Politics Domestic Gay - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Gay:
Results 151 - 300 of 302   < 1 2 3 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/10/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
10/16   

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.
2017/10/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
10/16   

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/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] 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*.
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.
2008/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Recreation/Dating] UID:51782 Activity:nil Entry has been invalidated. Access denied.
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/Election, Politics/Domestic/Gay] 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/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Gay] 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/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Gay] 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/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] 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/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] 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/Gay, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] 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/Gay, Politics/Domestic] 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/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] 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 [Recreation/Media, Politics/Domestic/Gay] 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 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] 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 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Law/Court] 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 [Recreation/Computer, Politics/Domestic/Gay] 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/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] 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.
2017/10/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
10/16   
Results 151 - 300 of 302   < 1 2 3 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Gay:
.