| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/26 |
| 2010/7/12-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/RealEstate] UID:53881 Activity:nil |
7/12 Y.M.C.A. is renaming to Y.? Why? (Pun intended.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/us/12Y.html?no_interstitial
\_ because M is oppressive patriarchy in action, and C is a bad
word. Probably they will get rid of Y as ppl live longer.
\_ it will turn into http://AFGNCAAP.org
\_ They should go back to their old name, U.S. Soc for Eugenics.
\_ Gay club and eugenics don't mix. They don't reproduce. |
| 2010/7/9-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:53878 Activity:nil |
7/9 "Tired Gay succumbs to Dix" (SFW)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/24uep5c |
| 2010/3/5-30 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:53742 Activity:nil |
3/5 Like it or not, Michelle Malkin is a lot wealthier and
financially savvy than most of you ranting liburals out there:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/18/confirmed-salem-buys-michelle-malkins-hot-air-blog
\_ Who's she?
\_ She is a 'conservative' pundit, so stupid and annoying that she
makes Anne Coulter look brilliant and charming by comparison.
-phuqm
\_ I don't know if having a wildly popular blog sell for lots of $
because the public is enamored with your particular brand of stupid
really constitutes "savvy". Would you call some hack romance
novelist "financially savvy" just 'cause they managed to rack
up the $$? -phuqm
\_ " ... for an undisclosed sum." How much, $100? |
| 2010/1/7-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:53613 Activity:nil |
12/7 Mormons make better commercials. Waaaay better.:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/judge_gay_marriage_trial_must_go_on_youtube.php
\_Adding comments has been disabled for this video. |
| 2009/9/29-10/8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:53410 Activity:nil |
9/29 Can someone tell my why half of the Family Guy theme
is about 1) Jewish 2) Nazi 3) gay people 4) combination
of the above? The Weinstein episode, Ann Franke,
Peter as the brother of Adolf, the constant guy-to-guy
kissing and gay references... the list goes on and
on and on. WHY??? Does MacFarlan have a fascination
with Jews?
\_ Doesn't everyone?
\_ no, why should they? |
| 2009/8/3-13 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic] UID:53236 Activity:low |
8/3 "Tenn. senator has affair with intern, resigns"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_on_re_us/us_tenn_senator_scandal
That intern looks hot.
\_ state senator. yawn:
\_ Who cares about the senator. I only look at the intern.
\_ "McKensie" sounds like a last name rather than a first name. |
| 2009/4/20 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:52879 Activity:high |
4/20 Does anyone know the philosopher who said something to the effect that
gayness is not binary, but that there are levels of gayness (e.g.
some people are 1% gay and some people are 80% gay, but never
100% anything)? Thanks.
\- philosopher? do you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
\_ my roomate said "philosopher" but I think he meant "the dude who
came up with the idea." He meant Alfred Kinsey, but he really
meant whatever it was suppose to refer to like "biologist",
"theorist", or just some random dude. Thanks partha!
\_ "I like men who have a future and women who have a past." -O. Wilde |
| 2009/3/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:52666 Activity:low |
3/2 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=6977202&page=1 Conservative states consume the most internet porn. Damn hypocritcal bastards. \_ The bigger question is how many are GAY porns? That's against Jesus Christ and God's belief. \_ Funny, then you would think conservatives would know what "teabagging" means. \_ Ha ha! I didn't know this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teabagging -- !OP \_ You know, I think Jesus would hate most American "Christians". \_ There is one other small problem with Edelman's efforts. His very first reference in the paper is built on a source long known to be completely false. On the second page of the report on his study published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives (Vol 23, #1, Winter 2009), Edelman relies on the claims of porn industry trade publication AVN Media Network that says the online porn industry made $2.8 billion dollars in 2006. AVN also claims that the entire porn industry pulled in nearly $13 billion in 2006. However, it has long been known that the numbers presented by AVN are in no way verifiable. Forbes Magazine took AVN.s claims to task back in 2001 (after one of AVN's earlier reports of porn industry takings) and found the numbers impossible to verify. In 2001 Forbes reckoned that the industry could not have made more than $4 billion, a number far less than the $10 billion AVN was then claiming. A 2007 Boing, Boing article also discussed the unverifiable AVN numbers. \_ What does that have to do with his original research using credit card data? \_ Give Conservatives a break. It's pretty lonely living in the farms and suburbia. |
| 2009/2/26-3/3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:52647 Activity:moderate |
2/26 http://valleywag.gawker.com/5147650/bachelors-of-silicon-valley-remind-ladies-what-theyre-not-missing Bachelors of Silicon Valley Remind Ladies What They're Not Missing \_ The odds are good, but the goods are odd. \_ That's a pretty weak article. And what's wrong with being gay and single? \_ Absolutely nothing! Does rule you out of the guys-willing-to- marry-girls club, though. \_ But not the guys-willing-to-marry club. \_ True again. Somewhat different list, though. \_ But that's not what the Gazette list is. ValleyWag's "oh my god a gay man" crap is even stupider than the rest of the article. (Oh and the Yelp CEO is way hot) \_ The author of the article is gay, he is trying to be funny. \_ How do you know that? I guess it's acceptable to make fun of your own people. \_ How do I know that Owen is gay? I used to work with him, a long time ago. Here is some proof: http://www.suck.com/fish/contributors/thomas \_ you worked for suck?! That rules! -brain \_ I worked for HotWired, that owned Suck. We were all in the same little space. -aus \_ Valleywag and "weak article" in the same sentence is redundant. \_ You do know that Owen Thomas is gay, right? Not that there is anything wrong with that... |
| 2009/1/23-27 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:52454 Activity:nil |
1/22 How's that "ex-gay" thing comin' Mr. Haggard?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090124/ap_on_re/rel_haggard_new_allegations
\_ The 'ex' is short for 'extra.' |
| 2008/11/25-12/2 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Law/Court] UID:52107 Activity:nil |
11/25 Judge legislates from the bench, strikes down 31-year-old law
prohibiting adoption of children by gays
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2138201/posts
</for jblack fetish guy>
\_ If you're going to piss off jblack, you should post pro
immigrants and pro colored people URLs. I'm sure these two
issues will really push his buttons. Or just email him at
jblack@csua.berkeley.edu. That's Justin P. Black.
issues will really push his buttons.
\_ For those who are interested the opinion is available at:
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file16_37906.pdf
\_ when laws and words don't mean anything anymore
time for secessions.
\_ If words don't mean anything anymore, why is it that all you
have to offer are empty words?
\_ look up "balance of powers."
\_ The South Will Rise Again!
\_ Didn't they just do that for the last 8 years? |
| 2008/11/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:52017 Activity:kinda low |
11/18 Newtie G. warns that "gay and secular fascism" is a
"very serious threat."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200811170014
\_ We are coming for your children.
\_ Except for the one that smells like cheese. You can keep that
one.
\_ Those taste good when wrapped in batter and pan fried
\_ There is a serious struggle between the forces of reason and
tolerance and those who would jail gays, put blacks back on the
plantation and teach creationism in schools, so Newt is basically
right. Except the "facism" part, that is just him projecting what
he thinks the other side would do if (when?) we win from his own
desires. |
| 2008/11/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:51963 Activity:nil |
11/13 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_re_us/mormon_backlash_boycott_2 |
| 2008/11/12 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:51940 Activity:kinda low |
11/12 holy shit lolz
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27681660
\_ What do Mormons have to say about Gay sex?
\_ What do Scientologists have to say about Gay sex?
\_ Scientologists dont focus on gay. |
| 2008/11/12-26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Tax] UID:51924 Activity:nil |
11/11 So if the LDS church bankrolled the Yes on 8 campaign, how the f can
they keep their tax-exempt status?
\_ Because LDS is a religion and gayness isn't?
\_ Because they didn't endorse a candidate from the pulpit.
\_ Way to go, useless distinctions!
\_ *shrug* That's the way the law works. Now, if you really
want to get their funding cancelled or cost them a lot of
money, get an openly gay friend to apply for a job with the
\_ job? in church? ha ha ha
Church; when they turn him or her down, sue for
discrimination.
\_ Are you still banging Good But So Very Bad Mormon Mom?
\_ Or the gay people could start a gay religion and get
tax exempt status! How about that!
\_ The difficulty here is that the Mormons have a world-
wide congregation and a mandatory tithing system; it's
really difficult to compete, monetarily, with this.
Bogging them down in repetitive lawsuits is an easier
way to drain their resources.
\_ AFAIK the LDS church didn't bankroll it, members did. See the
difference?
\_ Technically there is a difference, but it's a useless
distinction.
\_ Someone donates to and serves at the salvation army, and also
donates to the yes on 8 campaign, therefore the SA should lose
it's tax-exempt status? Riiiiight....
\_ Is this really true? If so, this *is* a huge difference. It
means that the MSM has been kind of slandering the Mormon
Church as well.
\_ Well, yeah. You have to read the whole article, it's always
relegated to the end.
\_ Wait, what article?
\_ Yeah, what article?
\_ Not one in particular, I've read 4 or 5 newspaper
articles on the subject. This has been true for all
of them. That's all.
\_ Which is political speech?
"God hates fags"
"Vote Yes on 8"
The answer to your question determines whether a religious entity is
tax-exempt or not
\_ Sadly it was probably Mexican Americans, Black People, Catholics,
Mormons, and people who think Gays Are Here To Gay Up Your Kids
that voted for Prop 8. It's hard to declare political war on
such a huge voting block.
\_ The LDS church wasn't just a voting block, they were the main
funding source (around 80%) for the Yes on 8 campaign.
\_ Isn't it that the LDS (or anyone that opposes gay marriage) would
lose their tax-exempt status only if 8 didn't pass?
\_ No, but the ads certainly implied that. |
| 2008/11/11-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:51921 Activity:nil |
11/11 Forces of tolerance in Palm Springs
http://tinyurl.com/6x4dl7 (Fox affiliate news piece on old lady
demanding to protest The Gay amidst Prop 8 opposition)
\_ You shouldn't have to tolerate bigotry and hate
\_ Yet we have to put up with you? |
| 2008/11/7-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:51868 Activity:low |
11/7 Now that prop 8 looks like it's passed, does that mean all married
gay couples have to file taxes separately again, and revert any other
agreements from married to domestic partner (if it existed)?
\_ Presumably not until after the case is heard.
\_ I think it should be in effect the day the results are certified,
unless there's an injuction. -op
\_ Even if the courts ok it, it isn't clear what will happen to
people who were married before the gay marriage man.
\_ well, doesn't prop 8 define marriage as between a man and a woman
\_ doesn't prop 8 define marriage as between a man and a woman
\_ did some more reading. apparently the fact that it may
(a) retroactively penalize individuals and (b) conflict with equal
protection argues the "existing marriages still valid" case. -op
\_ Uh, emancipation retroactively punished the slaveowners.
\_ Uh, no. Since the human beings were no longer property, no
penalty was accrued. Now, if the slaveowners had had to make
reparations, that would have been punishment.
\_ uh, they'd paid money for slaves. the slaves were then
released. Where'd that investment go?
\_ By the terms of emancipation, they could not own the
slaves to begin with. There was no more investment
here than there would be in purchasing uncontained
oxygen. The risk that they assumed in purchasing
slaves (i.e., that slavery would be abolished)
was merely part of the cost, not a retroactive
punishment.
\_fascism is the name of an
ancient way o f keeping
a group t o g e t h e r ;
unified against
decadence-and-the-perils-of
a-lost-society-built-on-the
cult of ego worship; usury!
so that w e can
pursue holism i n seeking
the path to truth hidden;
this is but o n e veritas
\_ Wow! What a subliminal message. |
| 2008/11/6-13 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51863 Activity:moderate |
11/6 Does anyone know why most of the coastal counties are anti prop 8
and most of the inland counties are for prop 8?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01
\_ Because people who live near the coast tend to be more wealthy
and worldly, while people stuck inland tend to be landlocked
hicks.
\_ ^hick^yokel
\_ racist! eh, yokelist!
\_ Um, you did see that 70% blacks voted yes on 8? Not even
Christians voted yes on it at that high of a rate.
\_ Blacks have a tendency to exhibit hick-like behavior.
\_ racist
\_ The big cities are coastal. Urban centers tend to be more lefty.
Besides, if you were to guess where gay people lived, wouldn't SF
and LA be high up on your list?
\_ No, just SF. LA's only gay spot is N Hollywood, which is
nothing compared to SF. As for the rest like Orange County,
it's very much a non-religious Republican stronghold with
lots of people believing in family values.
\_ It's WEST Hollywood. North Hollywood is a rough area in
the valley. No self-respeting gay man would be caught dead
there.
\_ At that point, his location probably wouldn't be up to him.
\_ Congratulations, you get the joke
\_ "family values" in the OC include ignoring your children,
cheating on your spouse, divorcing, and having abortions in
other parts of CA so as to avoid running into someone you
know at the clinic. Fuck OC.
\_ I've heard so much about the OC. I've seen it in
Desperate Housewives. But tell us more about the OC,
I'd like to hear from someone who actually experienced it
\_ Got a car? No? Don't bother.
\_ I'd like to hear from someone who actually experienced
*them*. |
| 11/26 |
| 2008/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:51833 Activity:nil 65%like:51827 |
11/4 Arizona Prop 102: Ban on Gay Marriage: Yes
Arizona Prop 202: Hire illegal immigrants: No
Arkansas Initiative 1: Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children. Yes.
California Prop 8: Ban on Gay Marriage: Yes (thanks a lot S Cal)
Florida amendment 2. Bans gay marriage. Yes.
Michigan prop 2: allow stem cell research. No.
More to follow
\_ The South Will Rise Again
\_ God, no, please. |
| 2008/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:51827 Activity:nil 65%like:51833 |
11/4 Arkansas Initiative 1: Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children. Yes.
Florida amendment 2. Bans gay marriage. Yes.
Michigan prop 2: allow stem cell research. No.
More to follow |
| 2008/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51788 Activity:moderate |
11/3 Obama, a former constitutional law professor, said last year that he
would look for candidates with "the heart, the empathy, to recognize
what it's like to be a teenage mom. The empathy to understand what
it's like to be poor, or African American, or gay, or disabled, or
old." Oh good, wouldn't want judges to just, you know, apply the law.
\_ This was on the motd 6 days ago.
\_ GOOD. I hate rich white people. They need to get the fuck
out of MY California.
\_ The implication is that under judges appointed by the GOP, the law
has not been applied fairly to the people he lists. His appointments
would bring balance to the Force. He is the vergence. |
| 2008/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:51731 Activity:kinda low |
10/29 I love this state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcVI0-xESCQ
\_ If they fast for 40 days, they are going to have a tough time
making it to the polls. |
| 2008/10/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51701 Activity:low |
10/28 Federal Judge oath of office:
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following
oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: "I,
XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice
without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the
rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform
all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws
of the United States. So help me God."
Obama, 2007:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/274143.aspx
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what
it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what
it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.
And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
\_ And Bush selected judges by ...
\_ Dittohead Desperation Level: Ultraviolet
\_ Don't you mean infrared? -op
\_ This guy is going to be an awesome President.
\_ FDR would have lost WEST COAST HOTEL if ROBERTS followed the oath. |
| 2008/10/22-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:51636 Activity:nil |
10/22 Mormon church bankrolling pro-prop 8 effort
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463078466356397.html |
| 2008/9/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:51209 Activity:nil |
9/17 I'm gay now |
| 2008/9/11-18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51135 Activity:kinda low |
9/11 http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html \_ Warning, strong libUral slant. I mean, come on: "We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on terror" and repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national interest for partisan advantage. \_ Really good article. "Most Democrats don't understand that politics is more like religion than it is like shopping." \_ BRAWNDO! IT'S WHAT PLANTS NEED! \_ http://yourmorals.org I thought I was a liberal but it turns out that I'm a moderate. On the 5 foundations (harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity), I am consistently in between. \_ This is an interesting test. I line up very strongly with liberals on fairness, purity and authority scores, but I have high loyalty and less concern for harm (like a conservative). I always have prefered the moniker "armed liberal" to describe myself, though, so this fits. \_ "Whether or not someone violated standards of purity and decency." How the hell do you answer a question like that without knowing what the standards of purity and decency are? \_ How *do* you answer it? Don't you think there is a standard? If not, you are probably a liberal. \_ Right, because only conservatives are decent. \_ A conservative certainly wouldn't have to ask what the standards of purity and decency are, would they? \_ Yep, they'd believe in the wrong answer already. c.f. torture. \_ If this is somehow part of your definition of conservative v. liberal, your definition needs some serious re-evaluation. \_ No, it is you who needs to do some serious self- examination. Conservatives have a legitimate reason to bash liberals for "moral relativism" and the sooner you understand why, the more you will understand about the debate. And I am a liberal, by the way, but at least I have bothered to take the time to understand what Conservative positions are grounded in. \_ So there's no moral relativism to being gung-ho about torture? There's no moral relavtivism to to treating terrorists differently if they are white and christian? You are confusing recationary xenophobia with something else. \_ Are these serious questions or are you just being rhetorical here, it is hard to tell. I see nothing in The Bible that prohibits torture, in fact there are parts that seem to indicate it is permissible. Your claim that conservatism is xenophobic precisely misses the point. \_ What does The Bible have to do with it? Torture being ok for brown and/or poor people but not for good decent folks is a fine example of having relative morals. Or do you think the republican party is going to start putting people in "stress positions" until they start talking about insider trading? \_ Don't confuse "the republican party" with conservatism. I know more than one evangelical in my family would have no problem with giving the FNM execs a serious beating. And other Wall Street types. I don't think their point of view is unusual. \_ The new testament is pretty seriously against torture. Matthew 5, and 5:39 in particular, Matthew 25:31-46, John 9:7 to take a few obvious verses. -tom \_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/3kteeh \_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/3n63ux \_ Almost all of that is in the Old Testament. And the New Testament references don't imply that it's OK for people to torture other people. -tom \_ This asinine insistence that "conservatives" have some sort of monopoly on moral certitude has no basis in reality. Some liberals have similarly inflexible morals ("All corporations are evil." "Profits are immoral." "Israel's actions in the occupied territories are war crimes." "The military should be abolished.") "Moral relativism" is a bullshit charge leveled against people who don't share your particularly restrictive morality while deliberately ignoring whatever moral code they might actually have. (Cf. Rick Santorum's assertion that legalizing homosexual marriage will lead to legalization of bestiality and pederasty.) If the question is "whether or not someone violated" MY "standards of purity and decency," then yes, that would be particularly important to me. If the question is "whether or not someone violated" Fred Phelps' "standards of purity and decency," I really couldn't give a fuck. \_ I have all the right to sodomize you as long as I have the power to do so. Yes! \_ See now, if that had been the question, there would have been no ambiguity. \_ Let's see what is the dictionary defintion of the word "liberal": # Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. # Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. It is not my fault that you have decided that the word "liberal" means something different than what it means to the rest of the English speaking population. The fact that "some (self-identified) liberals" do not fit the definition doesn't mean you get to twist it to suit your own personal agenda. Good luck on your newspeak efforts though. agenda. Good luck on your Newspeak efforts though. Do I really need to pull up the dictionary definition of conservative to make my point? \_ Nothing in those definitions implies moral relativism. It just implies having an open mind. Having strong ethics and morals does not mean someone is closeminded or a bigot. I don't think newspeak means what you think it does. \_ Yes, please. And while you're at it, discuss why the Right Wing Conspiracy continues to belittle people with fixed but opposing views as "liberal." *I* didn't decide on this definition or culture-war distinction; I prefer the word "progressive." |
| 2008/7/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50648 Activity:nil |
7/21 One of the original plaintiffs in the DC v Heller gun case, an openly
gay man's story:
"One night some years ago in San Jose, he found himself confronting a
gang of toughs, as many as 20 of them, intent on gay-bashing him.
Taunted as a "faggot," threatened with death, Palmer (and a friend) ran
for their lives, only to find the gang in hot pursuit. So Palmer
stopped, reached into his backpack, and produced a gun. The gang backed
off."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/125584.html |
| 2008/7/16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50596 Activity:nil |
7/16 Gay Boy wishes for a planet full of unicorns. Planet Unicorn,
Heeeey! Dim, this is stupid to you, so don't view it and don't
you F***ING delete it. F*** off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQJD1ura7G4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOmtg9CTwjY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qiW1tiKmJQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyXxHjslgmk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE4Mk70ljl4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HsBzpbfmY&feature=user
\_ Charlie, hey Charlie!
\_ SHUN!
\_ I've deleted one link and it was that dumb Japanese blinking
girl you foisted on us that no one in their right mind wanted
to see judging by the comments on the site. I don't make it a
habit of deleting links. You must mean emarkp. --dim
\_ I think you've got me confused with someone else. -emarkp
\_ Maybe. You aren't the one that deletes the anti-Mormon threads?
\_ Nope. It's typically better to let the idiots who post such
things be exposed. -emarkp
\_ My apologies then.
\_ I'm going to replace the gay bay unicorn eye blinking links
with fat porn if this keeps up.
\_ Ashley has been bulking up! If this keeps up how huge will she get?
link:preview.tinyurl.com/6rfwbn
link:preview.tinyurl.com/65r3qf
http://preview.tinyurl.com/69j4yb |
| 2008/7/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50591 Activity:nil |
7/16 http://sendables.jibjab.com Once again JibJab amuses me. But will lefties be able to laugh at Obama? \_ Obama riding colorful GAY unicorn. GAY GAY GAY!!! \_SHUN the unbeliever! SHUN! \_ Pretty funny. |
| 2008/7/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50493 Activity:nil |
7/7 Study: Gays in the military don't undermine unit cohesion
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays
\_ Well heck, the Greeks knew it helped.
\_ Study funded by gay activist group.
\_ Those goddamn fags |
| 2008/7/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:50475 Activity:high |
7/4 Jesse Helms is dead. Too bad he didn't die in pain: maybe
God is Conservative afterall. At least he gave America a good
present on this 231st birthday of ours.
\_ 232nd. And thanks for showing the example of all
that is wrong with politics today.
\_ I'm not a fan of cheering death, but I'm
willing to make an exception for someone
as dispicable as Jesse Helms. It is at
times like this when I wished I believed in
hell.
\_ Yay, you rejoice in someone's death because
of their different opinion!
\_ No, Helms was a monster. Do you think
we should be respectful of Saddam
Hussein too? Sometimes the world is
better off without people. !pp
\_ Ooh! The new godwin. Helms didn't
dip people in vats of acid for fun.
\_ He would have if he'd gotten away
with it. Look, this asshole made
life really difficult for a lot
of people simply just because he
hated them. His passing is a
blessing, and the world is
better off without him. Sorry,
but it's the truth. Your moral
relativism isn't welcome here.
\_ Yah, you're right, a legislator
who has opinions you disagree
with is just as bad as a
murderous dictator!
\_ Helms fought hard to make
federal funds for needle
exchanges illegal. Because
of him needle addicts in
this country have
attrociously high AIDS
rates. In most other
countries public health
was considered more important
and the governemnts made
needle exchange programs
a priority as soon as the
dangers were apparent. Hell
even Thather realized that
was important. Forgetting
Helms rampant racism and
homopobia, his close
friendship with Pinochet
(so close the FBI were pretty
sure Helms tipped Pinochet
off when the CIA were going
after him), that alone
makes him a horrid little
man. Helms wasn't just
a politician I disagreed
with, he was an evil man.
Fuck him, his death was
welcome.
\_ Why is it the government's
job to fund needle
exchanges?
Why didn't you fund them
yourself?
Needle sharers getting AIDS
have only themselves to
blame. Or maybe you.
\_ It's the government's job
to try to contain
epidemics. Needle
exchange is cheap and
effective and a no
brainer. And even if
you think all junkies
should just die, they
will spread AIDS to
others. Oh, and
fuck you.
\_ AIDS does not meet the
criteria for an
epidemic spread, it
meets the spread
criteria for an
occupational disease
(like black lung).
But you know, don't
let facts get in the
way. In fact, the
handling of black
lung is a good model
for how we should be
handling AIDS.
-- ilyas
\_ "facts," eh?
According to
Duesberg?
/------------------/
How stupid are you? I am not claiming
HIV doesn't cause AIDS, I am claiming
AIDS does not behave like an epidemic
disease, it behaves like an occupational
disease. -- ilyas
\_ According to who?
\_ A disease that isn't
communicated except by
sticking needles in
yourself or having sex
isn't an epidemic.
\_ Or by being raped,
or by being born
to a woman who is
HIV+, and some
people don't have
any choice about
needles being
stuck into them,
such as in
hemophilia and
accidental health
care related
needlesticks.
\_ Needle exchs
won't stop that.
Do you have proof
it would? These
people do not
give a fuck. If
it's not needles
they'll probably
have u.sex. I do
think govt should
probably just let
people acquire
supplies legally,
and drugs too
actually, in a
structured way
to try to neuter
drug gangs.
Preventing public health _/
epidemics is one of THE most
things government does. Cheap,
painless, effective prevention
should always be prioritized over
moralizing about personal choices.
Yes, the government should try
to prevent addiction, however
the reality is there are addicts,
and those addicts are getting AIDS
via needles. It took over a decade
for enough states to start needle
sharing for it to make a difference
where if there wasn't the HELMS
AMENDMENT (see it even has his name)
we could have had serious needle
exchange programs within a year.
Programs that would have paid for
themselves 1000x times over in
almost no time by preventing
expensive AIDS care and loss of
productivity.
\_ right, because
the solution
to every
problem which
confronts our
society is
less
government.
We get it.
\_ AIDS via needle sharing is not
a public health epidemic.
Isn't it paradoxical to have
criminalized drug use and yet
on the other hand support them
with a needle exchange program?
I'd rather just legalize it
all.
\_ legalizing it would make
the public health problem
and the need for needle
exchange problems even more
acute. -tom
\_ No, because right now you
can't get needles legally.
They need to share needles
because they don't have
enough needles because the
government prevents them
from getting them without
a prescription. So now
you want a government
program to let people
exchange the needles they
do (illegally) have which
doesn't increase the # of
needles (and requires
participants to expose
themselves to arrest.
If you make them exchange
1 for 1, then they'll still
share. If you don't, then
you'll get used needles
being littered around.
The focus should be
on safe practices to
prevent nurses from
infecting themselves,
safe sex, finding an
actual cure, and getting
people off injection drugs.
Legalized drug distribution
in safe forms might help.
\_ Thank you, Ron Paul.
Now, back on planet
Earth... -tom
\_ hush tom, the
grownups are talking.
\_ Jesse Helms was one of the leaders of our
own home-grown Taliban. The world is better
off without him. Here are some choice
quotes:
http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/helms.html
\_ Sully got it right: May he rest in the peace he so wanted to deny
to so many others. |
| 2008/6/30-7/14 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50427 Activity:nil |
6/30 Right wing website runs into, umm, trouble when using filters to make
news stories more "correct:"
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16044.html |
| 2008/6/29 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50411 Activity:nil |
6/29 I hate GAY PEOPLE and GAY MARRIAGE is wrong wrong wrong. -reiffin |
| 2008/6/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50410 Activity:low |
6/29 I'm actually gay. -!dim
\_ what??? |
| 2008/6/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, ERROR, uid:50326, category id '18005#2.2375' has no name! , ] UID:50326 Activity:moderate |
6/21 Rather than deal forthrightly with the gay sex claims, Obama has
his accuser arrested:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2033179/posts
\_ Wow, he's not even elected, and yet you're accusing him of abusing
his control over DOJ. Amazing.
\_ It seems his "proof" was lacking?
\_ Boy, there sure are no freeper links on the motd anymore. Haven't
seen em in months! |
| 2008/6/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50175 Activity:nil |
6/6 What are some shows you'd love to see? I'll start:
American Gladiators - Gay Edition
\_ Which one is the REAL blonde?
Are blondes really more fun?
Handsome and the ugly girl
Jock and the Geekoid Asperger Girl |
| 2008/5/29-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50085 Activity:low |
5/29 Required reading for the gay marriage debate: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/till_court_do_us_part/Content?oid=287931 Marriage is neither a religious nor a governmental construct; it is a *social* construct. -tom \_ Okay. I don't see the difference between religious and social, but I can see that argument. If it's a social construct there's still no need for the government to be involved any more than there is to be involved with BFF. \_ There is a religious (for some) and governmental construct as well. The religious one doesn't matter in the debate (churches can do whatever they want, it doesn't effect people who aren't in the church, and, unlike governments, it is easy to leave a church you don't agree with,) The government is no longer worried about enforcing the social construct. (At least not in this state.) But there are plenty of legal rights that are governmental. And yes the government is "by the people for the people" so is in concept a social contruct itself, but only so abstractly it's silly. \_ [thanks to whatever asshole stomped my changes] It's rather mystifying that you can't see the difference between a religious and a social construct. Among other things, social constructs are observed by people of different religions, and non-religious people. The terms "husband," "wife," and "married" confer different social status on the people holding them. Married people can sleep together in their parents' house. \_ Non married people can too these days. Married people can host Thanksgiving dinner for the family. Married people can both drive the rental car. None of these has anything to do with religion. For that matter, the major religions, including Christianity, have not traditionally endorsed marriage as we practice it today; traditionally, women were property. -tom \_ Yeah, but if that was the entire debate there would be no debate. The concern right now is that marriage has benefits that only the government can provide. Gay couples should be allowed those benifits as well. \_ I agree. But the government is just sanctioning a construct which exists separate from the government. -tom \_ Fair. And I do think it's strange how some people seem to think the christian faiths have a monopoly on marriage. \_ There are "civil unions" and "domestic partners" where participants can claim benefits similar to those for marriages participants. \_ Oh really? Have you tried it? -tom \_ No I'm not gay. \_ you don't have to be gay to try it. You also don't have to be gay to realize that only a miniscule fraction of marriage rights are conferred on domestic partners. -tom conferred on domestic partners. And you might want to try taking your girlfriend out to a fancy restaurant, getting down on one knee, looking into her eyes, and saying, "Will you be my domestic partner?" Let us know how that goes. -tom \_ You disagree with the majority of the CA SC. They said that the domestic partnership laws grant nearly all the rights of marriage. That was part of the reasoning for the ruling. \_ Nearly is not all. And those are only rights that CA can grant. There are lots of rights that are federal. Like say immigration, or tax law, or your status in other states. \_ tom specifically said "miniscule". -pp \_ Compared to what you get federally it is. |
| 2008/5/28-6/1 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50075 Activity:high |
5/28 I just learned that interracial marriage was illegal in 16
states until 1967. Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, and West Virginia. GO REPUBLICAN STATES!!! McCain #1!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24542138
\_ Two generations from now people will think the whole fear of
gay marriage is just as bizzare.
\_ Certainly the labeling people as in "fear" will be.
\_ Ok, if you want me to call you a bigotted idiot instead
I can do that for you.
\_ Not really. There are religious reasons for the latter and
not the former. Personally, I think the government should
stay out of marriage entirely.
\_ There were religious reasons cited 50 years ago as well.
And the government can't stay out of marriage entirely.
There are legal rammifications to marriage that you can't
magically solve by contract law.
\_ 1. There are no religious arguments that any major religion
can cite. People can always make sure their own
can cite. People can always make up their own
religions, but certainly interracial marriage is
not prohibited by the major ones.
\_ The "Curse of Ham" was used as justification against
interracial marriage. And see below. But why the
hell does it matter what one religion cares about
marriage? We aren't talking about religious marriage
we are talking about the state's concept of marriage.
You know, the state that isn't supposed to be
involved in that whole religion thing.
\_ Since there's really not any scriptural
evidence for Black people having anything to do
with Ham, let alone that you shouldn't marry
decendents of Ham, all that proves is that people
can make up BS to justify their stupid ideas.
That's not even remotely compareable to the actual
explicit scriptural prohibition of homosexual
intercourse.
\_ You filthy shrimp eater!
\_ Despite what you've heard, the New
Testement also forbids homosexual
Testament also forbids homosexual
intercourse.
\_ I haven't heard diddly. I was lucky
enough to be born to a family that didn't
think some crazy ass book from 2000
years ago should be used as an excuse
to deny other people their rights
\_ "A woman should learn in quietness and\
full submission. I do not permit a woman
\_ Ok, thanks for admitting you're
completely ignorant. Next time you
have no idea what you're talking about
why not just keep out of the
discussion?
\_ No, I think your "but my religion
says to keep The Gays second class
citizens" argument is stupid.
Your religion says a lot of shit,
why should it affect me?
\_ You made an invalid comparison
I pointed it out. Your bluster
does not conceal this.
\_ The fact that The Bible tells
you that gay marriage is EVIL
should affect me no more than
that shrimp are not kosher.
Why the hell are we basing
our laws on what The Bible
says? There's a word for
that. Theocracy. Last I
checked our constitution
specifically prohibits
theocratic rule.
\_ "A woman should learn in quietness and
full submission. I do not permit a woman
to teach or to have authority over a man;\
she must be silent..."
That's New Testament, too. Do you support
that one?
to teach or to have authority over a man;
she must be silent..."
That's New Testament, too. Do you support that one?
\_ All of my elementary school teachers were women.
\_ What if he does? This is a tangent.
2. We can avoid #1 entirely if government stays out of
it. There is no legal ramification to marriage that
cannot be resolved by contract law. Name just one.
\_ Immigration. Visitation rights for prisoners.
Health care for people who get it via being the
spouse of someone with health care (important if
you have a medical condition). Not to mention all
that messy divorce law, especially for people who
have children. Need I go on?
\_ Yes. Why can't these be solved by contract
law again? I see no unsolvable problems.
\_ Marriage provides rights that are granted by
non signers of the contract. I can't create
a non marriage contract that lets me file my
taxes as a married couple. I can't create a
non marriage contract that forces immigration
to treat the other signer the same way they
would if we were married. etc. That's not
contract law. That's rights the state has
decided are inheriant to married couples.
\_ You are bogged down in semantics. Just
because it is that way doesn't mean it
has to be that way. Other law could
resolve those issues. There's no reason
it couldn't.
\_ Other law. Non contract law. I'm
not sure why you have this hardon for
changing the name of marriage to
something else, but I'd say the
person with a semantic problem is you.
My main point is that marriage has
significant, non religious, non contract
rights assiciated with it, which is
something I think people often forget.
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/cud2h for a better list
\_ This guy's point is that you could have a
"cohabitation contract" which gives all
the enumerated rights/responsibilities. It
doesn't have to be a "marriage". Seriously,
suppose I'm a fat lame non-gay geek, and my
similarly fat, lame, non-gay geeky roommate
and I decide to give up on women and try
to forge an economic and social alliance
such that we can better take care of each
other? No sex, just, this guy can handle
my finances, make medical decisions,
visit me in prison, etc.? Why should that
be forbidden simply 'cause we're not
romantic partners? This "marriage" thing
under the law needs to be generalized to
not just hetero romantic/breeding partners,
and not just gay romantic partners, but
to anyone who can benefit from having even a
non-romantic domestic partner of either sex.
The only reason to deny this is religious.
\_ If you want to make something that has
the exact same legal benefits of marriage
in the eyes of the state, and you want to
call it something other that marriage and
get rid anything called marriage at the state
or national level, well, ok. But it is
basically marriage, whatever you want to call
it. I'm not sure what benefit you get by
changing the name.
changing the name. And the guy above said
there were no rights to marriage that couldn't
be solved by contract law. That's wrong. To
solve them you have to change a hell of a lot
of other laws to say "this right is granted
to a couple that has signed into a binding
whatever-you-want-to-call-it relationship".
The fact that someone can ignore such giant
benefits as marriage immigration and tax
laws means they obviously have never thought
just how big of an advantage married couples
have in the eyes of the state.
have in the legal system.
\_ You're not thinking about it the right
way. Reread what you responded to. It's
also *very* important what you call it
because marriage has religious significance
that "cohabitation contract" does not.
You're not thinking ahead of me. You're
actually still behind me.
\_ No, I know exactly what you are saying
I just think you are wrong. There is
nothing inheriantly religous about
marriage. Changing the terms will
not change any signifcant group's
minds about the issue. Domestic
partnerships, cohabitation contracts,
whatever you call it, people still know
it is "marriage".
\_ Well, no. It's not. Even today many
people "get married" twice (once
at the courthouse and once in
church) so the difference must
matter to them. I don't think
anyone has a problem with gay
people willing each other property,
for example. The term 'marriage'
means something in particular to
many religions quite apart from
whatever the law says. This is a
case where the legal definition
reflected the societal norms of a
Christian nation, but it is no
longer appropriate for the law to
be involved in, or recognize,
marriage. I think you would find
a lot less opposition if there
wasn't an insistence of legalizing
wasn't an instistence of legalizing
'gay marriage' which conjures up
images of a gay priest, gay wedding,
gay honeymoon, and adopted gay kids.
If gay people want to 'get married'
the law has no grounds to be involved
in their religion and should not
be able to stop them , but if it
wants to deny them their rights
as human beings that's a problem.
A happy resolution is if the
gov't stays out of the marriage
business (e.g. marriage license)
entirely. It's NOTB.
\_ Saying that over and over won't
make it true. -tom
\_ sex is bad. - motd not getting laid guy
\_ Why am I not surprised that
you want the government
involved in yet another
aspect of our lives - our
love life no less?
\_ Red herring. You're not
suggesting less government
involvement, you're just
suggesting that the
government change what
it's called. -tom
\_ Not entirely. I think
"marriage" as defined
by the government
should be dissolved.
There is no need for
divorce court, for
marriage certificates,
joint income tax
filings and some other
constructs. Others
should be handled
with power-of-attorney
and contract law. I
am not merely
advocating we keep
marriage as-is and
rename it. It should
be (as a government
construct) abolished.
\_ You can go live your
libritarian fantasy.
The rest of us actually
live in the real world
where some of these
things matter. And
I hope you never fall
in love with someone
who isn't a citizen.
(Or have children.)
\_ Why? Because
"being in love"
grants rights?
Any rights
assigned by
marriage are
arbitrary and
be assigned
without marriage.
\_ saying that over and over again makes
it true - !tom
\_ And ever since this was fixed, racial relations have been perfect!
\- when i read LOVING v VIRGNIA, it was jaw dropping to
read stuff like "god put the races on different continents
because he wanted them apart" ... the fact that that was a
because he wanted them apart" ... esp the fact that that was a
virginia judge writing in the 60s and not a 1920s klansman
in BF, Alabama. The woman n the Lovings case died in the
last couple of months.
\_ Don't you think it's an improvement that a black man can walk
down the street with a white woman and not be killed for it? -tom
\_ only if you're pro Negro
\_ Which has precisely nothing to do with the laws changed.
\_ An interesting assertion. Any evidence? -tom
\_ In which state did Obama's parents get married?
\_ Pakistan outer territories i believe.
\_ "There is no legal ramification to marriage that cannot be solved
by contract law". Um, what? Can someone explain how "contract
law" can give a gay couple the right to inherit unlimited amounts
of property taxfree from their partner or transfer unlimited
amounts of property with their partner tax free? Or get the
social security benefits or federal pensions of the surviving
partner?
\_ You just assign those benefits with a contract other than
a "marriage contract". Just because some other things (like
SS) are broken doesn't mean they can't be fixed. "Gay
marriage" isn't the problem. The problem is that so much of
our law involves "marriage" to begin with. It's an outdated
construct not relevant to modern society except for those
who choose to practice it for religious purposes. Instead
of "spouse" you can substitute "assignee". You don't have
to get married at all in theory.
\_ Please provide some support for the assertion that
marriage is "an outdated construct not relevant to modern
society." Extra credit if you can manage to do it without
circular argument. -tom
\_ How about the fact that gay people want to do it and
that many people are vehemently opposed to allowing
them. Clearly marriage means something to many people
and means something else to gays. Since it excludes
gays, the construct is outdated since gays are people
with rights, too. Instead of creating a new construct
which includes gays and calling *that* marriage why
not eliminate marriage entirely? Marriage is not a modern
concept and the increasing number of cohabitating couples
who never get married attests to that. I am surprised to
find you on the pro-marriage side of the fence. Why are
you so adamant about co-opting the term marriage which
already has a clear meaning in a well-meaning attempt
to extend the rights of marriage to gay couples when
there is no real reason to use the term at all
anymore except in a religious context? I mean, why
should "married couples" have the option to file taxes
together or separately, but "unmarried couples"
cannot? At least the government is starting to see
how stupid *that* is by eliminating the marriage
penalty. I can't really think of any non-religious
reasons that marriage is still relevant in the modern
world.
\_ Effort expenditure: A
Argument advancement: F
Extra credit: F (circular argument used).
The reasons for marriage are mostly non-religious.
You've been presented in this very MOTD with numerous
examples of non-religious reasons why marriage is
still relevant and you've ignored them, as you're
sure to ignore any other fact which fails to fit
with your absurd notions. I'm done here. -tom
\_ I think you are ignoring the facts. Cohabitation
is 10x more common now than in 1960. The circular
reasoning here is yours. The only reason "the
reasons for marriage are mostly non-religious"
is because the (outdated) law makes it that way.
If you subtract religion from the equation then
what reason is there to "get married"? If
it's not about religion then why do the
majority of couples get married both in a
church and in a civil ceremony? If the laws were
changed to reflect modern society then there
would be no non-religious reasons to "get
married" but as it stands currently people are
*forced* to "get married" which is why gay
couples wish to do so. If they DO NOT then they
are denied their rights and *THAT* is an issue
as we are becoming an increasingly agnostic
society instead of the Christian society these
laws were based upon decades ago. You should
not have to "get married" to enjoy *ALL* of the
rights assigned to marriage. Why would you
force people to do so?
\_ "You're talking a lot, but you're not saying
anything." --David Byrne
\_ You're just not listening because it's
not what you want to hear. Answer me
this one question I have asked twice
now:
"Why do most people get married both in
a church and in a civil ceremony if
marriage does not involved religion?"
marriage does not involve religion?"
\_ First of all, I don't think it's clear
that "most" people get married in church
and in a civil ceremony. Do you have
any evidence of that?
Second, marriage is important
*culturally*; marriage is the transition
from one social status to another, and
in some cultures, it's done in the church
because that's where it's expected to be
done, and often there is a social cost to
pay if you go get married by Elvis and
leave the family out of it. That being
said, there are plenty of cultures where
getting married in the church is *not*
expected, and people get married in
a redwood grove, or on a ship, or in
their backyards. You really have no
argument at all here. -tom
\_ I'm not concerned about what they
do in other cultures. I'm
concerned about the US where most
people are married by a priest
even if it's not in a church. Sure,
not everyone is. Most people are.
Even in non-Christian cultures marriage
is often a religious ceremony. To
play marriage in the US off as a
"social ceremony" and ignore the
religious significance is disingenuous.
Why does CA allow priests (who are
not representatives of the State)
to conduct marriages? Shouldn't it
just be performed by judges and
magistrates if it's a civil affair?
\_ In many cultures *within the US*
it is common to not do a church
wedding. The Bay Area, for example.
The US also allows ship captains
to perform weddings; does that mean
marriage is a maritime institution
that has no relevance in landlocked
states? You have no clue. -tom
\_ The ship's captain thing is
not true and, truthfully,
there is no reason for it either.
http://tinyurl.com/l7nqn
BTW, even in the Bay Area,
weddings performed by priests
are the norm. But you are
missing the point, which is
"Why give priests any power
over this at all?" They have
no other legal powers that I
am aware of.
\_ So wait, do Jews not count
when they married? |
| 2008/5/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49994 Activity:nil |
5/18 John Yoo fans:
http://www.esquire.com/print-this/features/john-yoo-0608
"Protesters in Guantánamo orange have disrupted his class and dogged
him in public forums. I talked to another Berkeley law professor who
refuses to attend faculty meetings with him. “Until he atones,†he
said, “I don't want to be in the same room with him.†But Yoo shrugs
it all off. He likes living among liberals, he says. "Liberals from
the sixties do a great job of creating all the comforts of life --
gourmet food, specialty jams, the best environmentally conscious
waters." - danh
\_ I'm waiting for Coultier, Limbaugh and Savage to declare him
a hero. |
| 2008/5/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:49972 Activity:nil |
5/16 fans of gay people, here is coverage and numerous photos
of reaction to gay marriage decision in San Fran-sissy:
http://jameth.livejournal.com/tag/gay+marriage
\_ Why the hell are the justices mostly Republicans?
\_ Why do you ask? What does it matter?
\_ The Republican Party should excommunicate these RINOs.
Schwartzenegger too, he is not of sufficient ideological
Schwarzenegger too, he is not of sufficient ideological
purity. |
| 2008/4/21-5/2 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:49794 Activity:nil |
4/21 Why are there so many gay people in Hollywood?
\_ Because acting is traditionally a gay friendly field, so a lot
of young gay men get into acting.
\_ You might have cause and effect switched around here...
\_ By now there is no real cause and effect. If you are a
gay teen you know damn well that the theater club is going
to be a good place to hang out.
\_ Maybe this is true today, with the Internet and all,
but it wasn't true for rural gay teens 20 years ago.
\_ My wild guess is that they were well-trained in acting in their
real lives when they were pressured to act like heterosexuals in
order to avoid trouble. |
| 2008/4/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, ERROR, uid:49737, category id '18005#10.07' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49737 Activity:nil |
4/12 No wonder the Republicans on the motd are bitter:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3rkvtz (NYT)
"What is concerning is that we lost ground in every one of the
highest-growth demographics," said Mehlman, the former RNC
chairman and Bush political adviser, who is now a lawyer at the
lobbying firm Akin Gump.
\_ Very weak troll. Son, if you're going to troll someone, you can't
spell out who your target is. Your trolling skills are pathetic.
\_ It is not really intended to be a troll. -op
\_ It is a troll. Move on. Nothing to see here. |
| 2008/4/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49699 Activity:nil |
4/9 Oops, Obama's *other* spiritual advisor is also a racist anti-American.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM2M11BsA3g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Meeks
blamed "Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain"
\_ Hey jerkoff who keeps runnin' dis drough ' JIBE', ya' some racist
\_ Hey jerkoff who keeps running this through 'jive', are you racist
too?
\_ No, but I think your feigned outrage is very funny to mock.
\_ "feigned"?
\_ feign
verb [ trans. ]
pretend to be affected by (a feeling, state, or injury) :
she feigned nervousness.
* archaic invent (a story or excuse).
* [ intrans. ] archaic indulge in pretense.
\_ I know what it means, just wondering why you think it's
apropriate. |
| 2008/3/28-4/6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:49601 Activity:nil |
3/28 Anti-Emo Riots in Mexico!
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/03/anti-emo-riots.html
\_ Is Emo the new word for Goth?
\_ I thought it was the new word for hipster.
\_ Emo mights might be hipsters, but not all hipsters are emo. |
| 2008/3/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:49536 Activity:nil |
3/21 Jack Lalanne: How to be happy (from the 50's)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEboAJf9UVc
People have been saying (what we now call hippie stuff) for a while
\_ is he gay? as in queer homosexual gay? he's emitting a lot
of gay signals, but then again, my gaydar is pretty weak.
\_ Despite being born in SF to French immigrant parents, apparently
not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_LaLanne
\_ Another good quote: 'LaLanne declared that his two simple rules of
nutrition are "if man made it, don't eat it", and "if it tastes
good, spit it out."
\_ Nah, just French.
\_ Do you really care if he's gay or not? I mean, who cares? |
| 2008/3/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:49409 Activity:nil |
3/10 NY Gov Eliot Spitzer nailed for using high-class prostitutes
(finance sector probes delayed?)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0310082spitzer1.html
"... said that she was an American, petite, very pretty brunette,
5 feet 5 inches, and 105 pounds" (Kristen, two hours, $4,300)
\_ PICTURE OF KRISTEN PLEASE!!!!!!
\_ Excuse me? Chop stick figure? Anorexic?
\_ Hi motd boob guy. Not all of us like fat chicks. ok tnx.
\_ I know cute gay guys who are taller and weigh about the same
\_ anorexic?
\_ it's not anorexia if you throw up afterwards
\_ Jackie Johnson is at least twice that figure for 1/2 the
cost. Los Angeles is a great city, I love my Honda Accord
HYBRID, and suburban living >>>> city. -*wit #1 fan |
| 2008/3/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:49405 Activity:nil |
3/10 Oklahoma Rep Sally Kerns thinks teh gay is the "biggest threat
our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam". Hear her
full on "not gay bashing" rant on youtube. Did you know they
"indoctrinate" 2 year olds into the "lifestyle" and it spreads like
cancer?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/23azxm (wonkette)
\_ So what? We need fewer breeders. This planet has 5.5B too many
people on it already.
\_ And yet the "gays will destroy the human race because they
don't reproduce" argument is actually attempted with a
straight [pun intended] face
\_ Actually, isn't the think these people fear that gays will
breed (e.g. T. FORD) but that their kids will be gay? |
| 2008/2/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:49188 Activity:nil |
2/19 Why are there so many gay people on the Oxygen Channel? O!
\_ Because gay (homosexual male) people like the same things as
straight women?
\_ No, because many straight women think all gay people are
cute and neutered like the guys in Will and Grace (who you
will notice never actually have sex, they just talk about it
a lot.)
\_ Very much untrue. I'm surprised the gay community hasn't
launched attacks on stereotyping them. |
| 2007/12/14-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:48798 Activity:nil |
12/14 http://youtube.com/watch?v=-1BCV0eqaeA Girls Gone W.O.W. !!! Nice virtual butts. |
| 2007/11/26-30 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:48693 Activity:low |
11/26 What is the real reason Trent Lott resigned? Is he actually gay?
http://www.csua.org/u/k2u (rumor site)
\_ I'm really sorry that the shit didn't hit the fan if he
actually quit because he's gay. I want the conservatives
demoralized as they find each of their champions to be shown
to be lying hypocrites.
\_ Because he was in office for 34 years which is about 28 years
too many for any Senator, IMO?
\_ You mean about 34 year too long?
\_ No. I mean 28. I'm not an anarchist. I think one or two
terms is enough for any politician. I know that's a naive
concept these days but there it is. |
| 2007/11/20-26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:48672 Activity:kinda low |
11/20 Most viewed pages on Conservapedia:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics
1. Main Page [1,894,429]
2. Homosexuality [1,475,437]
3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis [515,993]
4. Homosexuality and Promiscuity [416,375]
5. Homosexuality and Parasites [387,265]
6. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [327,795]
7. Homosexuality and Domestic Violence [319,073]
8. Gay Bowel Syndrome [305,261]
9. Homosexuality and Syphilis [261,781]
10. Homosexuality and Mental Health [243,293]
\_ "... homosexuality has a variety of negative effects on
individuals and society at large which will be subsequently
elaborated on."
\_ "... homosexuality has a variety of negative effects on individuals
and society at large which will be subsequently elaborated on."
\_ ...because hostile stat pumping is unknown? I'm surprised Ron Paul
isn't the biggest hit.
\_ Because most people going to the page are going to laugh at the
stupid, homophobic freaks that run conservapedia. If you are
a rational conservative sites like that are the last thing you
want people to think of when they think of conservatives. Too
bad the polictical movement has been hijacked by the insane and
the xenophobic.
\_ Nothing has been hijacked. There are extremists in politics.
This isn't a surprise but they do not represent more than
themselves and certainly don't speak for the vast and
overwhelming majority of conservatives anymore than the
nutters at Kos/DU speak for liberals.
\_ Except for the fact that the conservative nutters now
are the ones getting elected. That's why it is a
hijack. That's also why the republican party is
self destructing right now. (The democrats are just
still running around like headless chickens, lack of
leadership bad, but at least not as bad as really bad
but effective leadership.)
\_ What is your example of a conservative nutter? Was it
better when the (R) were a permanent minority party
who played golf more than they attended votes?
\_ From the GOP Party Platform in Texas:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/texas_gop.htm
\_ Yes, and? Before you reply, I'm an atheist but not the
kind who hates religious people so don't go there.
\_ "Homosexuality - We believe 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. We are opposed to any granting of special
legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges
including, but not limited to, marriage between
persons of the same sex, custody of children by
homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or
retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or
civil penalties against those who oppose
homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief
in traditional values.
Texas Sodomy Statutes - We oppose the legalization
of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its
authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to
withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from
cases involving sodomy."
Wow, you really support these kinds of hateful
ideas?
\_ Any serious discussion of "Conservopedia" is silly. It's just some
nutty private high school somewhere that got a little funding from
the Eagle Forum for web hosting fees. |
| 2007/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Recreation/Media] UID:48599 Activity:high |
11/10 http://www.newsweek.com/id/50787 http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1674069,00.html Rowling Says Dumbledore Is Gay. \_ Yes, about two weeks ago. |
| 2007/10/30-11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:48492 Activity:nil |
10/30 Is this guy a Republican or a Democrat?
http://www.csua.org/u/jv5 (The Guardian)
Orange County Sheriff charged with accepting bribes
\_ He is gay and he wants you.
\_ I don't think sherrifs usually run on party platforms.
\- he's trying to show why government is bad. |
| 2007/10/13-17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:48305 Activity:nil |
10/13 Modern Talking is gay gay gay. |
| 2007/9/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:48174 Activity:high |
9/24 Wow, they don't have gays in Iran
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RS115O0&show_article=1
\_ There are no gays in the US military, either.
\_ Why pick on Iran? How about Saudi Arabia? How come we have
no issue with Saudi chopping people's hands off, gauging eyes
off, and stone women to death? In fact, we love Saudi so much
that we outsource our torture to there.
\_ The difference between the USM and Iran being that the worst
that happens in one is they kick you out, in the other they
execute you. So yeah, you make a highly valid comparison.
\_ samething can said about WW2. We only put Japs into
concentration camps, not gas chambers. Thus, it makes us the
good guys. Now, get back to your own drinking fountain.
\_ To point out that the USM also ignores the existence of gays
in its ranks is not the same as to suggest that the USM
executes gays. It is possible to draw parallels in parts and
yet recognize differences in the whole: the USM is not Iran.
\_ Maybe I should have added 'sarcasm' tags to my post, above.
\_ Tellingly, this is why Columbia U. says they won't allow ROTC on
campus, yet the Iranian nutjob is there today.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/09/24/ahmadinejad_is_in,_rotc_is_out
http://urltea.com/1kup (townhall.com)
\_ Is ahmadenijad recruiting students?
\_ Dinesh D'Souza is almost as short as you.
\_ I'm 6'0". You?
\_ A link to D'Souza is enough to dismiss you as a troll.
Take your failure like a man.
\_ Sometimes things are true even if someone you don't
like says them.
\_ Yes. But not this time. D'Souza is an imbecile,
his "point" puerile, and you ignorable for posting
it.
\_ What about his point do you find purile, and
why?
\_ What part of "ignorable" don't you
understand? Eh, it's a slow day. I'll
throw you a bone. Do you see any difference
between an organization looking to recruit
students and a foreign head of state
attending a forum? I mean, other than
their clothes.
\_ Well, the claim isn't that they're
precisely the same. In 2003 a majority
of the students voted to have ROTC on
campus. The president says there should
be a forum for all ideas, yet ROTC isn't
allowed. What is recruiting other than
presenting your ideas and asking people
to sign up?
\- ROTC isnt an idea. An ongoing
recruitment program is different
from a one shot speech. [BTW, I'm
not sure what I think about ROTC
on private campuses which get public
monies, so I'm just saying the
comparison is bogus, not anti-ROTC].
\_ I think it is quite clear that if
you take the public's money you
need to take the public's
responsibilities which includes
having the military around trying
to recruit if that's one of the
strings. The Feds use highway
funds all the time as a stick for
totally unrelated State bashing.
If that is ok then it should
certainly be ok to pull Federal
dollars from a school that directly
opposes something harmless like
ROTC.
\_ "Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an
event they had nothing to do with?"
Please to be asking Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
\_ Wasn't this a speech to the UN?
\_ He was talking about the Holocaust. RTA.
\_ I think he just points out the unconvenient fact. Without
Nazi, there will be no political will to establish a Jewish
state. By the way, there was a draft to settle Jews in Alaska.
It never made out of committee. No one in USA want Jews
establish their homeland in US soil.
\_ There is/was at least a tenuous historical basis for est. of
Israel in the Levant/Palestine. |
| 2007/9/14-22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:48074 Activity:nil |
9/14 Gay or straight? Improve your Gaydar by watching his walk:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20762841
\_ I think you are gay for making me look at videos of a guy's
ass. |
| 2007/9/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:47930 Activity:moderate |
9/6 I think it's hilarious and everything an anti-gay Senator
is found looking for hot dudes in airport bathrooms, but no one
should be hounded out of government for being gay.
\_ And he's not being hounded out of govt for being gay. He's being
hounded out of govt for being a scumsucking hypocrite and liar. It's
hard to defend a record of vehement anti-gay legislating when you're
cruising men's rooms at airports.
\_ No, he is being hounded out of the GOP for being gay.
\_ Really? Someone has actually said, "Craig, you're gay, so
you're out"? Or is it more like, "Craig, you got caught being
a hypocrite and a liar. You're dragging down the party"?
\_ You may want to Google '"David Vitter" prostitute'
\_ If being gay wasn't a huge stigma, he wouldn't need to
\_ Are there any out gay GOP elected officials?
\_ If being gay wasn't a huge stigma, dans wouldn't need to
\_ If being gay wasn't a huge stigma, he wouldn't need to
cruise bathrooms.
\_ It's hard to know where to begin here: 1) Being gay !=
cruising bathrooms. 2) If there's a huge stigma on being gay,
it's in large part due to legislation Craig himself introduced
and supported.
\_ Do you think Craig is personally responsible for most
of America being afraid of queers?
\_ What makes you think that most of America is
"afraid of queers"?
\_ They keep living in the same area, taking care of
their lawns and driving up housing prices.
\_ What makes you think most of America is "afraid of
queers"?
\_ You seen what happens when you mention gay marriage
to most americans? Let me give you a hint, that
reaction stems from fear.
\_ 89% of Americans think that gays should be
able to work without discrimination.
79% think they should be allowed to serve
in the military.
A majority think they should have legal
civil unions.
Most people aren't afraid the way you are.
\_ 63% of statistics are made up.
\_ ... including the "63%" above. :-)
\_ http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
\_ Which shows Americans oppose gay
marriage. I don't think that's fear
of queers per se. Ok maybe it is. They
are pretty creepy.
\_ And also shows 89%, 79%, etc... |
| 2007/8/31-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47869 Activity:high |
8/31 This is why Edwards can't get elected:
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/r_m
In a recent speech, John Edwards told Americans to sacrifice their
inefficient cars, and specifically, to give up their SUVs. But the
presidential hopeful is driven around in a Cadillac SRX Crossover,
which guzzles gas at 15 miles per gallon. His spokesman says that
he drives a hybrid SUV in North Carolina, but reports say the
Edwards family has a regular SUV and a small truck as well.
\_ He can't get traction because he's so obviously a fake and he's
also pushing his 'rich vs. poor' thing during the best economic
times the country has ever seen. Class warfare is dead.
\_ Yes, if you're rich the economic times are great. It's the
third gilded age.
\_ Yawn. The poor have never been better off. The middle
class has never been better off. The rich are always
better off so their status has nothing to do with
anything. I'm not even close to rich and everything
is peachy. What's *your* problem?
\_ The middle class income has been going down for about
six years now. You probably didn't notice. And an
overwhelming majority think we are in a recession
right now.
\_ And if the media told them they were doing great
they'd think it was a boom time. That same
majority can't even define recession unless they
think it means lowest unemployment rate in the
western world.
\_ Ah, "the media" controls what everyone thinks.
I understand where you are coming from now.
\_ Paul Graham once noted that while income disparity
increases, 'lifestyle disparity' decreases.
The poorest citizens of the world have access to
things people even 50 years ago would consider
unattainable luxuries (cell phones for instance).
Bank account differences are somewhat of a red
herring -- they are important but they aren't a
good measure of 'inequality' because of the
diminishing marginal utility of money. -- ilyas
\_ The poorest citizens of the world are still
starving to death. Don't get too full of
yourself there.
\_ There are the poor wretches who had the
misfortune to be born in NK, or some parts
of SE Asia or Africa. I don't think the
root cause there is economic per se, or
rather the economy is fucked because the
places are run by thugs. I was talking
about places like India or China. But,
discounting the 'ultra rich', consider how
similar people's lifestyles are in the
States. Compared to, say, one hundred
years ago. Upper middle class increasingly
distinguishes itself by brands rather than
'novel things' unavailable to lower stratas
of society. The same engine which increases
income disparity also provides the Honda
civics, ultra-cheap computers, cell phones,
televisions, etc. Actually the issue
isn't just that money has diminishing
marginal utility, it's that progress
continues to raise how much 'lifestyle' you
can buy on a limited budget. One way
the current trends can end is income
disparity continues to increase, but it
stops being relevant because goods become so
well-made, cheap, and plentiful, that
material scarcity gets essentially
eliminated. Sure, some people will still be
significantly 'richer' than others, but
what practical effect will that extra money
have? Perhaps there will be a market for
'brands' or 'original works of art' or
doing very expensive things 'for the soul'
like funding wacky grand research projects
or going into space. People are too hung
up on money. I have a number of friends
who are significantly more wealthy than
me, and our lives are scarcely different.
The difference will only get smaller.
-- ilyas
\_ The televisions and clothes may be
similar but the important differences are
in things like working hours, vacations,
health and health care, and real estate
related issues (ghetto vs. nice place for
children). In general I agree the poor
are still mostly better off than before.
\_ In my experience, the 'well off' that
work tend to work harder and longer
than minimum wagers.
\_ In my experience, the "well off"
retire much, much earlier, like
in their 50s. The middle class
retires in their early to mid 60s
and the poor never retire. That is
probably the biggest difference.
\_ Yes of course, the question being
what happens to the these
differences as time passes. Do
the rich retire earlier today
than 50 years ago?
\_ If hypocrisy kept politicians from getting elected, there would be
no Republican elected officials at all.
\_ *laugh* Or Democrats either. The blindness to the flaws of the
party you don't dislike is just amazing. I really do laugh
every time I see one of these "my guys are all angels and your
guys are all stupid and satanic" posts here or on various blogs.
\_ Nice to see you are so easily amused. You obviously have not
thought very hard about the word hypocrisy and what it
means. There are plenty of things to dislike about Democrats
but not living up to their ideals is a Republican speciality.
\_ Nice to see you are so easily amused.
\_ So bribery, theft, lying, hypocrisy and abuse of power are
a part of the Democratic party platform? Thanks for
clarifying. I understand now.
\_ I guess it depends on how you define "bribery and
theft." Do you mean taking tax dollars from one person
and giving it to another? Then yes, it is part of the
party platform. If you mean something else, please
provide evidence that Democrats are more likely to
engage in it than Republicans. And you keep throwing
out that word "hypocrisy" without any notion of what
it means. Go look it up in a dictionary and get back
to us, m'kay? How many Republicans vs Democrats in
Congress have been indicted in the last 10 years?
\_ If you can't see the hypocrisy of some very high
profile Democrat politicians, then you're just being
a politics homer/fanboi. Politicians are a bunch of
bums no matter what party. -not pp
\_ No one said the Democrats were angels. That was
a straw man you are responding to. They have just
not been as bad as the Republicans, at least
recently.
\_ We have to vote for our lizards so the other
lizards don't get elected. -- ilyas
\_ motd bleeding heart liberal here. multimillionaire 25k
square foot house trial lawyer owning Edwards talking about
class war (I have some NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR shirts I can send to
him) is pretty funny. Homosexual law oppressing passing Senator
Craig getting caught passing homosexual code is funny too.
Idaho state policeman dedicating himself to undercover luring
of old men into sex acts at the airport bathroom is the funniest
thing all day though. seriously, aren't there real crimes out
there anymore?
\- Minneapolis is not in Idaho. |
| 2007/8/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:47811 Activity:low |
8/29 more on bathroom code from the straight dope
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=434662 - !psb
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/jez
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/jez |
| 2007/8/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:47795 Activity:nil |
8/29 why haven't there been any jokes about psb homosexual code
and foot tapping and Congressman Craig?
I had no idea there really is homosexual code.
\_ You grew up in a cave didn't you?
\_ I didn't know there was a real homosexual code either.
I guess psb and Senator Craig knew. |
| 2007/8/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:47779 Activity:nil |
8/28 the officer's description of what happened is funny:
http://www.dlisted.com/node/14383
\_ Italy. Monica Bellucci. She is a goddess. The movie is bad
despite all of the awards it won. |
| 2007/8/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:47688 Activity:nil |
8/21 I doubt ilyas cares about being gay, appearing gay,
or fitting his gay ass into a mini cooper.
\_ What! I care plenty! -- ilyas |
| 2007/8/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:47684 Activity:low |
8/20 At what point in your life did you realize that you're a
Republican, Democrat, neither, both, etc?
\_ Grew up in the OC... Republican family, like everyone else in
OC. Hated welfare, lazy people, poor people, and gays.
Berkeley changed me profoundly. I realized that I was raised
up as a self loving selfish bastard and realized how stupid it
was to discriminate against people who were different. I
discovered tolerance, and consciously avoided discrimination.
However I also learned how stupid it was to endorse hand-outs and
social programs and tax hike everywhere; you can't help someone
unless they ask for it. I became an independent when I turned 20.
unless they ask for it. I became gay when I turned 20.
I still am.
\_ Spartan
\_ How about the day you wake up and realize it's all a sham?
\_ I'm anti-labor-union but pro-environment, so I'm probably neither.
\_ When I realized the Republicans were really screwing up the country.
That is when I switched from being a Green/independent to the
Democrats. After they finish screwing things up, I will probably
switch back, or even perhaps go Republican if the Democrats
are bad enough. |
| 2007/8/19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:47654 Activity:nil |
8/17 This is crazy stuff, from Boing Boing:
Shannon Larratt, founder of the body modification online
publication BMEzine, points us to a first-person essay by a
person named Yard[D]og regarding the deceased, adoptive father
of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove (the younger
Mr. Rove is shown in the image below).
About the contents, Mr. Larratt Karl s father was not only gay,
but a part of the early body piercing scene and a regular at 70s piercing
It is published in entirety on BMEzine with detailed photos said to depict
the elder Rove's numerous genital piercings. |
| 2007/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:47595 Activity:low |
8/12 San Diego Firefighters Forced To Attend Gay Pride Parade:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1877779/posts
\_ Young man, there's no need to feel down
I said, young man, pick yourself off the ground
I said, young man, 'cause you're in a new town
There's no need - to - be - unhappy ...
\_ Is that the YMCA song? |
| 2007/7/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:47366 Activity:low |
7/20 http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i21827 Top gay names. \- This was stupid. Although they mention Rick, they did not mention Mark and (especially) Steve. |
| 2007/7/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:47328 Activity:high |
7/18 So the Dems keep the Senate up all night for a publicity stunt.
Wouldn't this be illegal if it were at Gitmo?
\_ weak troll. you get a D.
\_ Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term "filibuster."
\_ Interesting how the MSM won't call it a filibuster unless the
Dems do it.
\_ Too bad the Republicans didn't use the "nuclear option"
when they had the chance.
\_ That's because it's not a filibuster. It's just the Senate
leader pulling a hissyfit.
\_ BBZZZZTT.
\_ From the Washington Post: "The Republican success, using
the power of the filibuster, came after a marathon
all-night debate on an amendment to the defense bill. The
52-47 tally left Democrats eight votes short of the 60
necessary to force a vote on the measure."
Facts are such bitter, stubborn things.
\_ No need to be snotty. I actually hadn't heard it was a
filibuster. Thanks for the correction.
\_ Which is part of the point. Almost noone in the
media is willing to admit this is a filibuster.
\_ When Democrats do a filibuster, it's because they
hate America. When Republicans do it, it's
because they support the troops. I hope that
clears things up.
\_ No, the Dems are filibustering something that
we know the Pres would veto, so if they can't
even muster cloture, they can't override the
veto. So why waste the time pandering to
http://moveon.org? When Pubs filibustered court
nominations, they were asking for a simple
up-or-down vote. There is a difference and
pretending that there isn't one makes you look
silly. -emarkp
\_ The dems are not filibustering here. I think
you are unclear on your terms.
\_ The dems are not the ones filibustering
here. I think you are unclear on your terms
\_ Yep, I mistyped. I know that the
filibuster takes place with the minority.
Replace "are filibustering" with "are
pushing". -emarkp
\_ Dude, not being able to muster cloture MEANS
FILIBUSTER. That's what a filibuster is,
refusing cloture. The senate, unlike the
house, has slightly different rules so you
don't need to stand up at the podium and
read from a phone book, but refusing
cloture filibustering. The dems don't have
the votes to get around a veto, true, but
that is an entirely differnent issue. Why,
pray tell, won't the republicans in the
senate let them vote on the bill let it
go to the president to veto or not.
\_ Oh and also, the vote is on an amendment
to bill. (A amendment to a bill that it
is strongly related to I'll add.) If the
president vetos the bill he has to veto
the entire bill. A veto that may not
be politically feasable to do.
\_ Why bring attention to a policy that
over 2/3 of the voting public agrees
over 3/4 of the voting public agrees
with? Is that a serious question?
\_ Overriding the veto has nothing to do with
it. Nice dodge, though.
\_ Why does it have nothing to do with it?
It's legislation that Bush has vowed to
veto, and he's proved that he will veto
something like this (when they tried this
with the last appropriation bill for the
war). So unless they can muster 2/3,
it's pointless. -emarkp
\_ Again, do you really think it is
pointless to show your support for
a policy that an overwhelming majority\
of Americans agree with? You dismiss
a policy that an overwhelming majority
of Americans agree with? You dismiss
the anti-war opinion as the "moveon
crowd" but the truth is half the
country wants out of Iraq now and
another 1/4 wants out soon.
\_ Yeah, instead of wasting time
debating stuff the country actually
cares about, Congress should
follow the model of the Republican-led
Congress and spend their time
debating gay marriage and
flag-burning amendments. That
wouldn't be pointless at all! -tom |
| 2007/7/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:47160 Activity:nil |
7/3 Roving Lesbian Gangs Raping Young Girls
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1860470/posts
\_ freerepublic used to be useful before it was
taken over by zionist jews...
\_ Posting to freerepublic gives you the Gay.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1860470/posts |
| 2007/6/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Recreation/Dating] UID:46955 Activity:very high |
6/14 I can relate having known a few guys who were not just slightly gay
but just down right effeminate who sexually have as much straight
sex as any guy out there. I mean it's all relative. psb may actually
BE gay, but if his sexual relationships have been 80% straight and
20% gay then it just shows he can relate sexually to both genders
right? I think thats pretty cool myself. I often think that if
more macho jocks had at least one gay experience they might be
more romantic and all around just better in bed. I'm sure many
might disagree though. I would love to have sex with a guy
like psb!
\_ we know you would, asshole.
\_ we know you would, kchang.
\_ we know you would, tom holub.
\- yikes. ok, no more csua events for me. --psb
\_ You obviously don't know much about macho jocks and frat parties...
\_ One of my supercute gay friends had sex with dozens of "straight"
macho frat jock types in high school. |
| 2007/5/30-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:46799 Activity:nil |
5/29 White house implicity recognizes gay parents:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/images/20070523-4_v052307db-0034jpg-731v.html
(link fixed thanks a lot whoever messed it up). It's a pic of the
Cheneys, the baby, and the caption: "His parents are the Cheneys.
daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe"
\_ I guess they mean "whitehouse" the porn site.
\_ What does this have to do with the White House or whitehouse the
porn site (other than the fact that the pic is porn) or gay parents?
Actual link is this: |
| 2007/5/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:46788 Activity:kinda low |
5/29 White house implicity recognizes gay parents:
http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2007/05/29-2032439371L.jpg
\_ I guess they mean "whitehouse" the porn site.
\_ What does this have to do with the White House or whitehouse the
porn site (other than the fact that the pic is porn) or gay parents? |
| 2007/5/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Health/Disease/AIDS] UID:46637 Activity:moderate |
5/15 Rot in hell, you fucking traitorous son of a whore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/obituaries/15cnd-falwell.html?_r=1&hp&
oref=slogin
Falwell finally does something to make the world a better place by
dying.
\_ will there be hookers in heaven for him?
\_ Liberty University is in Lynchburg? Is that appropriate or ironic?
\_ Ah, the hatred of the left is always so sad to see.
\_ There are plenty of people I dislike that I'll gladly give
dignity in death. Falwell was much beyond that. Falwell
was a religious facist who justly deserves his place with hell.
Good fucking riddance to a powerful man who blamed AIDS on
society accepting gays as people. Good fucking riddance to a
powerful man who blamed 9/11 on feminism and atheism. Good
fucking riddance to a man worked hard to destroy my fundemental
religious and moral freedoms. Burn Falwell burn.
\_ Though the right is chock full of hate--more so than the left
ever has been.
\_ Keep asserting it, it's a nice security blanket.
\_ Especially when it's true.
\_ I don't know if you can really say that. "The left" has
massacred lots of people over the last 100 years. Maybe
you meant to say "the left in the United States" or
"the left today." -lefty
\_ I was talking about hate, not deaths--but you could argue
that the Christian invasion of the New World and Africa
was an activity of the "right", and that caused more
deaths than the left's recent activities.
\_ Well, I am not going to get into all that. Colonialism
has probably killed more than Communism, true. But the
point is that the left has had plenty of hate at times
in the past, so your claim that the right [today] is
more hateful than the left has at any time in history
is a pretty extreme one and wrong, imo.
\_ Agreed, as is the hypocrisy of the right.
\_ Well, hypocrisy on any side.
\_ And the hatred of either.
\_ The left hates Falwell because of his hate, not because he's
black or poor or jewish or short or fat or tall or skinny
or whatever.
\_ You make a career out of demonizing certain people, don't be
surprised when those people don't like you.
\_ On AIDS:
AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals.
On the Antichrist:
[He] will, by necessity, be a Jewish male.
On the separation of church and state:
The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the
devil to keep Christians from running their own country.
And, of course, on the September 11th attacks:
I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the
feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying
to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the
American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America.
I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' |
| 2007/4/25 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:46446 Activity:moderate |
4/24 Is Sanjaya gay?
\_ Well, he's Out. |
| 2007/3/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:46110 Activity:nil 90%like:46098 |
3/26 Gay-wango-tango
http://urltea.com/2e2 (nj.com) |
| 2007/3/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:46098 Activity:nil 90%like:46110 |
3/26 Gay-wango-tango
http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1174888546111830.xml&coll=3 |
| 2007/3/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:46009 Activity:low |
3/19 I was watching this really gay guy dancing in Tchaikovsky's ballet
with my girlfriend and it was a) quite a torture and b) it turns
out that this really gay guy is Barishikov and he's *not* gay and
that is totally fucked up. No wonder people hate classical music.
\_ Are you a homophoebe? Are you jealous that those guys have bigger
pecks and penis than you?
\_ Barishnikov fled the Soviet Union and gave up everything in his
life to be the greatest in the world at what he does. He's more
of a man than you'll ever be. Read up on him, fag-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryshnikov
\_ the greatest in the world at being a fag maybe. ahahahah!
\_ It's funny. Reading the above post, I thought Baryshnikov
resembles the character portrayed in the film White Nights which
I saw 20yrs ago. Only after reading the wiki page did I realize
that he was actually the actor playing that character in the
film. -- OP
\_ I'll take the bait. Ballet is only one category of classical music.
I hate ballet but I love Chopin's piano pieces, for example.
Besides, Tchaikovsky was supposedsly gay.
\- i like lots of classical, some opera, but i hate ballet too.
it would be improved if men wore mumus. when i went to see
swan lake there were they a large number of teenagers sitting
in the row behind me ... the girls were clearly dancers but
there were all these boys who were super into it ... i think
they were proto gays. i think some women pay just to see the
men's asses and package. it was horrible. i started texting
\_ Why don't they just go watch the Chippendales? Cheaper,
and I assume the guys are better looking?
\- maybe they dont feel guity/dirty and they
like the stupid story. there is nothing worse
that thinking you're at the lake scene 90% of
the way through when you realize you're at the
other lake scene 40% of the way through. etc.
"help me" to friends. that really pissed off my companion.
actually maybe i was texting "help me" at the intermission in
tristan and isolde and texted "kill me" from the ballet.
\_ Without opera, there would be no metal as we know it, and
without metal, life would not be worth living. Go opera!
\_ Was that the T&I from like 8 years ago? God, that was
dreadful.
\- this was the dredful T&I last yr. the only reason i went
was 1. i liked the person who invited me 2. to
to see the DAVID HOCKNEY designed set, which was
pretty neat ... but not for 5 hours ... in german.
http://www.hockneypictures.com/tristan.htm
btw, you run into some interesting people at the opera:
sat next to george shultz for one act [then he left?],
also old chancellor heyman etc.
\_ Nutcracker: fell asleep 15 minutes in, woke up 2 minutes before it
ended. Victory!
\_ Finally saw Nutcracker for Xmas 2005. Actually enjoyed it. Still
have utterly no interest in seeing it or any other ballet again.
On a similar note, saw Rigoletto outside in SF Civic Center;
couldn't make it past Act 1. OTOH, saw Don Giovanni at the Met,
and that was pure gold. Hm, do you think I'd like Wagner?
\- The Ring is kind of a fascinating spectacle and if the sets
arent pretty cool, you've been ripped off. and if you like
mythology or D&D/LOTR type fatasies, it's a pretty good
story. But man, some of them, liek T&I, nothing happens ...
the only think that happens in the long last act of T&I is
story. But man, some of them, like T&I, nothing happens ...
the only thing that happens in the long last act of T&I is
a ship arrives and people die. I am not exaggerating. Avoid
Russian Opera at all costs. safe operas to see: mozart,
carmen maybe, aida maybe, fidelio, the ring, maybe some
more verdi, masked ball not too bad, die fledermaus maybe,
barber of seville is ok but NdF is much better. maybe a few
others, but most of them are in "kill me now" territory.
and some of the productions have a serious WTF factor ... like
the chubby middle aged jeanne d' arc last year who was
burned at the stake [thank god, it cant go on much longer]
and was turned into a little asian girl.
Russian Opera at all costs.
\_ As someone who dates a ballet dancer and who knows a lot of male
(but mostly female) dancers from her circle of friends, you are
missing one of the great reasons to watch ballet. Forget about
the men. Watch the women. There are far more of them and they
all have beautiful bodies. Even if you do not appreciate the
art and its difficulty, how can you not be interested in lots
of beautiful and athletic half-naked women? Ballet originally
appealed to a prurient interest before it was elevated to a
fine art and it still does. Dancers are perhaps not
full-figured like Anna Nicole Smith, but lots of them do have
figures despite the emphasis on being thin and bony. In a
professional company, they are typically over 18 as well, so
don't worry about that. Plus, they are surrounded by about 50%
gay men, which is a good thing if you think about it.
\_ Sorry, but child-like women in child-like pajama-style
clothes doesn't excite my prurient interest. I'll just
flip through penthouse or playboy or watch network TV.
\_ You're an idiot.
\_ You're an idiot.
\_ I thought female ballet dancers all have daikon legs.
\_ Meaning what?
\_ Ugly legs that look like daikon.
\_ Yes, dancers all have ugly legs. That's the point
of the whole thing - to have ugly legs. Are you
fricking kidding? The whole point of ballet is to
have beautiful legs and show them off. The tutu
is specifically made to show the entire leg and
to have nice lines. Dancers are not gymnasts.
Strength is important, but appearance is more so.
link:tinyurl.com/34s993 |
| 2007/3/7-12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45901 Activity:nil |
3/7 This is gay:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0305072fcc4.html
\_ Rehab for you!
\_ Where can I find the said picture showing Prince through a sheet? |
| 2007/2/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Recreation/Dating] UID:45777 Activity:moderate |
2/20 Largest plurality of single male and females:
http://www.phdcomics.com/blog_images/ng_singles.jpg
\_ Should've gone to the east coast and married a better woman.
\_ Have you seen the women back East? If you have, then you
know why they are single.
\_ Oh, never mind. But I wonder if the women back East say the
same thing about men here in the west.
\_ So your theory is the men back east thought they were too
ugly and moved to the west coast, leading to local
imbalances? All those extra single females should have
corresponding single males if the populations were even,
and there isn't some mass gay marriage phenomenon.
\_ No, all the good looking East Coast guys moved West
and turned gay. |
| 2007/2/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45762 Activity:nil |
2/17 Happy President's day! Was James Buchannon our first
homosexual president? |
| 2006/12/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45427 Activity:high |
12/11 If the average member of congress worked ~2-3 days a week last
year, the lowest ever in decades, where can I find out how long
EACH congressman/women worked? I'd like to use the data to tally
up total and percentage of hours for each state, and maybe
compare men vs. women, dems vs. reps, new yorkers vs. texans,
gay congressman vs. lesbian congresswomen, etc.
\_ I don't understand the metrics of this. Congresspeople
spend a lot of time in meetings with their staff, meeting
with lobbyists who get past their staff, meeting in the
secret underground Senate chambers, flying back and forth
between their district, calling donors, lots of flying
back and forth, is this 'tracked' in the "2-3 day working week"?
I don't think so.
\_ There's a bit of a misnomer there. Congress was in session 3 days
a week last year, but that doesn't mean every member of Congress
fucked off and played golf the other two days of the week. (*)
Of course if what you want to track is sessions of Congress
attended, you should see if there is if the Congressional roll call
records are available online. I actually think this is an
interesting idea. If you find the data you need to make this go
and want help hacking on it, let me know. -dans
(*) Though it also doesn't mean that every member of Congress
*didn't* fuck off and play golf the other two days of the week.
\_ Playing golf and screwing around with interns and congressional
pages IS work. It is hard work.
\_ Your bar for social life is clearly low. -dans |
| 2006/12/8-13 [Academia, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45422 Activity:nil |
12/6 Funny, I heard about the beating, but I hadn't heard that he faked
it until now...
http://www.ktvb.com/news/crime/stories/ktvbn-nov1706-gay_bashing.4833d4ff.html |
| 2006/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45297 Activity:nil |
11/9 Burns concedes. I think that's it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_el_se/montana_senate
\_ No recount?
\_ Why would there be?
\_ Montana law says it has to be less that 0.25% for a free recount
and less than 0.5% for any recount (the loser has to pay, he
gets his money back if the recount shows he won.) Over 0.5%,
no recounts (I don't know what happens if fraud can be shown).
Burns lost by over half a percent.
\_ Interesting. So if X appears losing to Y by 0.3%, and X wants a
recount while Y doesn't, and then Y ends up losing, does Y have
to pay?
recount while Y doesn't, and then Y ends up losing, does that
mean Y is now responsible for the cost even though (s)he didn't
ask for a recount and (s)he didn't cheat? If so, does that
mean one shouldn't enter the election unless one can afford a
potential recount?
\_ No, if X wins the state pays. |
| 2006/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45285 Activity:nil |
11/8 Comedy gold. The site "Rapture Ready" reacts to the election of the
first Muslim to the US Congress:
http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=282679
\_ I love that someone's sig is "My other car is the Rapture". |
| 2006/11/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic] UID:45282 Activity:kinda low |
11/8 Say you're a politician and you just lost an election, and say
you're not a wealthy dot-comer who made millions from eBay or
inherited millions from your family, what would you do
for a living?
\_ You stay home all day and cry. Like Al Gore. Then after a year
or two you start making a movie you're passionate about so that
you can forget about your loss. Like Al Gore.
\_ Well, you could always hit the lecture circuit and make an
absurd amount of money...like Al Gore
\_ Lobbyist. Go back to law. Give talks. Do what you were doing
pre politician. Lots of things.
\_ http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/3afec4f94f.jpg
1. Buy daughter a puppy
2. Send son off to Hogwarts
3. Repress homosexual urges
4. Profit!
\_ awesome. |
| 2006/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45241 Activity:nil |
11/7 Gay marriage bans win approval in 3 states. Conservatives rule!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15613198/from/RS.1
\_ Americans aren't ready. One day we'll have domestic partner
rights for the biologically gay.
\_ But not in white Republican Arizona. Strange. |
| 2006/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45221 Activity:nil |
11/7 Has anybody heard the rumor about the college students who
are going to kill themselves publicly if the Dems lose?
\_ Just like the ones who were going to move to Canada?
\_ Sounds like a plan, go for it!
\_ McCain says he'll commit suicide if the Dems win [the Senate]...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/18/160016.shtml
\_ Some HIV+ gay activists in NYC said they were going to
do something earth shattering if the Dems lose.
See dailykos.
\_ Can't find it. (Never read DailyKos before, can't figure
it out.)
\_ They've been losing every year since 94. Why now?
\_ You have been trolled. |
| 2006/11/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45204 Activity:nil |
11/6 RNC attackes "Charlie Brown":
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/TD/20061102/NEWS/111020080
\_ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4190699.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/276677.stm
Could be worse. -John
\_ What is your point? I'm a Democrat but I also think gay people
are bad and they should minimize contacts with children.
\_ What is your point? I'm a Democrat but I also think gay people
are bad and they should minimize contacts with children.
\_ Hope springs eternal that this is a troll. |
| 2006/11/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45179 Activity:moderate |
11/5 wtf is this?
http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm
Can someone explain the rapid turn in polls? Don't tell me it's
GOP TV advertising; but it would be the only principal reason.
\_ In case you haven't noticed for many polls out there you need to
add +10-15 points in favor of the R. This is because conservatives
in general are very hushed about their intentions and they don't
like to take polls or talk to pollsters.
\_ The same reason why you never hear anyone claiming to be R
in SF even though 1/5 are registered R. They'd get beat up
or ridiculed if their friends find out. It's worse being R
in SF than being a gay man in Tennessee.
\_ The same reason why you never hear anyone claiming to be R
in SF even though 1/5 are registered R. They'd get beat up
or ridiculed if their friends find out.
\_ So you think the open minded liberal and friendly folks in
the SF area would physically assault someone for being R?
\_ Absolutely. SF is tolerant to anyone liberal. That's
why you never hear the other 1/5 of the voice. They're
scared of liberals.
\_ No just SF. Many parts of the south bay as well.
\_ That goes for exit polling too, apparently. In most countries
exit polls are used to see if the election was fair. For some
reason, in the United States conservatives don't like admitting
they voted for their candidates. Either that or the election
is not fair, which can't be possible, right?
\_ Elections have been rigged in this country before either
of the current parties existed. That goes without saying.
As far as exit polls go, yes, I believe there is a difference
between some small third world country doing exit polls and
the US spanning 3 time zones with exit poll reports coming
out from the east coast before the west coast polls have
closed. It isn't that hard to tweak the numbers and there
is a very partisan reason for doing so (to make late voters
not bother). As far as talking to exit poll people, no, I
absolutely don't have the time to waste talking to some exit
poll taker for whatever media outlet. There is no value or
requirement to do so in order to support my candidate so I
wouldn't do it. I don't 'admit' to having voted for my
candidate(s). I just 1) don't care to spend my time telling
you and 2) don't think it's any of your business anyway.
\_ Yes. Because polls are a measure of who is being polled. In
tight races with small samples it only takes a small change in
the pollees to shift the final numbers a significant amount.
The pollees to shift the final numbers a significant amount.
That's why I've said for years that polls are useless. In a wide
margin race you don't need one and in small margins everything
falls within the margin of error so there's no point to it. |
| 2006/11/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45167 Activity:nil |
11/04 Ted Haggard dismissed from church for "sexually immoral conduct"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061105/ap_on_re_us/haggard_sex_allegations
\_ So do we hate the Church for firing him for being gay or do we
hate him for being a hypocrite/liar and we're glad he got fired? |
| 2006/11/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45163 Activity:nil |
11/4 Is it just me or Haggard looks like the grown up version of
Steve Stifler in American Pie?
http://www.gulfnews.com/world/U.S.A/10079630.html
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/11/evangelical_leader_ted_haggard_accused_of_gay_hooker_affair |
| 2006/11/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45150 Activity:nil |
11/3 http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/gallagher/index.html So, CNN had (now removed) on its front-page a URL questioning the timing of the gay prostitute drug-dealer story. Are we going to have a story on the timing of Sunday's Saddam Hussein verdict? |
| 2006/11/3-4 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45148 Activity:high |
11/3 Motd Poll:
- What did Haggard mean when he said he just received a "massage"?
Back massage:
Frontal massage / Hand job:
Oral massage of penis:
Massage of anal orifice:
All of the above:
He was lying, just like yesterday: .
\_ Couldn't you describe all sex as "massage"?
\_ Who is Haggard, why do we care if he got a "massage"?
\_ Haggard was the head of (I think) the evangelical
christian coalition for fighting gay marriage. His
gay gigolo/lover got tired of him being hypocritcal
and exposed him.
\_ He was also filmed for Jesus Camp, and he came across
as a total asshole (and we all thought he was gay).
\_ I didn't know pro-gay sex == pro-garriage. Seems
to me you could be pro-gay sex and anti-garriage.
\_ I didn't know pro hot gay sex == pro garriage. Seems
to me you could be pro hot gay sex and anti-garriage.
\_ Yeah, who's he gonna bone if all the gays get married?
\_ Except that Christians are supposed to be against
pre-marital sex.
\_ Except that Christians supposedly are against pre-marital
sex.
\_ If he was actually even religious, I bet he just
thinks gay sex is a sin. Christians like to think
of stuff as sin, but they think everyone sins all
the time anyway.
Turning the other cheek: . |
| 2006/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45121 Activity:nil |
11/02 you've seen the website:
http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan
but have you seen the interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=783KKs10Q2o
\_ gay gay gay
\_ Reminds me of a Spiderman dancing animation that someone posted
before.
\_ Keywords: peter pan gay weird funny |
| 2006/11/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45110 Activity:low |
11/02 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061103/ap_on_re_us/haggard_sex_allegations \_ It's not a good year to be a hypocritical social conservative \_ I looked into this a bit. At this point there's a guy who says he was getting paid to have sex with "Pastor Ted" for 3 years and claims to have incriminating voice mail and emails but refuses to show anything to anyone. It may be entirely true but I'm really bored with unsubstantiated allegations being tossed around to destroy people's lives without so much as a "and here's a single voice mail that shows it, and I have more". But oh boy, he did say he'd take a lie detector test which are known to be worthless. He wouldn't need the useless lie detector test if he actually revealed any of his voice mails. It's all very fishy and annoying. \_ It's not a good year to be a hypocritical social conservative. Yes, yes, accusation != conviction. \_ In politics accusation == conviction. \_ But he's not a politican, he's a pastor... ah right... same things these days. Go go, United States of Megachurch! \_ If it wasn't politically OP wouldn't have called him a social conservative instead of a pastor. \_ "these days" as opposed to what 8 whole years ago? The trend in the nation is away from church doctrine and has been since at least the scopes trial. If you think otherwise, you are delusional. -an agnostic. \_ And if you haven't been paying attention to the new trends in who holds the reins on morality and what they're saying, you've been under a rock the last 10 years. \_ The reins of morality have always been held by the same people. What has changed? \_ The sad thing is, no matter which way this pans out, it'll be bad for gays: accuser is lying -> "look at the horrible gay agenda!" accuser is truthful -> "look at how they corrupted a good, good man!" \_ Well at least they weren't married. |
| 2006/11/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45074 Activity:moderate |
11/01 Remember they aren't Brown Shirts, they are just Conservatives
trying to express their feelings:
http://www.csua.org/u/hcd
\_ How do you know they're "Conservatives"?
\_ They're probably conservatives in the same way Nazis
were liberals.
\_ This is just one of "hundreds" of warcrimes the Bush
Brown Shirts have committed nationwide. Its all part
of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The Truth is Out
of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The Tru7h is Out
There. -fmulder
\_ I think the Bush Brown Shirts egged my house last night.
\_ All part of our Grand Visionary Conspiracy to force you
to buy cleaning products from our VRWC cleaning products
companies to fund our illegal war in Seattle.
\_ Just a hunch. Liberals don't tend to lynch blacks or beat
up gays either.
\_ Hint: non-Liberals don't tend to lynch blacks or beat up
gays either.
\_ Really? So all those Blacks got lynched by nobody? Did
they lynch themselves, is that what you are trying to say?
And all the gay bashings never really actually happened?
\_ No one said any such thing. Read and try again.
Curious. |
| 2006/10/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:44850 Activity:nil |
10/17 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/12/BAG61LNN5V1.DTL Why is a Gay screwing a Lesbian to have a child? This is about as fucked up as it gets. If it isn't for this fucking gay and lesbian shit, Bush wouldn't have been elected, and we won't be in the deep shit as we are now. America is a in a "better" place because of you fucking gay and lesbians. Go fuck each other, but just don't go on and produce gay-lesbian-babies. You really are a plague. |
| 2006/10/8-10 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:44725 Activity:low |
10/8 It's almost November, let's review some of the memorable highlights
of 2004-2006:
-Terry Schiavo on news
-Cheney shoots his friend
-Abramoff scandal
-Kenneth Lay finally dies
-Foley
-Tom Delay
-Bob Ney
-Duke Cunningham
-you forgot William Jefferson--who's still serving in congress...
\_ Shhh! Only Republicans are corrupt. Stay on message.
\_ Ahh, the equivalence game.
\_ Republican evilness is no game. All Republicans are evil.
No one said anything about equivalence because there isn't
any. How hard is it to understand? I'll explain again:
all Republicans are evil. Just keep saying it.
\_ Are all Republicans alchoholic gay pedophiles or just
your leadership? |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44697 Activity:nil |
10/5 http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html "Three more former congressional pages have come forward ... Foley told [one page] that if he happened to be in Washington, D.C., he could stay at Foley's home if he 'would engage in oral sex'" \_ Now that Foley resigned, why are we still hearing about this? \_ Hastert still hasn't stepped down. \_ Because instead of acting like the conservatives they claim to be the (R) leadership acted like political party hacks instead and ran around covering their own hides instead of doing the right thing (which would've happened when they first found out about it, not a year later). The sooner they're gone the better. \_ Hastert's defense is something like, "All I knew about were about the inappropriate e-mails (asking for the student's pic). Foley was warned and we didn't hear anything more, so that was it. We had no idea he was talking about dick in the e-mails / Internet messages." \_ Hastert has no defense. His term was wasted. Time to go. |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44694 Activity:moderate |
10/6 Oops, looks like the lurid IM messages ABC revealed with Foley were
with an 18-yr old, not a minor:
http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com
\_ First of all, this is yesterday's news. It is also yesterday's
news that the messages occurred both before and after the
kid's 18th birthday. -tom
\_ I've not seen anything with proof that any lurid messages
happened before his 18th birthday. Can you point me there?
Also, the salacious details that are being used as ammo happened
after the 18th birthday AFAICT.
\_ Gee, no one has to prove anything to you. The fact that
Foley resigned is sufficient proof. -tom
\_ Maybe he resigned because he was trying to bang an 18
year old guy? He isn't a Dem from the north east. Where
he's from that sort of thing isn't ok even if legal. You
have no idea why he resigned, just conjecture. There's
also an issue of power here similar to Clinton with his
intern and every exec who has ever banged his secretary.
It really does matter how old the page was and when Foley
said what to him but I'm not surprised that someone looking
for the truth would get brushed off. The truth is just
never as fun as making shit up. --someone else
\_ well I'm sure the attorney general and the congressional
ethics committees will be sure to consult with all
the anonymous MOTD cowards, to be sure we get to the
truth.
Yes, my conjecture is that this is a big deal, or
else a self-righteous twerp like Foley would never
have resigned. Anonymous coward's conjecture is
apparently that no messages to minors exist,
everyone who is saying there are messages to minors
is lying, and Foley resigned because he's a man of
such high moral standing that even the appearance of
impropriety was unacceptable.
Occam's Razor. -tom
\_ Asserting things doesn't make them true. -tom 9/28/06
\_ That's not an assertion, it's a line of reasoning.
\_ If you think this is going to defuse the scandal, I've got an
excellent bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
\_ I don't care about the scandal. I care about figuring out
what really happened. ABC seems to be playing up the lurid
emails for ratings (putting politics aside), and
dishonestly connecting the minor-status of the page to the
IMs.
\_ uh, like yesterday's post, age of consent is 16 in DC. In DC, it's
legal for a 50-year-old to have consensual sex with a 16-year-old,
and it wasn't even real sex, and the cybersex was R-rated at worst.
It should also be noted that the minimum age to become a page is 16.
</troll>
\_ I know people on the motd like to keep age-of-consent lists
for all 50 states, but answer this: why is the FBI investigating?
\_ see newest post at top
\_ That's what I was getting at.
\_ What post? I still don't get it. The biggest deal here
seems to be that this guy is gay. I thought democrats
like gays. |
| 2006/10/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:44657 Activity:high |
10/3 I can't believe there exists gay Republicans. It's like, cows have
wings and can fly.
\_ Hello to David Dreier.
\_ Are you kidding? The hypocrisy of politicians is legendary.
Republicans in particular. The most anti-gay of them are
gay themselves. The most anti-corruption are taking bribes.
The most 'pro family values' are the ones with mistresses.
The anti-substance ones are addicts. And so on, and on, and on.
And even more so if they're religious.
\_ Mmmm mmmm!! I love the smell of a good rant in the morning!
\_ and the former co-chair of the House Caucus on Missing and
Exploited Children regularly engages in cybersex with high school
students
\_ Paging Andrew Sullivan.
\_ Wealthy white males without children. I read somewhere that more
and more gays are turning to the Republican party. It really
represents their interests better than the Dems do. 25% of gays
(lesbians included) voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and the
numbers are creeping higher: see Log Cabin Republicans.
\_ "Really represents their interests?" Are you insane? Have you
READ the Republican Party platform?
\_ Reclaim the Panama Canal! Woohoo! *bang* *bang*
\_ Their priorities are not what you think they are. Their
priorities are often national defense, small government
(which is *supposed* to be a Republican ideal), lower
taxes, big business, etc. Think Merv Griffin here.
\_ sorry, "keeping my sexual preference legal" trumps all
of that.
\_ is it preference or born like that?
\_ That's your own personal opinion not shared by all
gays and lesbians.
\_ right, and some poor blacks vote Republican, too.
The stupid ones. -tom
\_ Such tolerance from the left. The Republicans
are, after all, the party of Lincoln.
\_ I'm sure blacks voted Republican in 1860.
(To the extent they were allowed to). Let's
try to keep the discussion within the
most recent century. -tom
\_ What makes you think you know what's best
for poor blacks - all poor blacks, in fact?
That's the main problem with liberals.
They always think they know what's best
for you.
\_ Ah, right, and the conservatives are
constantly responding to the needs of
the people. You're a moron. -tom
\_ Conservatives prefer to let people
respond to their own needs and
not call them 'stupid' if they
have different priorities.
\_ URL? -tom
\_ Stupid because... the dems would make them not
poor? Or maybe not black?
\_ Stupid because the dems don't view poor
people as self-evidently lazy, criminal, or
both. Stupid because Republicans constantly
attack social programs intended to help the
poor, because by conservative ideology, the
poor just don't work hard enough, so all they
need to succeed is fewer social programs. -tom
\_ So you actually believe people are poor
because they're lazy? Please look at the
a documentary called Rebels With a Cause
and The Weather Underground. A bunch of
young leftists tried to help out the poor
and for whatever reason (pride, resentment,
etc) the poor simply rejected help from
a bunch of rich yuppie kids. There's a
saying that Republicans are Democrats
that have yet to be robbed, and there's
a lot of truth to that.
\_ uh, no, I think that the conservative
ideology is that the rich are rich
because they worked for it, and the poor
are poor because they don't work hard
enough. That ideology has no connection
to reality. -tom
\_ I think the opposite is true. Democrats
are Republicans that have yet to be
robbed. Once they are robbed then
see how quickly they are against gun
control, light prison sentences, etc.
\_ You got that saying backwards. Carry on.
\_ Like Clinton's welfare reform which kicked
how many people off the lists and put caps
on how much help someone is allowed? Or
like how Dems are opposed to school vouchers
because the fewer crappy public schools
there are the less the teacher's unions can
give to the Dems?
\_ Intended to help them, perhaps. They did
pass that prescription drug plan so they're
not as different as maybe you'd like to
think. Anyway, this would be more useful
if we chose one specific program that
Rs attack and Ds support (or vice versa) and
discuss the merits. I guess school vouchers
is one. I used to be on the fence for that
but now I think they'd be good. I know
enough people who do home-schooling that I
see a lot of potential for innovation in
private education. Maybe you can offer some
other examples. I've grown to be very wary
of giant grabby bureaucracies which is what
large government agencies or school systems
become.
\_ The stupid and poor ones have more to gain from
meager tax cuts, because any amount will
largely affect their lifestyles.
\_ yeah, I'm sure removing the estate tax and
the capital gains tax will have huge impact
in Harlem. -tom
\_ this thread so needs to be jived, but I'm a coward |
| 2006/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44651 Activity:nil |
10/3 Breaking news on http://abcnews.go.com: "FORMER CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY WAS MOLESTED BY A CLERGYMAN AS A TEENAGER AND IS GAY, ACCORDING TO HIS ATTORNEY" \_ And the Clergyman was a hardcore left-wing Democrat who supported evil Clinton so it is Democrats' fault afterall! \_ They're not sticking with the stock-and-trade conservative "alchohol made me do it but we should still be outlawing pot, but I'm checking myself into rehab so we can all forget about it" approach? \_ So, any kind of misconduct is excusable provided the committer was a victim? \_ Nahh, this is likely an attempt to turn this into a "gay" scandal thus getting MORE Republicans to the polls rather than less. \_ Maybe the priest was a Democrat, see it is the fault of the Democrats after all! \_ Actually, they are - but with a twist. |
| 2006/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:44583 Activity:nil 75%like:44571 80%like:44575 |
9/27 RIP gay socialist Tokyo Rose
\_ Who? |
| 2006/8/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:44205 Activity:low |
8/30 Why did all child sex scandals of Catholic priests involve boys and
none involved girls? Is it that Catholic priests tend to be gay, or
is it that scandals involving girls don't get national media coverage?
\_ They tend to leave the girls to the nuns...
\_ There have been a few. They do seem to get less coverage though.
\_ I'm not sure. I was out of the country when it really hit
the fan over this, but I seem to recall about equal coverage
from the news I saw. Now, there are certainly a lot more
jokes about priests the boys, but that's a different issue.
\_ More helpers that are around priests are male. Historically, it's
been seen as an acceptable choice for same-sex attracted men to
enter the priesthood (and thus remain celibate). However I've
heard that it's a problem now--the seminary has enough gay men that
they're getting sexually active with each other.
\- Live Girl < Live Boy ~= Dead Girl, scandal-wise. |
| 2006/8/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:43902 Activity:nil |
8/4 "Culture war" in America may be overblown
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060803/pl_nm/life_poll_dc
\_ The Culture Club sucks. They are sooooooooooooooooooooo
early '80s. Get out flock out of here with the crappy
music. -proud American |
| 2006/7/26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:43808 Activity:high |
7/26 Wow, he could've been the first homo in space:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_en_ot/people_lance_bass
"Homo, homo in the space
Where the queer with the anal lube play
Where rectum is heard an encouraging squirt
And the guys are all kinky all day"
\_ What's with the straight obsession with gay anal sex?
\_ It's just that "anal lube" rhymes with "antelop" in the original
song.
\_ Err, actually no, it doesn't. Perhaps you should look up
'rhyme' in the dictionary.
\_ Okay. From Webster: "2 of a word or verse : to end in
syllables that are rhymes". It's close enough.
\_ Fair enough.
\_ Oh, and "rectum" rhymes with "seldom" in the original
also.
\_ Whatever you say, Shakespeare. |
| 2006/7/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:43765 Activity:low |
7/21 Is Johnny Depp gay?
\_ based on nothing else except on watching Pirates of the Carribeans,
I'd say he's gay. But in real life, he's not. I think.
\_ That would be ironic, considering the number of chicks I know
who are ga-ga over him.
\_ Women are always ga-ga for the guys who turn out to be gay.
\_ The interview with Liberace in Good Night And Good Luck is
an exquisite example of this.
\_ For what it's worth, he's married with children. -John
\_ Well not actually currently married, but 'effectively' so.
He has been married in the past.
\_ My neighbor across the street was married and has a 21 year
old daughter from that marriage. He and his boyfriend
bought the house last fall. My old roommate used to work
for a gay attorney who was married (to a woman). He said
that he 'just happened to fall in love with a woman'. |
| 2006/7/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:43580 Activity:nil |
7/6 http://csua.org/u/gcb (newsday.com) New York's highest court votes 4-2, finding law banning gay marriage complies with state constitution. Affirming justices cite case law defining due-process-derived "fundamental rights" as ones that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" (1977). In the 2006 opinion: "The right to marry is unquestionably a fundamental right. The right to marry someone of the same sex, however, is not 'deeply rooted'; it has not even been asserted until relatively recent times." Dissenting: "Simply put, a history or tradition of discrimination - no matter how entrenched - does not make the discrimination constitutional. As history has well taught us, separate is inherently unequal." |
| 2006/6/30-7/5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:43541 Activity:nil |
6/30 Melanie Morgan calls for death penalty for NYTimes reporters.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/06/30/fourth/index.html
\_ This story is serving as a good litmus test to detect obvious
shills for the administration. The Pres announced a program
like this in a public speech in the rose garden, and plenty
of newspapers reported the financial transaction monitoring,
not just the NYT. It pisses me off that the House and Senate
appears to be full of fucking idiots. |
| 2006/6/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43242 Activity:nil |
6/1 http://dubaipride.blogspot.com Bush is GAY! |
| 2006/5/18-11/6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:43096 Activity:nil |
11/04 Is it just me or Haggard looks like the grown up version
of Steve Stifler in American Pie?
http://www.gulfnews.com/world/U.S.A/10079630.html
http://tinyurl.com/yxslwu (outsidethebeltway.com)
\_ Go conservatives!!!
\_ Go liberals!!! "the population of Black Jack according to Wikipedia
is 71 percent African-American." |
| 2006/5/9 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:42995 Activity:nil |
5/9 Attack on gay Americans vacationing in St. Martin (April 6, 2006)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1629399/posts
"a small group chased them down, yelled gay slurs and smashed Smith's
skull with a tire iron."
\_ God Bless. -jblack #1 fan
\_ The typical freeper seems to think something bad should have
happened to the preverts, but not as bad as getting your skull
bashed in. |
| 2006/4/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:42692 Activity:kinda low 80%like:42690 |
4/5 Democrats object, and Republicans support, bill to cap contributions
to political groups.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060405/ap_on_go_co/campaign_spending
\_ It depends on the meaning of "political groups", I guess.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_group
These are groups which advocate an issue (e.g., pro/anti gay
marriage, pro/anti-choice) as opposed to a traditional candidate
or political action committee which can advocate a candidate.
The former had no per-individual cap on contributions; while the
latter does. So you have Soros giving $23mill to a Democrat-run
527, and a Texas developer giving $8mill to Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth. The bill now goes to the Senate.
[Sorry I'm screwing up this explanation ...]
After McCain-Feingold limits went into effect in 2003 which
closed off unlimited contributions to political parties, 527s
are the only thing left for unlimited contributions. So you
have Soros giving $23mill to a Democrat-run 527, and a Texas
developer giving $8mill to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
The bill now goes to the Senate.
\_ The parties reversing their roles? |
| 2006/4/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42689 Activity:low 70%like:42683 |
4/4 The new South Park episode (S10E2) is pretty cool. They portrayed
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3670346 (sltrib.com)
Son of Arizona Senate president (Republican) accepts plea agreement
that may net little jail time. Charged with assault and kidnapping
of eighteen 11- to 14-year-old boys -- by forcibly inserting
broomsticks, mop handles, a flashlight, and a cane into their clothed
anal crevices (the victims were wearing underwear, swimtrunks, or pants
at the time) at summer camp.
"The 18 boys were chosen to attend the weeklong student government
leadership skills camp in Prescott because they were among the state's
top student leaders."
\_ I for one welcome our new Republican pedophile overlords!
\_ 'The letter said Bennett was an honor student and active member of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who plans to go on a
mission in September. "A felony conviction for assault will make
his desire to complete his mission impossible," they wrote.'
Oh noes! This felony conviction for fucking up 11 to 14-year-old
boys could get in the way of this young man's desires? For shame!
\_ Well you know, boys will be boys.
\_ Scumbag lawyers. I'm pretty sure that kid won't be gonig on a
mission. Indeed, that kind of thing may lead to excommunication.
And that's a good thing. -emarkp
\_ I don't think the "lawyers" deserve the most blame. It is
most likely the Dubya-appointed GOP Arizona district attorney
doing a favor for the GOP Arizona Senate president.
\_ when did the POTUS appoint the DA of Arizona?
\_ I believe that may have been a supremely feeble attempt
at humour.
\_ and so he'll join the ranks of those dirty atheists!
\_ Okay, specifically, I think it's the Dubya-appointed GOP
Arizona district attorney doing a favor for the GOP Arizona
Senate president
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/az/USAttorney.html
I would also say the elected GOP Yavaipai County
Attorney also deserves more blame than the "lawyers".
and the elected GOP Yavaipai County Attorney
http://www.co.yavapai.az.us/departments/Aty/AtyHome.asp
http://csua.org/u/ffw (azcentral.com)
[corrected]
\_ Forgiveness: Good enough for Jesus, not good enough for LDS.
\_ You don't seem to understand. Forgiveness entirely
possible. But saying "oops, I'm sorry, can I go on a
mission now" doesn't cut it. Note that Jesus didn't
forgive the woman taken in adultery. -emarkp
\_ Is excommunication revokable?
\_ Yes. -emarkp
\_ Whoah, whoah whoah. Umm the story I read had no "sodomizing"
involved, merely bumping the rear ends of fully CLOTHED victims,
more the kind of stupid hazing shit young boys will do than
anything else. Has the story changed?
\_ I have read that every single Japanese schoolboy is obsessed
with shoving his fingers up his male classmate's ass.
I have seen video games about this.
\_ That's right. Jamming a lot of people in a little area
make them gay. That's why you see more gay people in big
cities than say, rural Tennessee or South Carolina.
\_ So if the kids had had big butts, this wouldn't make them
gay? I'm confused now.
\_ That's called Kancho.
\_ Answering my own post: yes the story has changed ... this story
is different from the version I read.
\_ Thanks, I have updated the post. -op |
| 2006/3/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:42447 Activity:nil |
3/27 Looking for more gay Icelander videos. I can't read Icelandic. Thanks
\_ Which gay Icelandic video URL did I post? I don't want
to repeat myself. - danh
\_ Someone posted one whose song was like this (E minor):
do do do -do | -re -do ti la | re re re -re | -me -re do ti
--- !OP
\_ http://www.hugi.is/hahradi/bigboxes.php?box_id=51208&f_id=1471
Personally I don't think this was gay, because I remember all
videos in that age were like that. -- !OP |
| 2006/3/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:42382 Activity:moderate |
3/22 Say given the ridiculous hypothetical situation where you're the
advisor of the President of the United States. Say the president
would do one thing, and just one thing you suggest. What
would you suggest? Allocate money for alternative fuel research?
Pull out of Iraq War? Abortion rights? Better interstate mass
transportation?
\_ Resign.
\_ Suicide?
\_ yes! I vote for this. via drinking himself to death
\_ Serve the public good.
\_ Work to eliminate the deficit/debt, no matter how much it hurts.
\_ Convert to Islam.
\_ Yeah, wow. Think of how much his policies would change! Wait..
hmm.
\_ Unite America, with the first task being having transparency
into the Iraq decision, which starts with clearly admitting error
and an investigation into how cherry-picking the intelligence led
him to that decision.
\_ Allocate $1.17 billion to myself for my consulting fee.
\_ I'd legalize everything I believe in. Legalized marijuana,
gay marriage, and abortion rights.
\_ About the marijuana thing. Would you also legalize other drugs?
Heroin or cocaine? How about oxycontin etc.? Would marijuana be
regulated and if so how? How about prescription drugs in general;
should people have the right to get them if they choose, without
a prescription? Why or why not?
\_ All legal, with the only regulation being honest and clear
labels with accurate statement of contents. Selling
LSD cut with rat poison or speed, and with no labels
denoting how it was cut would be illegal.
\_ Marijuana, peyote, mescaline, LSD, Ecstasy, and other
hallucinogenics to be regulated the same as alcohol and
tobacco; heroin, cocaine, and meth to remain illegal; oxy
and other potentially habit-forming prescription drugs to
remain under prescription. --erikred, !pp
\_ why?
\_ Why which?
\_ Send ilyas back to Russia.
\_ Nuke Switzerland.
\_ Give jblack a Medal of Freedom.
\_ Deport williamc to canada for being such a whiner.
\_ Let amckee be the new POTUS.
\_ Send John to live in a monastery to cure him of his expensive tastes.
\_ HAHA this is the BEST entry of all. You win the contest.
\_ I'll go if they have nice sheets and breakfast until 11. -John
\_ i'll hypothetical YOUR situation
\_ Call liberals what they are - the same people who you want out
of your bedroom, but you trust controlling your guns. |
| 2006/3/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/HateGroups] UID:42296 Activity:nil |
3/17 Gotta love it:
"NEW YORK - Protesters joined bagpipers, marching bands and thousands
of flag-waving spectators at the St. Patrick's Day parade Friday after
the parade's chairman compared gay Irish-American activists to
neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and prostitutes."
\_ what do gay people have against prostitutes? |
| 2006/3/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:42235 Activity:moderate |
3/14 Progressives are so much less likely to have children. Conservatism
to rule for decades to come. We're screwed. Really screwed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060314/cm_usatoday/theliberalbabybust
\_ Isn't it ironic that those who make the biggest deal of
evolution, fail its only test so pathetically? --Alanis
\_ The basic fallacy here is the idea that children always have the
values of their parents. This is demonstrably false.
\_ I'm your number one fan! That's such a great phrase! I think
you should use it at least 3 times per motd!
--Basic Fallacy Guy's #1 Fan
\_ Please demonstrate, with statistics and not with anecdotes.
please.
\_ Are social mores the same as they were 100 years ago?
\_ |R' - R| < |R' - Dnom|, where R' = f(R), but |R' - R| != 0.
\_ C'mon, all you need is one example to disprove an "always".
You still want one example?
\_ Fair enough. But you're still in trouble so long as it's
more heritable than the nominal D/R split.
\_ '50s = Prudes
'60s = Hippies
'90s = Old hippies
'00s = ?
We already have one example of Prudes producing Hippies.
You need to argue that there is an overwhelming force
which prevents Hippies from being produced from Prudes
again.
\_ Now, there are certainly anecdotal examples of '60s
hippies turning capitalist and conservative in middle
age. Again, please post statistics and not anecdotes.
\_ You want statistics on the production of Hippies
from Prudes in the '60s? You don't believe this
to have occurred without statistics?
\_ I want statistics that says political
attitude is or is not heritable. Here, I'll
make your job easier for you.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr04/beliefs.html
"[T]he idea that a behavioral system has a
strong genetic component is hardly an issue
anymore", or how about "the data suggest an
interplay of both genetic and environmental
factors in people's attitudes toward, for
example, sex, politics and religion,
with environment playing a stronger role".
Now, where do the genetics come from, and
who controls formative environmental factors?
\_ Sigh. If social mores didn't change over
time, we'd still be worshipping animals
and sacrificing each other to the moon
god.
\_ |R' - R| < |R' - Dnom|, where R' = f(R),
but |R' - R| != 0. And you should talk
to some wiccans and other neo-pagans.
\_ This correlation also applies to education levels, and high
\_ Again, I give you good science and you
reply with faulty logic. What did you
study in college?
\_ Anyway, this article essentially
agrees with both me and you. The
only dumb part of this thread is
your use of "Republican" and
"Democrat." I think the terms
you're looking for are "religious"
and "secular." The flaw in the
article's argument is that they don't
compare relative populations of
religious baby-producers and secular
baby-busters. I'm willing to bet
that the baby-producers are both a
smaller segment of the population, and
overwhelmingly immigrants of color.
\_ So you agree with the article that
attitudes toward politics has a
genetic component, in other words
children tend to inherit the
politics of the parents? Thanks for
playing.
\_ The article didn't say anything
about genetics, and you just
avoided everything that I said.
Thanks for playing.
\_ Wow. "[T]he data suggest an
interplay of both *genetic*
and environmental factors."
[emphasis added] Whatever
you studied in college, I
guess it was neither logic
nor reading comprehension.
The article also said
"people's attitudes toward...
politics," so your argument
that it's not about politics
is also patently wrong.
Do you have anything to say
beyond lies and obfuscation?
\_ for posterity, at least
three ppl are participatng
in this sub-thread
\_ However, we are all
commenting about the
same article, and
claims about what the
article did or did not
say can be resolved.
\_ Your question is seriously flawed, and
already probably caused a boatload of
confused discussion.
\_ What do you mean by "heritable"?
http://m-w.com:
heritable 1 : capable of being inherited or
of passing by inheritance
inheritance 1 a : the act of inheriting
property b : the reception of genetic
qualities by transmission from parent to
offspring c : the acquisition of a
possession, condition, or trait from past
generations
Obviously it is not 1(a). Are you talking
about 1(b) or 1(c)?
\_ This correlation also applies to education levels, and hig
standard of living. Cf. Europe and Japan.
\_ The article didn't really talk about this, but liberals could be
adopting all the unwanted kids that conservatives won't let hap-
less women abort. |
| 2006/3/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Recreation/Media] UID:42114 Activity:kinda low |
3/6 http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/what-did-i-tell-you Hollywood blogger says: a) "this year's dirty little Oscar secret was the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero members of the [Academy] being unwilling to screen Brokeback Mountain" b) I told you so: Crash might win because of homophobic Academy voters c) Crash and Brokeback "both good, if flawed, films" d) There was "hardly at all" any controversial political statements d) "The forces that hate Hollywood salivated for Brokeback to win Best Oscar", but oh well \_ As someone with connections in Hollywood (including members of the Academy) let me say that a) and b) seem very unlikely given the prevalence of gays in Hollywood. It didn't seem to stop them from voting for, say, "Monster". As you know, "Brokeback Mountain" has been well-received by Hollywood. I think this blog is full of crap. \_ blog entry: "I found horrifying each whispered admission to me from Academy members who usually act like social liberals that they were disgusted by even the possibility of glimpsing simulated gay sex." Okay, granted it's a blog, but it has a lot of history behind it and cred to lose. Who are you and how reliable would you say you are? I can understand if you don't think it's worth it. \_ I would say I'm pretty reliable given that my girlfriend works in Hollywood. Her boss won a freaking Oscar (producer) and is a member of the DGA. Her officemate was a screenwriter for "Walk The Line". I think this blog person is trying to stir up shit. If the Academy was that biased they would have never nominated it. Hollywood is full of gay people. Even though some of the members are older and more conservative I really doubt they are homophobic. Are you telling me they won't vote for Dreamworks movies, too, because of David Geffen? Or Digital Domain movies, because of the VP (a lesbian)? Titanic did pretty well! Come on! Next thing I'll hear is that they are biased against Jews! --dim \_ Props to you for ID'ing yourself. Turns out blog author is also columnist for L.A. Weekly: http://www.laweekly.com see bottom-right. Could be she's totally wrong, after all it's all "anecdotal". Natural hetero aversion to watching man-on-man romance shouldn't be enough to sway sophisticated academy types from voting for it if it truly deserved it. \_ The major complaint I've heard about BB from people in Hollywood is that it's boring. I think some people want to champion it because it's a gay film and the reality is that there are some people who might have said: "I am not voting for that because it's a gay film", meaning "Just because it's a gay film doesn't mean I like it" and not "I refuse to vote for it because I hate gays." \_ There's a difference between supporting the concept of gayness, and wanting to watch a movie fairly graphically (for Hollywood) depicting gay sex. But I don't really think that's why it didn't win; it didn't win because it was subtle, and Hollywood hates subtlety. -tom \_ It's not about 'wanting to watch... gay sex.' People don't want to watch serial killers and yet 'Silence of the Lambs' won. If it was about gays then why did Hoffman win for 'Capote'? I am not really sure what the 'Hollywood hates subtlety' line is getting at, BTW. Hollywood appreciates subtlety a lot more than the average theater-goer does. \_ Your analogy needs work. People are far more comfortable with depictions of violence, even extreme violence, than they are with sex - heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise. That said, the sex scene in Brokeback was pretty damn tame. \_ It's not an analogy. It's an observation that you don't have to be comfortable with the subject matter (or want to watch it) and yet still praise a movie. There are some disturbing movies I'd never want to see again that I can still find merit in. It's not supposed to be 'most entertaining movie' or 'movie most people would like to see if given a chance' or 'movie best suited to repeat viewing'. It's supposed to be the best movie. Again, if there is a bias then why did Ang Lee win? That's pretty good evidence that there's no bias. \_ no, it's not. \_ Yes, it is. The movie won several awards, so obviously people in the Academy had no problem voting for it when they feel it deserved it. \_ You're begging the question. If we assume that Brokeback is at least as good as, say, Titanic (which it's much better than in reality), and Titanic won 11 Oscars and Brokeback won 3, there must be some bias going on. Personally, I think the bias is that the Academy has no taste, but it's entirely plausible that there's a bias against the gay theme. -tom \_ Tom, are you a closeted gay? \_ Are you asking for a date? -tom \_ This sounds too stupid to be tom. --dim |
| 2006/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:42004 Activity:nil |
2/24 Ohio lawmaker to propose ban on GOP adoption
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/13945272.htm |
| 2006/2/23-27 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:41970 Activity:nil 93%like:41958 |
2/22 http://tinyurl.com/jqnn5 (news.yahoo.com) More evidence that genetics and God create gay people. \_ never was too fond of that god guy. |
| 2006/2/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:41963 Activity:nil |
2/22 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/brf_toilet_paper_death Man killed over toilet paper. Are these men Republicans? \_ Sounds to me like they're gay, so I doubt it. \_ Cuz there are no gay Republicans. Unh uh... nothing to see here, Mr. Mehlman. \_ He needed TP for his bunghole. \_ This just confirms a bit of wisdom I alreadly know from painful experience: Never, ever, under any circumstances, go to Florida. Fucked up shit happens there with startling regularity. -dans |
| 2006/2/22-23 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:41958 Activity:nil 93%like:41970 |
2/22 http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20060222/hl_hsn/momsgeneticsmighthelpproducegaysons More evidence that genetics and God create gay people. |
| 2006/2/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Recreation/Dating] UID:41817 Activity:high |
2/13 "Marriage Brings Wealth, Divorce Steals It"
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060118_wealth_marriage.html
It's more than about combining assets in a marriage and splitting the
assets in a divorce.
\_ What ever happened to BDG?
\_ This matches my experiance. Division of labor is also a big
win in my house.
\_ ...from which it follows that gay marriage will increase the
overall wealth of society, since more people will be getting
married.
\_ Unless many gay marriages end in divorce. [Disclaimer: Not a
statement on gay marriages as such (and in fact I am pro-gay
marriage), but just pointing out a logical flaw.]
\_ That's a good point. I guess it depends on how much the
positives of marriage and the negatives of divorce cancel
eachother out based on the fraction who get divorced. Of
course the same is true of straight couples. I'm guessing
it comes out significantly ahead for marriage with some
divorce vs. no marriage or divorce, both for straight and
gay couples. Of course, there are much better reasons to be
in favor of gay marriage, but I like to point out these things
since it's the party of greed who is most strongly in
opposition to gay marriage, in spite of the wealth it would
generate for society at large.
\_ This is easy to deal with: just don't let gay people get
divorced. This will help build society's wealth, while also
preserving the traditional heterosexual institution of
divorce.
\_ So that's how those Mormons get rich!
\_ Well, is there research on the relationship between children
and wealth? My guess is negative, and very.
\_ Huh, another argument for gay-marriage.
\_ Agreed. I'm happily married but unhappily parenting.
\_ There's a conflating factor, which is that people often get
divorced because of money. "For those who got divorced,
wealth began to decline about four years before divorce and
bottomed out the year prior to divorce." So it is probably not
the divorce that causes the loss of wealth, but the loss of
wealth causing the divorce. -tom
\_ Maybe, I don't think there's a lot of evidence for that in
the article though. It could also be that your wealth goes
down when your marriage is on the rocks. -jrleek
\_ Could be, but I think common sense would show Tom's
scenario more likely. There's no real reason I can
think of for wealth to decrease just because a marriage is
going poorly.
\_ Normally finances are the direct cause of marriage problems
and lead to divorce. Want to know how a couple could get
into financial problems? Take a young couple with a $30k
wedding + honeymoon, so they start out life in debt. Then
she quits her job when they having their first kid. You
can all see where this leads.
\_ Eating out alone more often because not wanting to eat with
spouse at home? Cost of marriage counselling? Decrease in
work performance because of bad mood, hence lower bonuses
and raises and promotion? More impulse shopping?
\_ Don't forget the cost of a mistress/beau.
\_ "Wealth begins climbing again in the year of the
divorce, but not by much." Then why does wealth begin
to increase after divorce?
\_ Throwing yourself into work to avoid depression/dealing
\_ closure?
\_ Divorce lawyers are expensive.
\_ This is a stupid study. It's done on 21 to 28 years old who don't
have much money to begin with: "After divorce, men had 2.5 times the
wealth of women, but this seemingly large disparity worked out to
only about $5,100, on average." At this stage, little things like
paying a divorce lawyer can eat up the few thousands dollars of
have much money to begin with: "After divorce, men had 2.5 times
the wealth of women, but this seemingly large disparity worked out
to only about $5,100, on average." At this stage, little things
like paying a divorce lawyer can eat up the few thousands dollars of
wealth.
\_ 21-28 year olds shouldn't be marrying. Marriage shouldn't be
allowed before 30. 35 would be even better.
\_ You work in the fertility biz?
\_ I didn't say "no kids before 30." I said "no marriage
before 30." I don't want to hear anyone complain about
high divorce rates when they're marrying off their 17 year
old daughter.
high divorce rates when they're marrying their 17 year
old daughter. I am yet to be convinced that pregnancy
out-of-wedlock is more dangerous than wedlock out-of-
pregnancy.
\_ Wow. That's not a point of view you hear every day.
\_ Hahaha. What's "dangerous" about it?
\_ I meant to say "harmful", not "dangerous", but the
strains of marriage are not helped along by feelings
of obligation and resentment over an unexpected
pregnancy, not to mention financial strain. There is
no reason other than social stigma for marriage to
be the necessary response to a pregnancy. Outside
of pregnancy, I posit that people are ill-equipped
to make a life-without-end bargain in their 20s.
\_ Well the kids -> marriage thing is about the
kids and being responsible for them, and trying
to provide a family. No pregnancy is truly 100%
unexpected and people make choices when they
decide to fuck each other (and not abort). Anyway
since divorce exists, obviously it's not
life-without-end now is it? Society doesn't seem
to care that people regularly break these pledges.
\_ I care. </skywalker> Divorce sucks for all
involved. A breakup, if it must happen, is
hard enough without legalities and such. We
seem to be talking at cross purposes here.
The dysfunction that can arise from entering
marriage based on obligation is what I was
talking about above re "harm".
\_ Fertility is still very good in the early 30s. It is not
until after 35 that it really starts to fall off. |
| 2006/1/21-24 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:41469 Activity:nil |
1/21 Partner's death ends happy life on ranch
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005512310342
\_ that's sad. I think a majority of Oklahomans would support
Beaumont. I'd like to think a majority would even if he didn't
have the will, but I'm not sure, esp. with the constiutional
amendment.
\_ The cousins are trying to sue him for past due rent!? That's just
fucked up. BTW, I assume where it says the ranch is worth $100,000,
they meant $1,000,000.
\_ No, this is Oklahoma, $100,000 for 50 acres is about right.
\_ But the guy said he put $200k into it... |
| 2005/12/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:41112 Activity:nil |
12/21 http://www.hugi.is/hahradi/bigboxes.php?box_id=51208&f_id=1471 I'm looking for another funny video of the icelanders like the one above. The one above says too many connections. Where else can I go? Thanks. \_ gay gay gay. If this is what's popular in iceland now, then they are 30 years behind our superior American pop culture. \_ Hmm, that's a song in English. Our superior American pop culture did not feature songs in Icelandic. |
| 2005/12/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:41092 Activity:moderate |
12/20 Pentagon Labels Gay Kiss-In a 'credible threat'
http://tinyurl.com/ccssd
\_ FBI watched Greenpeace, PETA
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html
\_ Um, I don't know if you've noticed, but PETA is pretty extremist.
I for one am glad the FBI's keeping an eye on them.
\_ Hmmm... Spray painting fur vs. blowing shit up. Get real.
\_ What's so extreme about eating tasty animals?
\_ Huh?
\_ PETA: People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.
\_ http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism
"[Senate Environment Committee Chairman James Inhofe]
singled out People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
for giving money to members of both groups [ELF and ALF]."
\_ http://www.civicusa.org/animalrightsterrorists/id22.html |
| 2005/12/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:40886 Activity:kinda low |
12/5 Spokane Mayor Recalled in Sex Scandal
"Mayor James E West was recalled from office Tuesday in a special
election over allegations he offered jobs and perks to young men he
met in a gay Internet chat room .... West, a former Boy Scout
executive and sheriff's deputy, was elected mayor in 2003 after
serving more than two decades as a conservative Republican in the
state Legislature, where he voted against gay friendly bills."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051207/ap_on_re_us/spokane_mayor
\_ What is it with people in Spokane and the hot, gay sex?
\_ We've got lots of snow right now. We need the hot,
gay sex to keep warm. -bz
\_ Bitter angry hetero sex not doing it anymore?
\_ Yes, whenever there are homosexuals, there is evil and
corruption. We need to unmask all the hidden homosexuals. |
| 2005/12/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Religion] UID:40847 Activity:nil 72%like:40834 |
12/2 The Womyn of the Democratic Party Calendar
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1533214/posts?page=15#15 |
| 2005/12/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Religion] UID:40834 Activity:nil 80%like:40829 72%like:40847 |
12/2 The Womyn of the Democrat Party Calendar
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1533214/posts?page=15#15 -jblack |
| 2005/12/3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Religion] UID:40829 Activity:nil 80%like:40834 |
12/2 The Womyn of the Democrat Party Calendar
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1533214/posts?page=15#15 -jblack |
| 2005/12/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:40808 Activity:nil |
12/1 S. Africa supreme court directs congress to give gay marriage same
legal status as straight marriage
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1532383/posts
\_ Is there supposed to be separation of powers in S. Africa? |
| 2005/11/28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:40746 Activity:nil |
11/26 Garriage in Dubai:
http://tinyurl.com/7af4y |
| 2005/11/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:40682 Activity:nil 60%like:40678 |
11/21 The Conspiracy Against the Taxpayers
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_taxpayers.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_taxpayers.html
By the way I'm a gay Republican. -jblack
\_ Best...motd...post...ever!
\_ as a private-sector moderate, i'll agree that public-sector pension
benefits are unfair and fleece America.
\_ Why do you hate firemen, policemen, teachers, nurses, and children?
Are you some kind of devil monster? |
| 2005/11/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election, Computer/Companies/Google] UID:40554 Activity:nil |
11/11 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22435-2004May12.html I just found out that whenever you search for something and click on the sponsored link, the sponsors pay anywhere between a few cents to $30 dollars. YES $30 dollars, that means I have the power to waste $30 per click even if I'm not interested in that company. So I have a suggestion for all of you bored Green Peace liberals with nothing else to do. Search for Republicans and start clicking on "Republican Dating" or "The Republican Store" or any site that supports the GOP. Now that you are empowered to bankrupt their internet funding, spread this message to all of your hippy friends now! \_ Sorry, it didn't work that way many years ago when I was at a ad based company. I'm certain it doesn't now. No one is paying $30 for a click through. They would pay $30 for an actual signup with a real CC# attached though. For the click throughs (which were measured in $/1000 clicks in my day) we only got paid for real clicks after the logs went to a third party service for 'cleaning'. You can't honestly believe you're the first person to have ever thought of inflating someone else's costs with fake clicks? Anyway, as a philosophical/political thing, if your philosophy was so great you wouldn't need to try 'dirty tricks' to win. Your philosophy should stand on it's own merit at the ballot box. \- if you want to cost the Rs real money you have to be less lazy. one thing you might do is see if the cash checks for 1cent. if you get pre paind fund raising englvelopes from them keep sentind them 1cent checks [i get free checks]. that's a suggestion that doesnt involve leaving the house. you might also put like glitter in the envelope. i assume that is not illegal. yes, i know this doesnt cost them real money but it might deliver psychic satisfaction. i also realize it may not be the R machine processing these checks so you will have to decide if it is appropriate to fill the office of a R contractor with hard to get rid of glitter. anyway, this is after about 30 seconds of thought. i am sure i could come up with something better, but yeah, there is a no free lunch aspect to this. i certainly have no problem mailing empty prepaid envelopes back in cases of unsolicited junk i dont like. i guess you can look at their return addresses and subscribe them to gay vacation advertising lists etc. \- oh, you also may be better off trying to disrupt a small unit ... like say infiltrating the BCR etc. \_ Having spent a summer working on ads analysis at Google, I can assure you that the cost-per-click can get outrageously high. However, you're unlike to be able to take advantage of this because (a) you won't be able to find out which keywords are expensive without alot of work and (b) Google has a many smart people working on detecting clickspam and they've gotten very good at it. --darin [ reformatted - formatd ] |
| 2005/10/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Recreation/Computer] UID:40305 Activity:nil |
10/28 Sulu, you have the helm.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/ap_on_en_tv/people_george_takei
\- in an odd coincidence, SPORK previously played the same role
in EqEqEquus. I believe that HOMOSEXUAL DATA FELLOW has hit on
\- in an odd coincidence, SPORK previous played the same role
in EqEqEquus. I believe that Homosexual Data fellow has hit on
the brother of a sloda user. |
| 2005/9/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Computer/Rants] UID:39844 Activity:nil |
9/23 US homosexuals 'worth $1 trillion' -- That is just... amazing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4276302.stm
\_ I think we've already long ago established that corporate
monopolies such as the ones created by Bill Gates exists.
The real question is, is that a good thing or a bad thing
for the American people.
\_ yup, I missed the day of AT&T owes everything and that
there is only one oil company in entire nation. |
| 2005/9/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:39756 Activity:nil |
9/19 Gay Penguin goes straight:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169653,00.html
(yes, its faux news but that doesn't make it any less amusing).
\_ Coming soon to your local video store: Bi Penguin Sluts do Antartica
\- so is this fox's subtle attempt at showing that homosexuality
is really a choice? |
| 2005/8/18-22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:39169 Activity:nil |
8/18 Why does Kanye West hate America?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050818/ap_en_mu/people_kanye_west |
| 2005/8/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:38962 Activity:nil |
8/3 Look! Intelligent Design! Forget about Rove's treason!
\_ I'm sure Rove invented Intelligent Design years ago to get his name
off the front page now. It's all a Rovian plot.
\_ Bush didn't invent gay marriage either, he just used it
to mobilize the forces of intolerance and fear to get his
constituency out to vote.
\_ No no no. That was Rove too--the all-seeing Rove.
\_ Rove's rover
http://www.beechlog.co.uk/blog200501/rover.jpg
\_ I saw this on the news right after the Bolton recess appointment
and before something similarily fucking dumb. I think a part
of my brain melted from exposure to stupidity. -John |
| 2005/8/1 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:38910 Activity:nil |
8/1 Is eBay a gay friendly company? Their logo is so... gay.
And whatever happened to Apple's gay friendly logo in the 80s? |
| 2005/7/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:38741 Activity:nil |
7/20 Canada 4th country to legalize gay marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Marriage_Act |
| 2005/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:38725 Activity:kinda low 71%like:38717 |
6/20 Do you soda liberals agree Tucker Carlson is a homosexual liar?
\_ I am pretty sure the guy is married. What does his sexual
orientation have to do with anything anyway? -soda liberal |
| 2005/7/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38717 Activity:nil 71%like:38725 |
6/20 Do you soda liberals agree Larry Kramer is a homosexual liar?
\_ who is he, why should we care? unless you're mimicking the WH's
favorite distraction strategy.
\_ If you don't know I am not interested in your opinion.
I am jut wondering if you blindly support liberal, like the
"I lurve George Bush" guy blindly supports Bush.
\_ Why do people not know that July=7
\_ I am pretty sure the guy is married. What does his sexual
orientation have to do with anything anyway? -soda liberal
\_ Some liberals could not stand to see Larry Kramer discussed
so they are changing to Tucker, who I dont like. |
| 2005/7/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:38407 Activity:nil |
7/4 Stupid LIBERALS, here's proof that Conservatism != Pro-Christianity:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/afplifestyleusreligion
Also Christrianity != Anti-Gay. Hope you learn something, LIBERALS:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/united_church_gays
\_ Mmmm... idiocy is rampant over holidays. |
| 2005/7/1 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:38387 Activity:moderate |
6/30 ausman why do you work at a gay company? You seem like a normal
straight guy in real life, are you gay?
\_ Would it bother you nearly as much if he worked at http://ass.org?
\_ Would it bother you nearly as much if he worked at http://match.com?
\_ Why wouldn't I want to work at a gay company? If you are
really that interested in my sex life, email me.
\_ Are you saying that this company wants to have sex with
other male companies?
\_ What's the big deal? Isn't gay company money still green?
\_ Are you afraid of gay people? |
| 2005/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:38368 Activity:high |
6/30 Help. Many people in my company suspect this HUGE figure is gay (Steve
Jobs), but we don't know for sure. He's one of the sweetest guys around
but lately he's been ignoring me. In fact I sense a strong hostility
from him, especially at recent meetings where he
dismisses all of my ideas, openly. I suspect it might
have something to do with the Propaganda Remix Posters I use as
my screen saver (http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html
To be more specific, there are quite a few gay related posters,
such as the ones below:
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/gays2.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/gays5b.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/gays6.jpg
I have nothing against gay people, I just use these posters because
they're sarcastic and anyone with any intelligence would probably
find them funny. However, I suspect these posters may have something
to do with his recent change of demeaners and hostility towards
no one but me, but I don't know for sure what the root of the
problem is. What's the best way to find out, and to correct this
misunderstanding? ok thx.
\_ Maybe he's a Republican. There are gay Republicans.
\_ change this one more time and motd dies.
\_ it's "demeanor". maybe he thinks _you're_ gay.
\_ You know, if you don't want trouble at work, you shouldn't use
provacative screen savers. Both sensitive homosexuals and
sensitive religious people could find these offensive. Why are
you surprised that someone got offended?
\_ No gay man would be offended. They're funny as hell.
Overly-sensitive religious types who "got it" could be
offended. I do agree, though. I wouldn't put these up
at work, unless I worked at Top Dog.
\_ I like the implicit assertion that there is no such thing
as a gay idiot.
\_ When it comes to sarcastic jokes about homosexuality,
they're pretty well-attuned
\_ Or an overly sensitive religious republican gay idiot for
that matter.
\_ I used to work at a company where there's an RCS script called
/usr/public/blowjob. The header said it started of as
/usr/public/blowjob. The header said it started off as
"getHeadRevision". Then it was changed to "getHead", and then
eventually "blowjob".
\_ Um, yeah what the screen saver guy said. I work at a gay
company and I asked five coworkers if they would be offended
by the above screen savers. Four laughed and said are you
kidding me and one said he would be offended. So if you don't
want to upset people at work, try to keep your politics off
your screen saver. As for how to rectify things, I would say
there is no easy way to do it. You could try putting an HRC
sticker on your monitor, though that risks offending people
who are opposed to gay equal rights and the probable result
that some might think you were "outing" yourself. The easiest
thing to do would to bring some gay friends around work and
make sure your boss sees you with them. You *do* have some
gay friends to bring around work, right...? -ausman
\_ Let's say I bring my gay friends to work, how the heck would
the director (which we presume is gay) know that they're gay?
I mean, you can tell occasionally but not all the time. -op
\_ hopefully he can figure it out..
\_ What's the point of having a screensaver with a modern monitor
anyway? Aren't monitors pretty much immune to screen burn now?
\_ Turn on the DPMS screen saver to save electricity instead. Or
better. Turn off the monitor and the machine when you leave
work.
\_ Turn on the DPMS screen saver to save electricity instead.
\_ Or better still--do both.
\_ Which company is it?
\_ I would agree that having political messages open for all to
see at work isn't a good idea. To ammend the relationship -- just
back off and give it a little time. Tempus dolorum diminuit. |
| 2005/6/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38303 Activity:high |
6/24 Libertarian purity test.
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi
Feel free to post scores/interpretation. -- ilyas
\_ Alarm bells should go off in your head any time some ideology starts
trying to measure and compare the "purity" of its adherents.
Reasonable people do not measure their politics or philosophy on
a linear scale.
\_ Dear GOD, man. Is being a geek an ideology too? They have a
purity test. How about being gay? How about you get that
stick out of your ass? -- ilyas
stick out of your ass? The 'purity test' tradition is
an ancient part of Internet culture. -- ilyas
\_ 16. It called me a "soft-core libertarian", which I guess
is true in the same way The Princess Bride is soft-core porn.
If you score zero (meaning you approve of the current U.S.
system of government), it calls you a Nazi nut.
\_ Ditto here, with 30 points. The test is bunkum, as it makes, as
as with most such silliness, no allowance for shades of gray.
Plus, "anarcho-capitalist?" Nobody who calls him/herself a
libertarian that I know of would describe themselves as even
close to that. Bzzt, sorry, try again. -John
\_ It may be bunkum to you, but I find it useful as an estimate
(it's unbelievably fashionable among some people to proclaim
social liberalism and economic conservativism). For
\_ Does that make the stance any less valid? I don't see the
problem with "mind your own busineess and be responsible
when spending other peoples' money". -John
\_ Sure, but that quote you have in quotes is uninformative.
I have found when talking politics with my friends that
almost everybody sounds the same (reasonable). This is
because people have a tendency to not start with the
more controversial components of their beliefs when
discussing politics. This is why tests like this are
useful. John and I might sound superficially the same
when we start talking, but there's a huge difference
between a 30 and a 76. -- ilyas
\_ Why is it uninformative? I find that, no matter
how many shades of gray you have between extremes,
there's always a tipping point at which the majority
of educated individuals making up the center bit of
any bell curve will no longer see a certain bit of
politics as matching a given quality--this being
something like "responsible", "frugal", whatever. I
refuse to be drawn into a discussion of "one should
always do xyz", where "xyz" is some predefined
action like "cutting taxes by 50%". I believe that
it's the duty of said educated individuals to make
decisions and choices based on a well thought-out
moral and ethical foundation, and in careful
consideration of a particular situation. Otherwise
we could replace the constitution with some all-
encompassing decision matrix, couldn't we? I just
happen to have come to the conclusion that what I
put in quotes above works for me in most
situations. -John
\_ It's no more uninformative than that test is
an accurate measures of your political beliefs.
What I put in quotes above works for me most of the
time as a common-sense litmus test for most
political issues, while still letting me take into
account the particular situation. And frankly I
haven't found a "determine your political color"
test yet that I didn't find in any way valid or not
full of horseshit. -John
\_ That's because a real political test would
be extremely long and read like a philosophy
paper. At any rate, the 'purity test' might not
be a serious political test, but you can't compare
the information you get from it to your vague
platitute of:
"mind your own business and be responsible
when spending other peoples' money". Don't forget
to mention something about not eating kittens.
-- ilyas
paper. -- ilyas
\_ Why not? It's a basic "gut test" for looking
at politics, as opposed to an attempt to
simplistically quantify a wide range of topics
in a binary manner, which simply doesn't work.
I have a few fundamental ideals that I believe
in, which I consider when analyzing various
political situations. I find that gives me far
more satisfying answers than "should we sell
the federal government? Yes/No (if you answer
No, you need to work on your answers.)" -John
\_ Why not? Because that line has a wide WIDE
set of interpretations, many in conflict
with each other. At least with yes no
answers you get a rough idea of where you
are willing to bite the bullet. With what
you said, I get _no information_. -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, we're arguing on two different
levels here. Of course my tenet is no
more than a "wide" political ideal. You
will not be able to divine how I will
vote on Prop X. from it. However, I
think it's entirely fair to state it as a
basis for making political decisions, as
opposed to a bunch of absolute answers
to nonsensical questions with no context
given whatsoever. To be honest, I think
that people who claim to have absolutely
sure and immovable convictions about such
topics without even bothering to consider
surrounding "real world" factors, border
on fanaticism. -John
calibration, my score was 76. Point about libertarians
vs A-C people, the test ought to be more properly called
the 'anti-government purity test.' If it wasn't obvious,
this wasn't a serious test, much like other purity tests.
A real test would be a moral philosophy test. -- ilyas
\_ A 76? Did you say we should abolish everything? I only
managed a 17 and I consider myself a conservative with
libertarian tendencies. -emarkp
\_ The only things I am _sure_ the government ought to
be responsible for is the army and the justice system.
I am also thinking about dbushong's idea of 'commons
rent,' which the government collects and uses to maintain
the commons. For instance, charging individuals
proportionally to the pollution they cause. -- ilyas
\_ What about government funded basic research? We
are still benefiting today from basic research done
at the Royal Society two hundred years ago, or for
that matter from Archimedes' research that Syracuse
paid for two thousand years go. Were they all
Looters as well? Are you a Looter?
\_ We're also benefitting from having wiped out the
Indians and seized their land.
\_ 7 -moderate
\_ 38 -nivra
\_ another 16. I hadn't remembered what a bunch of nutcases
the libertarians were. I *like* having regulators inspect
elevator safety, and don't trust the "marketplace" to take
care of that in the long run.
\_ 17. agreed.
\_ 12. Which system of philosophy advocates chemical castration and
utterly transparent financial records for all elected officials?
'Cos I'd vote for that. --erikred
\_ I find it ironic that the anti-government party uses a government
owned statue as its symbol. I got a 22, btw. -ausman
\_ 20. I am intrigued at how these guys expect some of the schemes to
work. I have heard of some of them but I'm not clear on for example
abolishing the state altogether and having private law and money.
Seems like this would involve joining private security groups, which
would probably end up being bullied by larger conglomerates. Anyway
libertarians seem to ignore certain realities such as environmental
concerns. Air and water pollution, and open space preservation for
example. Private entities might conceivably run a place like
Yosemite, but to maximize their profit they might do undesirable
things. I wonder what the monetary value of such places is. If
enough people interested in outdoors pooled resources they might
conceivably claim ownership I guess. But in general the wealthy
would be able to wield more power such as blocking the public from
various lakes etc.
As far as international involvement goes, sure it sounds good to
withdraw from everywhere but kind of ignores the possibility of
foreign states bent on empire. -- a moderate
\_ Did you read my post about 'commons rent?' Commons are an
acknowledged problem for _me_, I am sure it is for other
libertarians. -- ilyas
\_ No offense intended, but from the discussion above, it's apparent
that this is more aptly called the ilyas Purity Test.
(the closer you are to 76, the more you agree with ilyas) |
| 2005/6/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38074 Activity:low |
6/10 http://csua.org/u/cbk (wapo) Finally, we drive that final nail in the coffin of the libidinous, treasonous PBS. \_ Oh, I read that as treasonous PSB. \_ Oh, I read that as libidinous, treasonous PSB. \_ Less PBS funding, less children's shows that promote diversity. Translation: Less PBS funding, less toxic exposure to my kids on topics such as faggots and AIDS. This is definitely good news for the Religious Right. All Heil GWB, bring them on, and God Bless. \_ Yeah, because Sesame Street was the prime target. Sure. Please apply for the job below, because you seem to be qualified. \_ Would it make it better if SS _were_ the prime target? \_ No. Though SS has declined dramatically in quality in the last 5+ years, it's not exactly leftwing drivel. \_ Oh, I read that as treasonous PBS. \_ So to what, other than Bill Moyers (who may be leftwing but to call drivel is your own failing), would you object? \_ There is too much left wing drivel on public broadcasting. They got all these brit shows like Red Dwarf, HG2G, Antiques Roadshow, etc. They need to put on more quality programming like the 700 Club. I mean, Dr. Who is definitely gay and that whole Tardis thing is just obviously phallic. \_ I want to think this is a troll, but since it's williamc, i'm never quite sure. \_ No, it's not a flame, we're all serious here. Especially you. Down with Wall Street Weekly! \_ It's cute when you try to be funny. :-P \_ Wasn't this just about the dumbest thing the Republicans could have done, politically? I mean, what with all this hugely wasteful billion-dollar pork everywhere and a trillion-dollar war that nobody wants, they decide to kill a very popular and very visible $500M program in the name of "cutting costs." Way to go guys, I hope you enjoy President Hillary. \_ Hillary is unelectable. Come on, after the previous election, it's clear that this kind of stuff doesn't sway enough votes. They vote on gay marriage and stuff, and how the candidates look. I guess it all depends on what candidate the pubs come up with next time. \_ Rudy? \_ Powell? \_ jeah right! \_ McCain \_ Destroyer of the 1st amendment. \_ Could you give a reference or some context for that? I'm not as savvy about McCain as I'd like to be. -mice \_ Think "McCain-Feingold" restrictions on political speech. As in "congress shall make no law..." \_ Huh? \_ The votes of the republicans on that sub-committee do not reflect the opinions of many republicans. Personally I feel that PBS is the most unbiased source of information currently available (I'm mainly speaking of things like the NewsHour, Nova and Frontline) on television. \- for the cockroaches in power, "fiat lux" is not especially desirable ... like televised hearings on judges, john bolton etc. and when they want to be on TV, its easy enough for them to get airtime. --treasonous psb |
| 2005/6/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37936 Activity:kinda low |
6/2 After 1950, 5 Presidents have been Democrats and 9 presidents
have been Republicans. What does that say about Democrats, that
they've sucked not just in the past 10 years but in the past
5 decades? That they just can't seem to get their acts together?
-Disillusioned Democrat, now Independent
\_ They controlled Congress for most of that 5 decades. You know
that Congress thing, I'm sure you've taken Civics. I'm assuming
you're familiar with the separation of powers thing?
\_ yeah, they should make sure their brother is the governor of
a key swing state. -tom
\_ Please don't tell me that you believe Jeb Bush rigged Florida. I
know you're obnoxious and rude and sometimes stupid, but I didn't
figure you for a conspiracy nut too.
\_ I am sure that if Al Gore Sr. were governor of Florida,
the election would have gone differently; voter rolls
wouldn't have been purged of black-sounding names, for
one thing.
In any case, what's so special about 1950? If you look at
1960, or 1945 (end of WWII), Democrats and Republicans
have held the presidency about an equal amount of time. -tom
\_ Because numbers are fun to fuck around with. The question
itself is deliberately misleading, and was posted by one
of our stealth motd posters. I simply assumed it was a
troll --scotsman
\- a pretty smart observation about election 2000 was
\- a pretty astute observation about election 2000 was
"when an election is that close, all theories are
true" ... i mean you can claim it was a sunny day
true" ... you can plausibly claim it was a sunny day
and the young hedonist democrats and homosexuals all
went to the beach.
\_ The DNC in Chicago was the site of one of the most heinous cases
of police brutality in the nation's history. The Dems of today are
not the Dems of 1950-1974. Get used to it. |
| 11/26 |