Section 2::
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State,
under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall,
in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein,
be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall
be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such
Service or Labour may be due."
America - love it or fix it.
\_ what's so broken about not allowing queers to
marry? we don't allow lots of people who
engage in anti-social behavior to do a lot of
things for a lot of reasons.
\_ Okay, I'll bite. What's anti-social about
fucking? Seems pretty damn social to me.
\_ Garriage!
\_ ill bite, what's garriage mean?
\_ I believe its a concatenation of "gay" and "marriage."
-- !op
\_ ah... thanks. garriage... please tell me, is it
supposed to be insulting or a positive word/phrase?
\_ I have no idea. I don't think its either. I think
its just meant to be stupid/funny, like the rest of
the motd. Whether it suceeds at that is a matter
of opinion. I thought it was really funny the
first time I saw, but I'm sure like ED! and
RIDE BIKE! and now IFILE!, it will just become
tiresome.
\_ Actually, I was going for meme status... I'd like
to promote it as an alternative to the term "civil
union", which is the blinkingly obvious solution to
this whole debate. Marriage == religious sacrament.
Civil Union: Government's version of two people
declaring their love of shared tax forms.
\_ Nice plan, but the fundies will never go for it.
Anything that acknoledges that there might be
an acceptable, workable lifestyle that includes
something other than missionary position
vaginal sex between a married heterosexual
couple for the purpose of reproduction is
verboten. BTW, Dean supports something exactly
like what you are suggesting, but of course
the media will just spin it as "gay marriage"
because it will get better ratings that way.
\_ DEAN! |
| 2003/11/21 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29656 Activity:nil |
11/20 On the question of homosexual marriage:
Syphilis rate rises for second consecutive year
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/11/20/syphilis.cdc.ap/index.html
\_ That has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Wouldn't gay marriage REDUCE the STD rate? Less promiscuity adn all
\_ what makes you think gay are less promiscuous?
- straight live with a gay for one year. |
| 2003/11/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11121 Activity:nil |
11/18 http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031118/D7UT3KPG0.html Why do so many gay women look like men in skirts? Check out Gina & Heidi in this gay marriage ban article. |
| 2003/11/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11072 Activity:high |
11/14 About Judge Moore, I'm curious about the anti-Moore people here.
Moore was elected by the people to his office. Do you think it
is ok that some appointed body removed him from office? If so,
did you think it was *not* ok for the people of CA to vote to
remove an official the people of CA elected? If so, how do you
reconcile that double standard and why place an appointed body
above the will of the people in the greater scheme of things?
What was so wrong about the 10 commandments statue that it required
Moore's immediate removal by an appointed body while we were supposed
to wait until the next election to remove Davis in a time of crisis?
It's 8am. I hope that's not too early to try to start a real non-troll
discussion on a hot topic.
\_ it's worth pointing out that the decision to remove him was a
*unanimous* one, made by a group of legal experts from both the
Democrat and Republican party, which included elected officials.
The issue at stake was not the ten commandments statue, it was
an open contempt for the law.
\_ Judge Moore is a complete moron, I don't see how anyone can
defend him hauling his 10 ton commandments monument
INTO THE ROTUNDA OF THE STATE CAPITAL BUILDING. the
mind boggles.
\_ Yeah. The guy keeps saying that he's being forced to "deny god".
What an absolutely refrickindiculous statement. Hey Christians,
do you have giant statues with biblical crap on them in your
workplace? If not you're denying god and will BURN.
\_ this "judge" reffered to homosexuality as a "violation of the laws
of nature and of nature's God upon which this nation and our laws
are predicated." That means that 10 percent of the Alabama
citizens who walk through his courtroom door have already commited
a mortal sin in his eyes before their guilt or innocence
is determined. This man cannot be allowed to be a judge.
I believe this case is severe enought to warrant *any* action
to remove this man from power. Don't forget that majority will
of the people of Alabama was to hold *slaves* until we beat
them in a war, and to have black people live as second class
citizens until we had to send troops down there in the 60's.
If it comes to war again, so be it.
\_ In the 1700s there were more slaves in New York than
all of South. Only a few percent of Southerners, ie.
landed aristocrats, were slave holders.
For 2000 years homosexuality has been considered
unnatural - they can't reproduce! Don't you secular
humanists see the contradiction with evolution?
\_ I want more fags and less lesbos in the world.
That way there's less competition for the women.
\_ And i suppose that all the animals who demonstrate
homosexuality in the wild are just victims of an
evil liberal conspiracy by the Clintons?
\_ Being gay may be an evolutionary disadvantage, but having
some 'gay' behaviors may be an advantage, so the gene
lives on. Sort of like a heterozygus recessive, if
you'll pardon the pun.
\_ So then it would be morally wrong for a guy to just work
all the time and never date? I mean he can't
reproduce!
\_ The question is why some minority group deserves
special protection under the law simply because
of what the do in the bedroom. The irony is
this exact was predicted in a concurring opinion
in Griswald vs. Connecticut.
\_ This is a canard. No one (almost no one, okay)
wants special protection, just equal treatment.
\_ That is not what existing statutes
provide for. So now "equal treatment"
based on how you have sex is a natural
right? As dictated and
regulated by who? How do renconcile
this with freedom of association. Now
the government tells us how we have to
treat people because of what they do in
the bedroom.
\_ No, the government is telling us we
must treat all people equally
_regardless_ of what they do in the
bedroom. How this is not simply
common sense seriously boggles the mind.
\_ So if a congregation believes
homosexuality is a sin the
government has the power to force
it to accept a gay pastor in the
name of being 'fair'. The term 'fair'
when related to sexual choice
is so vague that its invites
gross abuse and the infringement
of freedom of association.
Now bestiality fetishes
and trangenders have the right
to force businesses them to hire
them because its 'fair'. Sorry,
you are a fascist. You should
not have the right to force
your bizarre agenda on other
people. If you want to do
it through 1) referendum
2) the legislature, fine.
However, as you know that will
never succeed.
\_ Bestiality involves non-
consensual sex. It is possible
(and preferable) to make rules
that allow for certain conduct
while continuing to outlaw
other conduct. The Santorum
argument ignores the ability
of people to make moral
distinctions outside of Biblical
proclamations. Stop trying to
throw the baby out with the
bath water.
\_ Never is a long time. People
thought slavery would last
forever, too.
\_ I think it's unnatural to drive a car. Thus, it's
immoral! And airplanes are even more immoral. Fire
too! Let's all go back into our caves.
\_ RIDE BIKE! LIGHT CANDLE! USE LINUX!
\_ Dead wrong. The Catholic Church widely condoned
homosexuality until about the 13th C, and even allowed
gay marriages. -- hetersexual catholic
\_ I think you mean clerical marriage.
John Boswell died of AIDS complications at
age 42 - think he could have had an agenda?
This is called historical revisionism, an art
perfected by the left.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002May/may23tru.htm
\_ That's right. And the banner that read
"Mission Accomplished" was mysteriously
hung on the aircraft carrier by leftist
insurgents.
\_ Yawn, redirection with a puerile
display of stupidity.
\_ Yet another classic case of right-wing
of civil disobedience, but if you are at all familiar with the
concept as practiced by Ghandi, King and Thoreau, you understand
issue dodging. No, seriously, you
don't believe the right engages in
historical revisionism?
\_ I agree. the left does historical revisionism
\_ To a Christian, all men are sinners, and all sins are
mortal. Adultery is sin too, for example. That doesn't
book, just a simple political power struggle, which he lost.
\_ nice.
mean they would advocate criminalizing adultery.
\_ Well, yes and no. Most sins can be forgiven if the sinner
repents or feels remorse and goes to confession. You can be
in a state of grace at least some of the time. Homosexuality
is unrepentant, ongoing sin. Isn't alabama one of the states
that has sodomy laws which are technically still enforced?
the US Circuit Court judges for ignoring the 1st and 10th
amendments.
\_ there are also venal sins. er, venial.
\_ Do you have a source that 10% of people are homosexual?
I don't believe this claim to be true, from personal
experience. -- ilyas
\_ Even if it's one percent or half a percent -- the man is a
JUDGE -- he's supposed to be passing judgement based on the
laws in the LAW books...not the religious ones. The exact
figure is kind of irrelevant.
\_ When has he ever stated that he ignores the law
in favor of the Bible. In the interviews I've
seen he states just the opposite.
\_ The 10% is based on the Kinsey study, which I personally
think overstated it, since they based it on lifetime
behavior not self-identification. But there are many
studies (use google) that indicate that the real percentage
of active GLBT in the general population is at least
4-5% -ausman
\_ I don't know. I lived in San Francisco, Berkeley, and
Los Angeles, not the most sexually repressed places
in the world. The figure of 4-5% still seems quite high.
-- ilyas
\_ My estimate is kind of on the conservative side,
actually. I am only including people who are
sexually active. Look at this study:
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/youth/tremblay/app-a.html
Do you think that 4-5% of SF is gay? You have got
to be kidding me. The real number is more like 15-20%.
\_ I don't think ilya gets out much.
\_ When I was in the co-ops, I'd guess 2% gay,
additional 2% Bi
\_ 2% bi? Heh, not among the girls. Sweet!
\_ Straights have notoriously bad gay-dar.
\_ A judge takes a vow to uphold the law. Moore believed himself to
be above the law and willfully violated it. So yes, I think
he should have been removed. I am well aware of the principle
of civil disobedience, but if you are familiar with the concept
as practiced by Ghandi, King and Thoreau, you understand
that you accept the punishment that comes from violating the law
as part of the deal. Additionally, they were not judges. I think
by holding himself above the law, he made a mockery of the
whole idea. He was not engaging in civil disobedience in my
book, just a simple political power struggle, which he lost.
\_ nice.
\_ he's preparing for a senate run, or governorship, duh
he's happy to be removed, do you think he's that dumb?
\_ If you support his removal then you must also support impeachment
the US Circuit Court judges for ignoring the 1st and 10th
amendments.
\_ If you think that boolean logic applies to the real world,
you must be a hopeless twink.
\_ If an appreciation of the historical context of the
amendments and their authors designates a twink,
I suppose so.
\_ Nice try, but your twinkness hinges on your inability
to see the shading between black and white, a disability
that will make you a great and courageous crusader, but
a poorly socialized member of society and a twink. |
| 2003/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:11040 Activity:nil |
11/11 Cool. Foreign born billionaire fucking around in American politics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer
\_ So its okay when Richard Mellon Scaife does it, but its bad when
George Soros does it? And I hear that Ahnold guy is a furriner,
too.
\_ Scaife is an American. His concerns are American. He is not
running around spending money to make America better for the
world but the world better for America. As an American that's
ok by me. I'm not a citizen of the world, or Berlin or any
other place outside this country.
\_ And Soros has lived in America since 1956, likely well before
you were born. Calling into question the patriotism of a
citizen of this country simply because he supports a different
view from yours is childish at best, unpatriotic at worst.
--scotsman
\_ And this is worse than huge corporate donations how?
\_ Did you read the article? No. You're so blinded and ignorant
you don't even know about the death of big contributions a few
years ago from big corporations and the equally evil unions?
\_ because corporate donations go to The President, and Soros
donates only to organizations not affiliate with any one
candidate.
\_ Huh? Nurse, increase the patient's medication, he's not
making sense.
\_ go download the latest patch for your sarcasm detector.
\_ Wait I thought the Democrats were the party of poor, homosexual,
minorities. HOw could this be?
\_ Homosexuals hate minorities.
\_ Actually, minorities hate homosexuals.
\_ It's important that we all understand which of the
different 'communities' on the left hate each other so we
can make sure to sit them at different tables when we
divvy up the public treasury for ourselves. |
| 2003/11/8 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:10992 Activity:nil |
11/7 Supreme Court: Gay Sex Not Adultery
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1017041/posts |
| 2003/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29572 Activity:very high |
10/10 Fiery Black Conservative Running For Congress in North Carolina
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999124/posts
\_ Is this some homosexual code word?
\_ is this called projection? |
| 2003/9/12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Recreation/Media] UID:10158 Activity:nil |
9/12 John Ritter, RIP.
\- Johnny Cash -> dead.
\_ they always come in three's (company)
\- E_TELLER
\_ Teller and Ritter? It's an odd pair to put in the same list.
One was an amazingly brilliant scientist, the other was
famous for playing a straight guy pretending to be a gay guy
on a 70's sitcom.
\-the list is "people who died this week". so take your
aesthetic objections to the grim reaper. --psb |
| 2003/7/29-30 [Transportation/Car, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29174 Activity:low |
7/29 Looking for cool URLs to share at work, like the spinning wheels
and the matrix ping-pong ones.
\_ Bigger, but:
http://www.theforce.net/theater/fxprojects/ryandork/index.shtml
\_ http://www.memepool.com to be on the leading edge of cool dork. |
| 2003/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:28952 Activity:high |
7/7 Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated
to international will. A justice goes on television
to argue his case.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941589/posts
\_ Scalia's a homophobe! (News bulletin!!1!)
\_ At least he defined the homosexual agenda. |
| 2003/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:28873 Activity:high |
6/30 RIP Katharine Hepburn:
\_ How DARE you be intimidated by me! Screw the gays and the
republicans and the trolls and the freepers and and and. This
is sad. :( -John
\_ so is foxnews. -- not being sarcastic or disrespectful
\_ Gay Republican Freeper Trolls (GRiFT) unite!
\_ incidentally i was completely unsaddened. except for the usual
brief moment of being reminded of death in general |
| 2003/6/30 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:28868 Activity:high |
6/30 http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/2003_06.shtml#001320 Can anybody back up what he says about the flag being replaced? \_ It was taken down because it was "larger than the stars and stripes" which is funny because they didn't claim that for the previous years. \_ so it had nothing to do w/ the court decision? \_ Wait, that was a different thing.. This I haven't read about, but I found an AP article talking of it. http://csua.org/u/3ft at the bottom. \_ thanks, that's pretty cool. \_ It only flew once in previous years and the local rules weren't the same then. Stop looking for some sort of VRW anti-gay C. The world does not revolve around your penis and where you put it. I promise. \_ As was stated, this was separate from the actual discussion, so your troll is almost not worth replying to. But your facts are wrong. It has flown at least three times during pride celebrations, and the stated reasons for taking it down were from the federal flag etiquette code. \_ "As was stated"? No such thing was stated. This was in direct response to the posting so piss off. And no it has not flown three previous times. It was flown the first and *one* time later. You can't shut down the truth by trotting out that troll crap. Just because you disagree (and you're factually incorrect as well) does not make my posting a troll. \_ Now all you have to do is convince the Republican party of that statement and it will be true. \_ I'm a (R) and don't recall seeing anywhere on recent party platforms that your penis and it's location is the center of the universe. Maybe I missed a paragraph. \_ ignoring the troll fodder above, yes, the gay pride flag was taken down for the day and a US flag flew in it's place. |
| 2003/6/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:28650 Activity:nil |
6/5 This is just bizarre:
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/6012988.htm
\_ even moreso:
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=12805&c=50 |
| 2003/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:28244 Activity:nil |
4/27 Read about Fistgate and other adventures is our venerable public
school system, care of you, the taxpayer.
Queering the Schools
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_queering_the_schools.html |
| 2003/3/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:27708 Activity:kinda low |
3/15 IF you are gay in a public school in Arkansas Look The Fuck Out
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=12082&c=106
\_ or "Watch Your Ass". heh, heh.
\_ uhm yeah like this is news, duh. and not just in arkansas either. |
| 2003/3/13 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:27688 Activity:high |
3/13 Republican legislator proves Holocaust caused by Gay Nazi's:
http://csua.org/u/abf
\_ mmm, gay nazis
\_ wow |
| 2003/2/21 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:27477 Activity:high |
2/20 Campus homosexuals will be purged in the cleansing
flame of God's fury!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20030219.shtml
- danh
\_ So just because she's a religious right wing nut fascist means
she's wrong? -John
\_ she ripped almost her entire article from an inflammatory
article from the cal patriot people. the uc police
read the message boards and hunt down the "gloryholes",
so her basic premise of the administration doing nothing
is wrong. ok fine maybe she's right in the end
where she hints that campus gays will suffer
the full righteous wrath of God. - danh
\_ Do they really? On at least 2 occasions, I've randomly ended
up in a stall featuring one of these. Fucking disgusting.
\_ Yeah, me too. I accidentally ended up in one in Wheeler.
And then my penis accidentally fell into this
guys mouth. I accidentally came all over his face.
Disgusting. Even worse, it keeps happening to me!
\_ Oh, _gays_. I misread _guys_. Berkeley campus guys have
mostly already suffered the full righteous (debatable, but
it builds character) wrath of god. -John
\_ Maybe she stole the article content but she's still hot.
\_ Please explain to me how anonymous sex in public places such
as bathrooms and parks benefits society. The consequences of
this kind of behavoir are obvious, ie. STD statistics.
And yet the liberals want to not only enshrine this behavoir in
statute but subsidize it. Please, use common sense
when it comes to politics.
\_ uh, could you provide a reference for liberals wanting to
"enshrine this behavior in statute [and] subsidize it"? -tom
\_ Move to houston. I hear your kind is welcome there.
\_ You "love it my way or leave it types" are so funny. I love
it from the right and I love it from the left. It's so
amusing and hypocritical. Thanks for that morning laugh!
\_ what i don't understand is how this can persist in a
community where homosexuality is totally accepted and
where the gay scene has a reputation of being outstanding.
why not just go to a bar?
\_ What I gathered from that article:
1) She's hot, so she must have a point.
2) What the hell is intersex anyways? That wasn't part of their
name while I was a student.
220 does anyone have a copy of Clinton's Final Days handy? it was on adcrtc |
| 2003/2/20 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:27468 Activity:high |
2/19 Are there any male celebrities or public figures whom you would
describe as "pretty rather than handsome"? I'm trying to figure out
what exactly that means. Thanks.
\_ leonardo di caprio is pretty
\_ He's got a pretty mouth
\_ pretty annoying
\_ Someone who looks like he might be gay is pretty. Someone
more manly looking is handsome. Note that this has nothing to
do with the actual sexual orientation, just your perception of it.
\_ Instead of "might be gay" try an appropriate word like
"effeminate." There are lots of men who look like they might be
gay, but hardly any of them are "pretty," or have an high level
of effeminate beauty.
\_ I think Legolas from LOTR is pretty. - girl
\_ I did too. Which made me feel geeky AND gay.
\_ You're geeky and gay. I just thought he was an ok depiction
of what an elf might be like.
\_ I thought Legolas looked like sowings.
\_ !??!? -- u
\_ Riiiight. Nice try, sandy. -mice
\_ Uh... uhhh.
\_ Brad Pitt pretty. Harrison Ford handsome. Sean Connery handsome.
Russell Crowe handsome. Denzel Washington handsome.
Horman Goehrring handsome. Benito Mussolini handsome.
Tom Cruise pretty. Rick Schroeder used to be pretty, now almost
handsome. Jason Priestley pretty. Topher Grace pretty.
Ashton Kucher pretty.
\_ you have a strange def of pretty.
\_ Tom Cruise evil. death to scientologists. evil evil evil.
\_ He can be a scientologist and pretty. The list of hollywood
scientologists is pretty long. Scary. I'm glad hollywood
is there to speak out for me against the war and the bushes.
\_ How many people has your beloved Sharon killed?
\_ more prettys: the white guy on Scrubs, and the guy in some
upcoming movie with Robert DeNiro
\_ So what is Richard Gere considered? Tommy Lee?
\_ RG: old. TLJ: ugly.
\_ RG in American Gigalo: pretty
\_ I think people are starting to get pretty/handsome confused with
cute vs handsome vs hot. |
| 2003/2/14 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27418 Activity:high |
2/14 http://csua.org/u/955 (Last letter on page) "There really are a lot of good men out there. They just happen to be yellow." \_ Hoyt Sze! \_ anybody have hoyt sze's writings archived somewhere? I searched on google and can't find anything. I keep hearing about his views on asian women/white men, but it's all second hand. Where is the source on this stuff? \_ Hoyt was an idiot. This guy is right. \_ he seems to think gay men aren't asian \_ I think the truth is that gay asians are not what he was writing about nor who he was writing for and he's a bit obtuse as a writer. This is not a crime outside of Berkeley, you may be surprised to learn. \_ San Francisco women are all Gold Diggers. |
| 2002/11/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Computer/HW/Drives] UID:26663 Activity:high |
11/28 This is pretty gross:
http://csua.org/u/628 - danh
\_ Not to excuse him, but he sounds like a damn good teacher.
\_ Why do you mention this? Do you not understand that the type
mostly likely to be molesting kids is the type who is going to
go out of their way to spend time with kids? It's kind of a
"well, duh" thing. None of that shit makes him a good teacher
anyway. Weirdo.
\_ a guy who teaches 1/2/3 grades and went to Mills is
either gay or trouble or both.
\_ "a guy who ... went to Mills" is all we needed to know.
I wonder how many years he was surrounded by man hating
dykes fingering each other all day while he got nothing?
\_ does that make one gay, or just a misogynist?
\_ neither. it obviously makes one a child molester.
\_ people with normal IQ do not become teachers unless they
are turned on by kids. Almost all good teachers are pedophile.
\_ Does this just apply to men, or women as well?
\_ just men. women have sub-par IQs and teaching is a
traditional woman's job anyway so it's ok to be a stupid
woman teacher. it's expected.
\_ "He helped out with the school's clown troupe"... c'mon, everyone
should have seen this coming a mile away.
\_ Did he play the Kiddy Lovin' Clown? C'mere and sit on Kinko's
lap! |
| 2002/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:26158 Activity:high |
10/11 Do the Democrats have no shame? Character assassination forces
Montana Republican out of race:
link:csua.org/u/3ea
\_ The quote at the end is the only thing that makes any sense in
the whole article.
\_ Yes, I'm sure the head of a gay rights group would say that and
I'm not at all surprised that a motd poster would find that the
only thing that makes sense.
\_ Hint: smear campaigning isn't unique to the DNC.
\_ URL or example please.
\_ If something as paltry as that was enough to force him out of the
race, he didn't belong in it to begin with.
\_ It was Montana. It wasn't paltry. If he's smart, he's already
loaded everything he owns and hit the road before a mob kills
him. Death isn't paltry.
\_ uh, how is showing actual footage of the candidate "character
assassination"?
\_ No cookie.
\_ The music running behind the ad wasn't part of the actual footage.
\_ What about just looking ugly? Bill Simon looks pretty nasty in those
slow-mo, black&white Davis ads.
\_ I don't know why Davis bothers. Simon has a base of people who
would vote for him simply because he's not Davis. Nothing will
change that. Davis should be more worried about his own
negatives because if he loses it'll be because too many stayed
home or voted communist/green because Davis stinks too much. |
| 2002/7/31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:25460 Activity:nil 58%like:25465 |
7/31 I am interested in changing my profession from a full time engineer to
a full time gay prostitute. Any comments and/or URLs with more info
regarding gay prostitute, maintaince, liabilities, etc.? |
| 2002/4/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:24458 Activity:high |
4/16 do you consider JabberJaw Gay?
\_ I think asking about JabberJaw is gay.
\_ What the heck IS JabberJaw?
\_ Google, "JabberJaw", "I'm feeling lucky"
\_ Hey, it's don't-ask-don't-tell around here...
\_ I dunno... I thought it was just bi-curious.
\_ All 16 'episodes' of it from 1976?
\_ he was imitating Curly from 3 stooges, the cartoon shark right?
\_ So you think Curly was gay, is that it?
\_ Curly's boyfriend dismissed all rumors that Curly was gay. |
| 2002/1/31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:23737 Activity:high |
1/31 http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002050329,00.html Man has sex with goat. Dozens of witnesses call police. \_ He's gay and he did a female goat? \_ Is this the first time youM-4ve ever heard of people doing it with animals? What planet have you been living on, for the past few centuries? Well, come to think of it, this _is_ soda. This news is probably a first for many people here... \_ No, genius, but it *is* the first time I've heard of *dozens* of witnesses, people calling the cops on their cell while others held down the goat raper. I know you didn't read it so I made a one line summary for you so you wouldn't have to but you *still* didn't get it. I live on Earth. You should try it out here where this isn't a common event. \_ i've heard of multiple first-hand accounts of women putting on shows with animals in public south of the border. i've never seen it, but it's nothing new. \_ Ok one last time for the slow ones in the back: This was a dude caught out in public fucking a goat by dozens of people on a passing train that stopped there for a while. It wasn't a sex show in TJ, it wasn't yermom in an act in SF. This was a random private citizen fucking a goat by the train tracks in public because he wanted to fuck a goat. Back here on Earth this is *not* a common event. \_ So is PETA for or against this? \_It depends on whether the goat consents. \_ This is because of the Gay Homosexual Bestiality lover Daschle. Help conservatives fight this sort of corruption and immorality! http://www.worthynews.com/commentary/hate-crimes-bill-2.html |
| 2001/10/15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Computer/SW/Mail, Computer/SW/OS/Solaris] UID:22737 Activity:nil 75%like:22712 |
10/14 so, are the developers of solaris homosexuals (like sendmail)?
\_ Both of the people I have met from Sun were gay.
\_ How do you know?
\_ gaydar
\_ They sucked my dick
\_ lots of the IBM people are gay.
you know.... more than one ... |
| 2001/9/19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36333 Activity:nil |
9/19 For those inclined to post articles from the Guardian.
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3ba8322940da.htm
\_ I like the comments from the peanut gallery
on that page:
These leftists would gladly cheer our being marched into the gas cham\
bers. They truly would.
Hell, they would cheer their own being marched into the gas chambers
The typical leftist has always wanted to throw his neighbors kids to the\
queers,,,,or the terrorists,,,,,that's all. Just that.
\_ Have you read about the public school sex education in Boston,
where they teach how to fist eachother... you'd be surprised.
where they teach how to fist eachother. Would you send
send your son on an overnight Boy Scout trip with a gay
scout leader?
\_ Yes. Would you send your son on an overnight church trip
with a priest? It is my understanding that they have a higher
rate of child molestation than out-of-the-closet gays. |
| 2001/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:22311 Activity:very high |
8/31 I've heard that gay men often wear an earring on one side. Which
side is it? Right or left? Thanks.
\_ Millhouse, my mom wears an earring. Do you think she's cool?
\_ About 20 years ago, this may have been the case. Piercing is
far too common now to be any distinguising factor in sexual
orientation.
\_ Yes, about 20 (or maybe only 15) years ago it was:
left: straight, right: gay
\_ Trying to upgrade your gaydar? What for?
\_ probably knows someone with such an earring...i'm curious myself.
but i mostly assume any male with an earring is gay in spirit.
\_ arrrrrgh, matey. ya be callin' me gay, ya landlubbing
nancy-boy?
\_ He's probably hoping all male earing-wearers are
at least latently gay so he can fantasize about them
and hope it may come true.
\_ Oh not everybody. I only fantasize about you,
big boy. |
| 2001/6/25 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:21626 Activity:nil |
6/25 I once walked by 306 Soda and saw a lecture on Lambda Calculus. Is
that like the SF Lambda Gay Society, where gay+geek people meet and
do each other?
\_ no. |
| 2001/3/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:20766 Activity:high |
3/12 our navy sucks, they just bomb observers at a training , before they
killed japanese kids on a fishing boat.
\_ We need better strategerie, something Clinton and those lousy
democrats could never do.
\_ hey chickenshit, i'm glad you are safely behind your monitor
instead of cockpit cuz you can yak (and yank) all you want, but
unless you've donned the uniform and bled for something you
believe in, you ain't qualified to talk about squat.
\_ This is Colonel Leslie "Hap" Hapablap. If you don't
open that door I'll tear you up like a Kleenex at a snot
party! Sweet Enola Gay, Son! I'm going to come in there
and corpse you up -- corpse you up and mail you to mama!
\_ listen twink, I posted this and I expect better , way better
from the military. There is no honor when messing around in a
sub and handling weaponry capable of destroying countless lives.
I expect way better than myself in the military.
\_ We can only talk about things that we've done for ourselves?
what a stupid attitude. Time to stop talking about politics
and art, to start with.
\_ You are capable of talking about anything you like (ie: can)
however you come off sounding like an idiot when you pick
one or two unfortunate accidents and come up with witty
paint-them-with-a-wide-brush commentary like, "our navy
sucks". And who said the rest of us are unqualified by
that standard to discuss politics and art?
\_ well, the poster to whom I replied says you aren't
qualified to talk about politics and art (and various
other things)
\_ That's probably because the training has degraded. I read that
cadets can now wear tennis shoes instead of boots during hiking
training.
\_ that's cuz they started using Microsoft NT in 1998. Or that's just
a sign of the things to come, who knows.
\_ yvan eht nioj
\_ hey, nice song |
| 2001/2/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:20540 Activity:high |
2/9 http://www.skyflow.com \_ wow. why isn't this linked from http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~adj/research \_ those pics of grinning, ethnically-diverse phone users are gay \_ gay? You can tell that from over the net? \_ i referred to the pics. for inanimate objects or pieces of data to be called 'gay' is a usage that transcends the literal meaning of the word 'gay,' much as with the ubiquitous terms 'suck' and 'lame.' Unfortunately there are no proper English synonyms for the meanings embodied by these three words: 'suck' verb, an antonym of 'excel' 'lame' adj, to be disapproved of and/or inferior 'gay' adj, to be excessively fruity and/or jolly \_ http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=suck http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=lame http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=lame The dictionary meanings are not only more complete than yours, but more accurate *and* precise when referring to the slang use of the words. Not only are there proper English synonyms for these words, but you seem to have misunderstood what the slang terms mean. Silly geek, try a dictionary next time. \_ actually that dictionary is in error. just looking at its slang definitions of suck: >To behave obsequiously; fawn. Often used with up >To be disgustingly disagreeable or offensive >To perform fellatio on none of these capture the common usage of the day; saying that something sucks usually does not mean "disgustingly disagreeable or offensive" but rather more along the lines of being crappy, or as in: "johnny sucked at quake." i defy you to provide a satisfactory synonym for that. also the gay thing ain't in there. |
| 2001/2/6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:20511 Activity:nil |
2/5 My 2 cents on "Mamma Mia!". I enjoyed it a lot even though I've never
hear of ABBA before in my life (before my time). It's a cute story.
Funny at times. It's well worth the money.
\_ What are you talking about?
\_ Able was I ere I saw Elba
\_ Don't be gay
\_ "Don't be gay" isn't a palindrome. Try again.
\_ Yag beb gay!
\_ Ai, Mamma Mia!
\_ Good one. But the comma broke the symmetry
\_ Ai Mamma Mia. |
| 2001/1/4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:20233 Activity:very high |
1/3 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/20001219_xex_why_iraqs_bu.shtml - iraq wants your ps2s! \_ Old news. Check the URL. 12/19. \_ well damn. you really CAN build a beowulf cluster out of em... \_ Santa is not happy about that. http://webworst.about.com/comedy/webworst/library/weekly/aa122100a.htm -- yuen \_ Dude, you are gay. Please don't ever post url's again. \_ I am gay? -- yuen \_ s/\?/\./ \_ s/gay/flaming ass gay/ \_ That "article" was beyond gay. |
| 2000/12/5 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/TJB] UID:20000 Activity:high 66%like:20005 |
12/4 What do ugrad TAs earn at Berkeley?
\_ Hot gay sex.
\_ they don't earn this, they engage in this.
\_ Only if your first name is Trevor.
\_ I though that tjb was the #1 playa.
\_ Sundays at 10pm on Showtime!
\_ I got $1000 per month.
\_ for giving hot gay sex?
\_ No.
\_ $12.50/hour several years ago.
\_ And don't forget the partying with Nick Weaver!
\_ priceless
\_ it was about the same last semester, though I don't remember
the exact amount. it doesn't matter anyway, because you'll
probably end up putting in a ton of hours w/o pay. (but TAing
is not about the money, right...)
\_ Haven't you been paying attention?
Hot gay sex is what it's about.
\_ priceless. |
| 2000/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:19722 Activity:nil 57%like:19710 |
11/9 Typical reactionary spittle-emitting moron. Here's the URL:
http://www.newaus.com.au/us162cw.html
Damn fine example of conservative idiocy.
\_ Here are some of the highlights:
Americans are facing a deadliest [sic] political force. The type that
spontaneously emerges overtime [sic]...
Gay Alcorn is another example of that destructive breed of lefitwing
[sic] journalists who are driven by ideology. [as opposed to this
guy]
Monopoly is one of those economic concepts that's slippier [sic] than a
greased pig on steroids...
Obviously, a well-reasoned and balanced article, written by an
articulate journalist. -tom
\_ Poor tom. You're exactly the sort of person he's talking about and
can't see it. |
| 2000/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:19710 Activity:nil 57%like:19722 |
11/9 Typical Liberal, can't handle the truth. Here's the URL:
http://www.newaus.com.au/us162cw.html
Damn fine article.
\_ Here are some of the highlights:
Americans are facing a deadliest [sic] political force. The type that
spontaneously emerges overtime [sic]...
Gay Alcorn is another example of that destructive breed of lefitwing
[sic] journalists who are driven by ideology. [as opposed to this
guy]
Monopoly is one of those economic concepts that's slippier [sic] than a
greased pig on steroids...
Obviously, a well-reasoned and balanced article, written by an
articulate journalist. -tom |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:19685 Activity:moderate |
11/9 dpetrou, are you gay?
\_ are you up for some hot gay sex with him?
\_ give the guy a break, its the first non-politics entry
\_ dpet, is <DEAD>partita.rem.cs.cmu.edu<DEAD> Bach's Partitas? |
| 2000/9/6-7 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:19185 Activity:insanely high |
9/6 I accidental opened the bathroom while my grandmother's still naked in
the bathroom and I did not have a hard on. Is that normal? Could I
be gay? Is there such thing as being "conditional gay" or "5% gay"?
\_ Male roommate? did your wife kick you out or did she
just move her boyfriend in?
\_ Are you asian/indian?
\_ Is she a hottie? (Probably not, as people who post on the motd
and people who have hottie GF's are sets without intersections)
If not there's your answer.
\_ silly noodle, hard-ons are triggered by a complex set of emotional
and physical and intellectual considerations. Walking in on her
(sounds like this was a surprise/faux pas) probably involved
some shock or shame and so unless you're one of those guys
who likes to subject people and cause them harm (hopefully not)
it's natural not to get a "hard-on" in that case. But you
really need to start reading a lot of books about sex not asking
the motd.
\_ Good point. Another possible reason is that he has already seen
her naked too many times, thus he has lost impulse on her body.
\_ He said GF not Wife.
\_ ever heard of Kegel Exercises? Look it up on google. |
| 2000/8/3-4 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:18867 Activity:high |
8/3 If reiffin is a homosexual man yearning for young boys, why is
he married? If he's not, why is he trolling soda's MOTD?
\_ it's obviously a cover. and young is relative, so that's why
he's trolling here.
\_ who's reiffin? -sophomore
\_ oh come on, you honestly can't bleieve anyone would marry poppy
as anything but a beard.
\_ She's attractive. What's wrong with you? You gay?
\_ 1) she isn't attractive.
2) she could look like cathrine zeta jones and it wouldn't
matter.
\_ is that you jj? Get ove CZJ, she's got old foggy
disease.
\_ Who's poppy?
\_ reiffin's wife
\_ picsP?
\_ Poppy's all right. She really doesn't deserve this. -ex-czer
\_ Poppy is a raving, foaming, loon
\_ nah, she's really all right. At least when I was
at CZ. Actually, most people at CZ were cool when
I was there. A lot better than the wife-beaters and
self-destructive folk at the more conservative co-ops
I lived in later. -ex-czer
\_ I think she lost it after she started dating judd.
Hell, wouldn't you? |
| 2000/7/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Recreation/Media] UID:18630 Activity:high |
7/9 Not that I'm gay or anything, but after watching Phreaks and Geeks
last night (the D&D episode), I kept thinking about E260, tom,
and the netrekers last night...
\_ what does gay have to do with D&D, E260, tom, and netrekers?
\_ everything -aspo
\_ Are you using "gay" to mean "stupid"? That is so 80s...
Uh...wait... do you even remember the 80s?
\_ I had the Story of O in my bucket seat of my wanna be Mustang.
\_ I lived the Story of O with yermom.
\_ What's Phreaks and Geeks? Sorry for not being up on the latest
chic in geek culture.
\_ Freaks and Geeks was one of the few good shows on network
TV last year, which is why NBC killed it.
\_ It was about d&d playing computer nerds? What's so
good about that?
\_ it's a semi-romanticized version of the
way things in high school should've been
to make things memorable, as opposed
to a good portion of us who are angry and
bitter and apathetic about the whole time,
or a mixture of the three.
\_ Excellent summary. Sign your name.
\_ i heard that there's a petition to get it back somewhere else,
anybody know where the main one is? it's one of the
few shows i actually watch on network television
-- too cheap and to busy to buy cable
\_ what's E260? Sun Ultra 260? -freshman |
| 2000/6/16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:18484 Activity:low |
6/15 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000615/aponline154508_000.htm Man convicted of killing gay dog. \_ Those fuckers give a 404 for incorrect Referrer field in the http request; search for "gay dog" under "AP" to get the article \_ Worked for me. |
| 2000/2/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17646 Activity:very high |
2/27 So, in case anyone was wondering why gay marriage should be allowed
and why you should vote for it, please go to my website and sign the
petition at <DEAD>www.aidsriddenfagsarebeingpunishedbygodandmustdie.com<DEAD>
I'm sorry but it's a little sappy, but true.
\_ USE WINDOWS MAN. LINUX SUX. WINDOWS REWLZ. ANYONE WHO'S
ANYONE USES WINDOWS. LINUX USERS ARE FREAKS MAN.
\_ Wow. Despite generating no responses until now, this thread in the
motd re: gay marriage has gone for nearly 24 hours without being
nuked. I wonder what kind of politics are held by the person who
keeps nuking the pro gay marriage posts for our protection from
trolls.
-dans
\_ Maybe his politics don't involve logging on to soda over the
weekend (believe it or not, some people don't). -emarkp
\_ Maybe, but, seeing as he posted it on Sunday, which is
traditionally considered to be part of the weekend, that
doesn't seem to hold. -dans
\_ This assumes that the nuker and the poster of this troll are
the same person. -emarkp
\_ "There can be only one".
\_ if it hasn't generated any responses it's neither a thread nor
an effective troll. -tom
\_ This is bullshit because the zeitgeist has come around and
busted the money shot in the face of all those eggshell walking
hypersensitive hypocrite I-love-gays-so-long-as-the-other-jews-
are-watching by complete and outright apathy toward gays
wanting to participate in a ceremony rooted in anti-fagdom
because what's the fuckin point? They get the tax break and
personally I don't care if sacrelige is the latest kink so long
as adoption agencies don't blur the distinction between
mommy-daddy and faggy-faggy the same way I'm sure none of you
want your children stuffing cute little rodents into their
cute little nambla loving colons. - (fucker)
\_ It isn't a troll and it isn't there to start a thread. It is
there to get people to sign my petition and bring a greater
understanding of these sensitive issues to more people. Where
does it say I'm trying to start a thread? At this point, given
dans and you replying and then me counter replying, there really
is a thread, but I wouldn't expect you to see that, tom.
\_ Sign yer posts you twink. -dans
\_ Guh duh! "Sign yer posts so we can squish your account!
-dans". Go screw yourself.
\_ Listen, 1) we're not going to squish you for being an
asshole. soda has lots of those, and they've gone
unsquished. We will squish you for being a hoser.
2) when the motd was being rearranged, we figured out
who was doing it. If you're the one nuking the motd,
we'll figure out. 3) Sign your posts you twink so that
soda knows what an asshole you are. Now take your own
advice and go screw yourself. -dans :p
\_ "I'm da president! I rewl da m0td! Do as I sae
0r da m0td mafea w1l f1nd y00!" It's a fucking
open access anonymous system. Don't like it that
way? Change it. Until then, fuck off. Seen lots
of people just like you (but smarter) come and go.
\_ Oh, you've seen people come and go, could it be
because they graduate? I'm glad I could
enlighten you on the mystery of why people
don't hold CSUA officer's positions for their
entire lives. It's fortunate that you can
recognize intelligence because, clearly, you
lack it. Try again, twink. -dans :p
\_ No. Mostly they just go away. Seen them
in the RW, too. Mostly, I'm doing this just
to get a rise out of you because it amuses
me. I suppose I'm trolling but not really
because I wanted only you to respond. Does
that qualify for a troll? Doesn't matter.
Either way, I still annoyed Mr. SquiK!
enough to elicit multiple responses, some
of which were signed "CSUA President" as if
that was going to put the fear of Gh0d into
me or something. Whatever. You're now
offically boring and of no more amusement
or entertainment value. Bye.
\_ Funny. You were amusing me. I'll try
not to be so harsh the next time I play
with you. -dans |
| 2000/2/26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17633 Activity:nil |
2/25 Now you idiots know why I deleted all of aspo's trollish bullshit for
the last three days. You had your fun for a few hours. You spewed
hatred at each other over a hot button topic that no one is going to
budge from. Now it's over. Polito, take your troll crap elsewhere.
You're convincing no one. You are polarising, not bringing together.
Abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, immigration. These are
all stupid and ridiculous "debate" topics suitable only for first
year dormies who think they can convince someone else of how right
they are and whether or not God exists through superior logic and
when that fails simply resort to personal abuse. Go away. I've
nothing more to say but will continue to quietly delete this sort of
spewage for so long as dormy-style idiots continue to post it.
\_ I think the mysterious aspo rant deleter is aspo's other personality!
\_ If you feel inclined to systematically delete posts that you
disagree with, then we'd be more than happy to sorry your account
for motd hozing. It's one thing to delete things that everyone
agrees are trolls (i.e. "Linux Rulez--RIDE BIKE" or "Man, I love
Microsoft"), but most of the community is not of the opinion that
Aspo's (or anyone else's posts on this subject are trolls). If
you don't want to read the debates they provoke, then hit the
space bar until you're past them. Let the rest of us (i.e. the
larger group of people who are a) reading the thread and
b) posting to it) decide for ourselves when the thread is tired
and dead. I certainly didn't ask you to sanitize the motd for my
protection, and neither did anybody else. -dans (President Hat) |
| 2000/2/26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17631 Activity:insanely high |
2/25 For those of you who were wondering why bother legalizing gay marriage
and claimed the benfits were minor: read the following url.
\_ Let's just get to the point: if two guys are girls what to
\_ Let's just get to the point: if two guys or girls want to
hook up and engage it dick-sucking, asshole-fucking, carpet-
munching, finger-fucking, or whatever else it is that same-
sex couples do, that nobody else's business. Or maybe they
want to be married in a non-sexual union. whatever. The government
has no right to legislate on who gets to marry who...that
constitution. And regardless of what the law says, it's
is in direct violation of the first amendment of the U.S.
constitution.
\_ true. Marriage has no business being in U.S. law at all.
yourselves...your insularity is a sickness in itself.
And regardless of what the law says, it's
nobody else's business anyhow save for the two people
in the relationship. Case closed. I can't believe people
are arguing homosexuality as a disease. Just look at
some of you. Your insularity is a sickness in itself.
- rational straight guy
\_ ***Stupid comment purged here***
- damned straight guy
yourselves...your insularity is a sickness in itself.
\_*stupid comment nuked again* my, you are stubborn!
\_ Your sickness is a sickness
\_ It is more proof the benefits are minor. Do we really want to
ship in MORE gays to the gay capitol of the world?
(Yah it
is sappy, sorry about that.) Also those of you who think gays and
lesbians should have the right to marry please print out
/csua/tmp/petition.pdf, fill it out and mail it in. Signatures are
needed. Every damn one counts. And to the idiot who keeps
deleting anything in to motd related to this topic, grow up you little
twit.
[http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/archive/2000/02/24/DD65385.DTL]
[a little rougher formatting, but nicer to cut-n-paste]
-aspo
\_ Anyone who uses Adair Lara's column for anything other than TP should
have his head checked (or already did at the door).
\_ I know. That is why I apolgized for the sappy content -aspo
\_ gays and lesbians should not be allowed to get married, they
should go to mental hospital or be shot. They are like a a
disease or virus. Naturally they will all perish because
there will be no offsprings. What's the point of getting married?
\_ because they want to pretend their sickness is "normal"
\_ Even better, they want to force you to recognize with no
scientific or medical basis that they are "born that way" and
that it's okay.
\_ even if there really is a "gay gene", doesn't mean
it should be accepted as "okay". After all, there are
allegedly cancer genes, too.
\_ so cancerous people can't marry these days? -aspo
\_ "marriage" is fundamentally "A union between a man
and a woman". If you want "communal living partner
benefits", then lobby for them. Dont try to
corrupt marriage.
\_ Wow. You can really thump that Bible. Have you
considered following in the footsteps of Billy
Graham?
\_ Now aren't we the clever one.
\_ I wasn't the person who brought up cancer, but we
have strict laws against discriminating against
people becuase they have cancer. -aspo
\_ I like how when I reply intelligently to this
someone feels the need to delete it. -aspo
\_ JOB discrimination, HOUSING discrimination.
But I guess that's not enough for you, let's
legislate EVERYTHING, and make sure that
trillions of dollars are spent to ensure that
people with monobrows are not unfairly
seated during rock concerts!
\_ necrophiles are people too! Discrimination is
bad.
\_ Hey, lay off. -The gay gene
\_ WHAT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR PLATO IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU!
GAY! GAY! GAY IS THE STANDARD! Alternative lifestyle.
\_ no s&m is
\_ The same should be done for trolls like yourselves. You
obviously won't produce any offsprings either, but, in your
case, it's because you're completely without social grace. The
worst part is that, on the off chance that you DO have any
offsprings (calling them kids would be much too kind), you'll
likely do it with someone else completely lacking in social
grace. I'm sure this is just what the world needs, more
close-minded assholes who think they've got something to prove.
Sign your posts you trolling twink. -dans
\_ btw, I'm one of the above group, but I'm married. Yes,
REAL marriage, unlike the proposed farce.
\_ Yes, only straight WASPy yuppie fucks like yourself
deserve the tax benefits of being considered legally
married. I almost look forward to when you have your
pathetic clones, er kids so that my kids can crush them
using sheer willpower. -dans
\_ Why is social grace a good, dans? -- ilyas
\_ Absolutely speaking, it isn't. Someone who is always
deferential to others is just as bad as someone who
always pick fights. Social grace is good when someone
possesses it in combination with the ability to decide
when to use it and when to ignore it. -dans
\_ Gee , when anyone who dissents from "no on 22" is villified,
I'm not surprised that some poeple don't want to sign their
names. -emarkp
\_ if you are so afraid of being called names for your
politics that you aren't willing to sign your name
you should keep quiet about them. -aspo
\_ That's right. Everyone should have to put their
SSN on their voting sheet. Vote for Aspo!
\_ I'm not saying don't hold your beliefs and vote
on them. I'm just saing if you want to be a part
of a debate and anonymous at the same time, don't
expect anyone to take you for anything but a troll.
-aspo
\_ gays and lesbian marriages are like father and daughter
marriages, people and animal marriages, they are in one
word, sicko.
\_ So you should be able to get a green card because you are roommates?
More weak arguments like "I say marriage is a farce so you crazy
people shouldn't try to defend it." Weak weak weak.
\_ Legalize trolls! -The trolls
\_ If we can't allow marriage between gays, how much longer until
we ban intra-racial marriage. Or worse, marriages between
\_ Not to disagree with your point (I'm for gay marriage),
but this is fallacious reasoning -- it's called the
Slippery Slope fallacy. Back to Rethoric 1A for you!
members of different political affilitations! -ERic
\_ Can't we all just get along?? |
| 2000/2/26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17629 Activity:low |
2/25 The gay marriage thread has become really really tiresome. Can't
you trolls find anything else more interesting to flame about? We
need some fresh blood. All you trollers are getting old and very
unimaginative. -- disgruntled troller |
| 2000/2/26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17628 Activity:low |
2/25 Vote to legalize gay marriage among trolls! Same-sex troll unions
have been discriminated against for too long. Just because we're
ugly and have warts and eat people and are of the same sex doesn't
mean you can beat on us anymore! -The gay trolls |
| 2000/2/25 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17625 Activity:nil |
2/25 For those of you who were wondering why bother legalizing gay marriage
and claimed the benfits were minor: read the following url. (Yah it
is sappy, sorry about that.) Also those of you who think gays and
lesbians should have the right to marry please print out
/csua/tmp/petition.pdf, fill it out and mail it in. Signatures are
needed. Every damn one counts. And to the idiot who keeps
deleting anything in to motd related to this topic, grow up you little
twit.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/24/DD65385.DTL
-aspo |
| 2000/2/25 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17616 Activity:nil |
2/24 i want to know why an interesting column that raises some points
about the issue of gay marriage that people might not have thought
of is "asho propoganda" and must be deleted. oh anonymous bigot,
are you afraid if people have the chance to inform themselves
they might get in the way of your campaign of hatred? -lila
\_ and I'm kinda curious why any mention of anything gay on soda
is automatically assumed to come from me. Here is a hint: I
sign my posts. Guess what, I'm NOT the only person who cares
about this issue. Nor is what is being posted to the motd a
troll. Maybe you don't agree with my feelings on the issue, fine
post your own views if you want. Or ignore these threads.
Oh and here is that url again. Worth checking out for those who
were asking why should we bother to make gay marriage legal...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/24/DD65385.DTL
-aspo |
| 2000/2/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17547 Activity:nil |
2/17 Want gay marriage? /csua/tmp/petition.pdf Fill it out and send it in
Don't want gay marriage? Vote Yes on Prop 22. |
| 2000/1/20 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Religion] UID:17275 Activity:low |
1/19 A related question to the homo marrieages/Christian thread below.
A while back there was a contraversial play where Jesus had sex
with all 12 of his disciples. You know, during the last supper.
It was a big gay orgy. Anybody remember the name of the play?
\_ I remember there was a big discussion about Jesus and John
as lovers. |
| 1999/12/24-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17098 Activity:high |
12/23 All pro-child molestor spew from aspo & bh on down has been removed.
Don't get confused. This was intentional. If you think this is a
troll, I don't care. aspo and bh sicken me.
\_ what were they saying that i missed? -- swings
\_ read ~mehlhaff/tmp/motd,v to escape the censorship of
this loser.
\_ advocating gay marriage is child molester crap? -aspo
\_ No, it was sickening spew. Go read mehlhaff's file if you care.
\_ Summary: Same-sex marriage is the wrong answer. Removing
government involvment/benefits from marriage is
better.
\_ you know there are non governemnt benefits
to being married. For instance my spouse gets
my health care if I get married. That has
nothing to do with the government. -aspo
\_ Someone please tell me exactly what these
so called 'benefits' are? You'd like the
option for unmarried couples to pay more
taxes? What government benefits? -married
\_ Automatic inheritance. Much better
odds of being allowed to adopt a
child or even retain custody of your
own children. Insurance coverage.
\_ Automatic inheritance? No thanks.
Any idea how screwed you get if
there's no will? Adopt? Some
crack child? Yeah right. Retain
custody? Why would I have lost
it if I had it in the first
place? Insurance: your company
just sucks. Mine allows me to
add anyone I want if I pay. Or
even better is that my wife works
and has her own insurance, so I
still don't see the BFD deal here.
\_ Unfortunately, marriage is also associated with
the "right" to be parents in many peoples minds.
To truly fix the system, the state should declare
marriage a religious ceremony it no longer has
anything to do with, and make all people who want
the traditional marriage benefits sign a
domestic partnership contract (gets rid of the
whole pre-nup mess as well, since that would be
included in the contract). Those who want to be
parents should be required to get a license,
everyone else given mandatory birth control. Then
you've taken both religion & genetics out of the
picture, and prevented a whole lot of unwanted
pregnancies and children born to people who can't
or won't take care of them.
\_ Mandatory birth control? Are you nuts? You want
a government controlled eugenics program?! This
doesn't sound like Nazi-ism to you? Aren't you
now just 'fixing the problem' (as you see it)
with an even more nightmarish solution? Right
now marriage confers a few minor benefits. In
your Orwellian hell, The State suddenly has
insanely powerful new controls over the average
citizen. I'm no Libertarian but you're way way
waaaaaay whacko. Please tell me this was a
troll and that I don't share the planet with
anyone who really thinks like this.
\_ Did you ever read "A Simple Proposal" in
high school? Did you think he really
meant it or was it "just a troll"?
\_ Do you mean Swift's "A Modest Proposal"
(Babies as gourmet dish) or are you
referring to something else? Purely
literary curiosity. -dans
\_ Yes I read it but the above was not
written in the same tone or style.
\-A simple plan + a modest proposal = a simple proposal --psb
\_ oh yeah right, we should just leave everyone
with the ability to have kids, and penalize
them if they act irresponsibly with that
ability. A pity the government could not
do the same with the ability to own guns.
\_ "we"? Which we? I don't want _you_ to
decide if _I_ can have kids and I doubt you
want me to make the same decision for you.
\_ If you're gay, YOU CANT "have kids".
Your only options are to pervert nature
even more.
The whole idea is truly scary. Since when
is the Government the best decision making
body for how citizens should live their
lives? Did you grow up in the United
States of America? And, no, there's no
real penalty in this country for doing a
shitty job raising your kids. If you've
ever dealt with the family court system
you would know that. -dealt with fcs
\_ Actually, about a third of sodans
did not grow up in the USA. (Most
of them apparently grew up in
Russia it seems, but that's a
better example of government
incompetence.)
\_ It shows. Few Americans would
want the government this involved
in their lives. The Founders
would spin in their graves. Much
blood has been spilled to keep
the government out of daily life
on issues far less important.
____________________________________________________/
As a Sodan who grew up in Russia, I can tell you that
you are seriously misguided as to the amount any given
citizen of the said country _wants_ the government in
his life. The idea above is idiotic (and double so if a
troll) by anyone's standards. Americans aren't as special
as they apparently think.
\_ Well _some_ clueless moron obviously _wants_ the government
to decided who is allowed to have kids and not. And _that_
\_ I grew up underneath a table in
the WEB. When I reached the age
of 18, I emerged and joined OCF
Staff.
spawn more overlords _/
is what I was going off about.
\_ [Summary: Some people want the US to be a super fascist government
controlled state, others don't, aspo proposal may or may not make
ballot, make or may not become law, if passed other states will
write anti-ss-marriage laws, supreme court will side with states
and CA law would only apply within CA, come the revolution aspo
and bf will be first against the wall, bh needs help but as no
one denied this bh threads died out quickly]
\_ HA! I'm gonna be a member of the firing squad. -aspo
\_ No one puts obnoxious jerks like you on the trigger side
of the rifle.
\_ Except, of course, the police department.
\_ The police have higher standards than aspo. He'd
never make it. They require very _basic_ mental
and emotional stability for starters.
\_ Really? ^^^^^^^^^^^ guess that explains a lot
\_ No, really, "stability" like I said. Go
ahead and wipe the motd if you like but
don't change the meaning of other's words.
"stability" restored. All you whiny "I hate
cops" anarchist idiots need a good clubbing
in a back alley to remind you why you can
walk down the street without a gun in your
pocket.
\_ I'm just happy to see you.
\_ Wow. That was almost clever. Keep
trying -- maybe you'll get it right
someday, kid.
\_ I'm just happy to see you.
\_ Even less so the 2nd time. |
| 1999/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Law/Court] UID:16806 Activity:nil |
11/1 How come the judge in the Wyoming gay bashing trial can bar the
"gay panic" defense? Shouldn't the jury be the ones to decide
whether certain defenses in a court trial are valid or not? |
| 5/26 |