Rainbow flags-Illegal in Miami Beach.......but not for long
Interesting. So, if the local gay community organization does a charity fundraiser and contributes some of the funds to other local charities, and adopts the rainbow flag as the official emblem of the organization... then the law can do nothing to prevent people from flying that flag? It's fundraiser time. Oh, and the ordinance does not seem to specify that the national flags displayed must be the CURRENT national flag of the given nation. So it should be okay to fly the Nazi flag with impunity. Just don't fly a rainbow one, or you land in jail. Real nice, Miami Beach. What next? No guys allowed to be shirtless in public? Good luck on the initiative to make Miami Beach seem less gay. And then we can all drop acid and watch Leave It To Beaver reruns. Yeah. (12 hrs ago | post #11)
Lesbian Politics: Two Reasons I Really Like Sarah Palin
Frankly, I'm glad there's a lesbian around to point out to me that Sarah Palin has bodacious ta-tas, because I hadn't noticed. And the rest of the column is chock-full of great points... Like she wanted to fire the Wasilla librarian for not removing books from the library that Palin found "offensive. " (Only Nazi's are afraid of books!) And as Wasilla mayor, she commissioned the construction of a hockey stadium which left the town of 9000 people 20 million dollars in debt when she took off for the Governor's mansion. These are things that Barack is too idealistic to harangue her for... and that's why god made people like me. After careful consideration, I've determined... SHE'S A WITCH! --and not the good kind-- (The Ol' Holey Bible says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live!") We've found a witch! May we burn her? (Friday Sep 5 | post #3)
Gov. Palin's secret (gay) code
Leiberman and Romney, if I remember correctly, both made veiled anti-gay statements. One accused the Democrats of trying to redefine marriage, and the other said that a family needs a father and a mother. It was fairly easy to see through the political cheesecloth and understand their secret code. Palin however, said nothing. She licked John McCain's old combat boots into a lather, and repeatedly hurled condescending rhetoric at Barack Obama and Joe Biden. She talked about her family. She talked about oil. And about oil drilling. And her husband who works in the oil industry, and her friends who just opened a gas station. She talked about pipelines and the north slope. She even said that Obama wants to grow government and raise taxes. She naturally omitted the fact that the tax increases Obama suggests are for the millionaires and billionaires who have received massive tax breaks under the Bush administration. But on social issues, she said nothing at all. She parroted McCain's "victory at all costs" rhetoric about the failed war in Iraq. And she said that as Alaska's governor, she nixed the Federal Government's plan to build a bridge which would have made a remote region of Alaska better accessible, a plan the Republicans dubbed "the bridge to nowhere." But in making that observation, she also neglected to mention that while cancelling the building of the bridge, she KEPT the more than 200 million dollars of earmarked federal pork-barrel funds. Did she say anything about fairness, equality, or civil rights? Not a single word. Did she say anything about the economy? Nope. Lots of talk about oil, though. Oil, oil, oil. Easy to see why McCain picked her: She surely supports a war for oil. As apoplectic supporters waved thousands of "Country First" poster boards and chanted and cheered, she smugly said not one word about LGBT equality. It's okay, Sarah. We all know what that means: your anti-gay positions were considered to divisive to be included in this speech. Okay, she can give a speech and tell people what they want to hear. Seems a little mean-spirited for her to lambaste Barack Obama for a similar (though superior) ability. The teenagers aren't the only ones considering suicide if McCain and Palin take the Oval Office. Though I'm also considering how lovely the weather in Toronto is this time of year. (Thursday Sep 4 | post #5)
Barney Frank: Sarah Palin's family life is fair game
babbling neophyte" What a perfect description! I've seen five TV political forums now where Sarah Palin's VP tap has been compared to Bush Sr. picking Dan Quayle. I think it's an apt comparison, but this race is a different ballgame, and the Obama/Biden ticket is a dream team (as in "I have a dream!" and "American Dream") McBush is throwing Palin into a political meat grinder, and she appears willing to sacrifice herself, her family, and all that's holy for her fifteen minutes of fame. Unfortunately, Senator Great-Grandad got his tie stuck in the machine, and when it's done chewing her up and spitting her out, he'll be right behind her. I suppose McWhitehair thought that she would make his campagn look younger, but in my eyes, she merely serves to make him look even more geriatric. And THAT underscores your point. Being president is perhaps the most stressful job on Earth, and it's not uncommon for the President to die while in office, from causes natural or otherwise. William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy all died before finishing their tenure. That's more than 20 percent of the administrations throughout history. Two inches to the right, and Reagan would have died in office too. Nixon ws forced to resign, leaving us with Gerald Ford for two years. Remember that the VP is also president of the Senate, and casts tie-breaker votes when necessary. Plus, the VP is in charge when the president is incapacitated for any reason... like he needs a hip replacement for instance. But say it's a flat average--20 percent chance that McAARP dies before finishing his term. Of all the people he could have picked to succeed him, he chose someone who has less political experience than the most school board members! The campaign is touting that she "went against the party" on some issues. But she's even further right than most neoconservatives, and the moderates who were happy with McWrinkles are doing a double-take, and waking-up to the fact that this GOP ticket is not just the wrong way to go... it's dangerous and potentially fatal for the U.S.A. She's NOT qualified to run the country, and that's the bottom line. She's not qualified to preside over the Senate. She's NOT Hillary Clinton. She's not even Dan Quayle! (Wednesday Sep 3 | post #38)
Log Cabin Republicans: GOP on 'wrong side of history'
--sorry about the double-post!! The server is a little gummed-up this morning, and the first one didn't show up for a few minutes.-- (Wednesday Sep 3 | post #6)
Palin's stance on sex ed coming back to bite her
Yeah, not too adept at the "thinking, " are you? Logan, I've never been a "follower, " and my ideas are my own, which is more than I can say for yours. You wrote: "Frankly, my feeling is that if one is so indecent as to have sex outside of marriage, she deserves what she gets." That has to be one of the most outrageously SEXIST things I've ever heard. It takes a HE to make a SHE pregnant, and you're insisting that "she deserves what she gets," as if birth control and pregnancy are exclusively the responsibility of the woman. You say that what you say "is true nonetheless," but saying something is true does not make it so. When the evidence is against you (and it is) insisting that you're right anyway just because you say so is literally ignorance. You said I lack knowledge, that I need to learn to think for myself, and you called me ignorant. And yet, you were unable to make any cogent response to the points I put forward. Typical. One who cannot actually THINK cannot debate, but merely repeat an untenable position with no logic, reason, or rationality to support it. I just have to wonder... how do you even cross the street with such big blinders on? (Wednesday Sep 3 | post #67)
Log Cabin Republicans: GOP on 'wrong side of history'
I know that the majority of Americans couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag. I write a lot of advertising commercials, and I know EXACTLY how easily led they are. Most people make decisions with their heart and not their head. While I don't trust America as a whole to be able to see around the dopey political rhetoric as I do, I do trust that they FEEL that another four years of the current administration's failed policies would be devestating, and they also feel that this is more or less what McCain is promising. However, when they hear Obama speak about America, when they see the unguarded patriotic passion with which he talks about believing in the promise of America, they FEEL a sense of pride. They feel they are in the presence of a strong, idealistic and charismatic leader. I'm sure McCain thinks that his Veep pick will galvanize the evangelicals and hard-line Republicans, but they weren't going to vote for Obama anyway. Meanwhile, her utter lack of political experience on the international stage has shaken many independant supporters to their core. They see the choice as nothing more than a risky political maneuver to pander to women voters, and many of them are offended at such a cheap and obvious ploy. They're jumping off the McCain train by the dozens. Without the independants, McCain cannot win. I'll be very interested to see where the polling is in another two weeks. I'm looking forward to the VP debate, when the DNC's 800-pound gorilla Joe Biden has to try his level best not to look like he's beating-up the doe-eyed barbie doll. My faith in America has been rattled in the last two presidential elections, to be sure. But it's a different game now, and McCain's in for a tougher fight than he knows--especially with more than half of America scratching their heads at his VP pick and wondering what it says about his judgement. McCain wants people to think of him as a maverick when he's really nothing of the sort. He didn't bring his party back from the brink of neoconservative oblivion--he rode with them most of the way, and broke from the pack once or twice. When the party didn't follow him, he just got back on the bus. What do you call a leader with no followers? Just a guy taking a walk! When I say the GOP is history, I mean that the party it once was no longer exists, and there's no way they can get it back on the rails because the wheels have already come off. People do seem to be waking-up to the fact that the Republican party is way out of touch with America and the world, and has become the party of radical religious conservatism, fearmongering, war-making, and rich oil company executives... which does not represent most Americans. GOP (most people don't remember) stands for "Grand Old Party." But since even the Republicans have forgotten that, I think we can recycle the acronym. Now, it stands for "Geezers On Parade." I must have faith that as sheepish as American voters are, they don't like the idea of electing another white-haired double-talking multi-millionaire from the party that gave us two terms of George W. Bush. McCain called Americans "whiners " for complaining about the economy. Bush says the economy is doing well, while Americans are still paying close to $4.00 a gallon for gas, and losing their homes and retirement savings. Americans might not be too collectively politically savvy, but I still think they have a pretty good idea when somebody is pissing on their boots and claiming it's a rainstorm. We can, and we will elect Barack Obama and Joe Biden. We can, and we will, because we must--for the sake of our nation and the future of America, if it's to have one at all. (Wednesday Sep 3 | post #5)
Log Cabin Republicans: GOP on 'wrong side of history'
I know that the majority of Americans couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag. I write a lot of advertising commercials, and I know EXACTLY how easily led they are. Most people make decisions with their heart and not their head. While I don't trust America as a whole to be able to see around the dopey political rhetoric as I do, I do trust that they FEEL that another four years of the current administration's failed policies would be devestating, and they also feel that this is more or less what McCain is promising. However, when they hear Obama speak about America, when they see the unguarded patriotic passion with which he talks about believing in the promise of America, they FEEL a sense of pride. They feel they are in the presence of a strong, idealistic and charismatic leader. I'm sure McCain thinks that his Veep pick will galvanize the evangelicals and hard-line Republicans, but they weren't going to vote for Obama anyway. Meanwhile, her utter lack of political experience on the international stage has shaken many independant supporters to their core. They see the choice as nothing more than a risky political maneuver to pander to women voters, and many of them are offended at such a cheap and obvious ploy. They're jumping off the McCain train by the dozens. Without the independants, McCain cannot win. I'll be very interested to see where the polling is in another two weeks. I'm looking forward to the VP debate, when the DNC's 800-pound gorilla Joe Biden has to try his level best not to look like he's beating-up the doe-eyed barbie doll. My faith in America has been rattled in the last two presidential elections, to be sure. But it's a different game now, and McCain's in for a tougher fight than he knows--especially with more than half of America scratching their heads at his VP pick and wondering what it says about his judgement. McCain wants people to think of him as a maverick when he's really nothing of the sort. He didn't bring his party back from the brink of neoconservative oblivion--he rode with them most of the way, and broke from the pack once or twice. When the party didn't follow him, he just got back on the bus. What do you call a leader with no followers? Just a guy taking a walk! When I say the GOP is history, I mean that the party it once was no longer exists, and there's no way they can get it back on the rails because the wheels have already come off. People do seem to be waking-up to the fact that the Republican party is way out of touch with America and the world, and has become the party of radical religious conservatism, fearmongering, war-making, and rich oil company executives... which does not represent most Americans. GOP (most people don't remember) stands for "Grand Old Party." But since even the Republicans have forgotten that, I think we can recycle the acronym. Now, it stands for "Geezers On Parade." I must have faith that as sheepish as American voters are, they don't like the idea of electing another white-haired double-talking multi-millionaire from the party that gave us two terms of George W. Bush. McCain called Americans "whiners " for complaining about the economy. Bush says the economy is doing well, while Americans are still paying close to $4.00 a gallon for gas, and losing their homes and retirement savings. Americans might not be too collectively politically savvy, but I still think they have a pretty good idea when somebody is pissing on their boots and claiming it's a rainstorm. We can, and we will elect Barack Obama and Joe Biden. We can, and we will, because we must--for the sake of our nation and the future of America, if it's to have one at all. (Wednesday Sep 3 | post #4)
Barney Frank: Sarah Palin's family life is fair game
Hey Rev, it's not what's in her heart that worries me... it's what's NOT in her head. Saying that legitimate political debate will lead to civil wars is EXACTLY the sort of fearmongering that is so characteristic of the GOP. "No! We can't talk about whether Sarah Palin's policies worked in her own family... that would lead to a civil war!" Fact is, McCain picked her KNOWING that the story about her underage pregnant daughter would splash all over the news cycle. She accepted the Veep tap KNOWING that her underage, unmarried daughter's pregnancy would be reported and talked about in the furthers corners of the world. And it was the campaign which called a press conference to announce that a.) her husband had a DUI on his record and b.) her underage daughter was pregnant. The whole scenario leads directly to the question: how does her own family situation reflect her public positions on family issues? It's absolutely fair to ask that question, and I think after the last seven years of deplorable judgement from the White House, it's a question that America deserves an answer to. You say these are fellow Americans, not our enemy. The way I see it, the current Republican administration has done a whole lot of damage to America. Because I'm a patriot, that makes them my enemy, because they are enemies of the very principles upon which this country was founded. I will not sit idly by as they maneuver for another four years of war, tax breaks for the rich, archaic social policy and complete disregard for civil rights and the rule of law. (Wednesday Sep 3 | post #25)
Barney Frank: Sarah Palin's family life is fair game
Shut your festering pie hole, you holier-than-thou ignoramus. America needs no more fools! (Wednesday Sep 3 | post #20)
Barney Frank: Sarah Palin's family life is fair game
That may be their hope, that the Palin pick would shift the conversation... but in all the news coverage I've seen so far, reporters are having no trouble finding former McCain supporters who see McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as shortsighted and lacking judgement. Every other interview I hear is with some former McCain supporter who took one look at Palin, and for a multitude of reasons, has chosen to stop supporting McCain. No, this itself isnt' the trick. This is the set-up. This is a preparatory move, putting things in place for whatever they have up their sleeves. But already, the whiplash of controversy is eroding GOP support. Thanks to Sarah Palin, Americans have learned what is for most of them a new word: vetting. It has been added to their vacabulary in all of the following contexts: "Did they even vet this person?" "McCain says that Sarah Palin was thoroughly vetted." "McCain aides insist that their vetting process was comprehensive. " "Voters are asking whether the campaign considered the current investigation in their vetting process." As much as the GOP bline loyalists shower McCain and themselves with flowery compliments for their brilliance of picking Palin, the several negative elements about the choice are making Republican political analysts turn grey (well, the ones who don't already have white hair anyway.) Barney Frank is right--her family is part of the question because THEY made "family" a wedge issue to begin with, and Sarah Palin's public position is anti-sex education, anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-war, and pro firearms--all issues that directly impact American family life. I think it's a fair question: "If she wants to tell people how their families should live, then where's her proof-of-concept? " It has to be her own family, and from what we're seeing, her own policies have not had the desired result in her own home, so we extrapolate that those ideas may not be right for anybody else either. Sarah Palin doesn't shift the conversation--she merely reminds us at every turn that her only real experience is as a working mom, very recently the former mayor of a town of under 2000 people, and 18 months as a wet-behind-the-ear s governor of the fourth LEAST populated state in the U.S. (with only North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming having smaller populations.) Family is the only thing she's REALLY qualified to talk about, and the general opinion is that she is no superstar in that arena either. The republicans will lose, despite their screwball politics, and Obama/Biden will be the winning ticket in November. Which ultimately means that, regardless of wht the conversation is now, the ELECTION will have been about the economy, health care, education and on how to get out of Iraq because the Obama administration will start working on all of those issues from day one. (Wednesday Sep 3 | post #18)
Log Cabin Republicans: GOP on 'wrong side of history'
The Republican party, on the wrong side of history? Naw, the Republican party IS history. (Wednesday Sep 3 | post #2)
Palin's stance on sex ed coming back to bite her
Logan, stop burying your head in the sand. Perhaps, when abstinence is actually practiced 100% of the time, it is effective 100% of the time, but in the real world, a large proportion of teenagers are going to have sex, and there's nothing the government can say or do to change that. Refusing them condoms or birth control certainly does not prevent them from having sex. Your assertion that sex education promotes perversion and promiscuity is absolutely not supported by the statistics and research, so I suspect you're repeating something you heard in a religious, rather than academic context. Palin was NOT just stating her opinion, she was responding to a press question about the (existing) sex-ed programs in schools in Alaska. And even if she just THOUGHT she was only voicing her personal opinion, as a public official she is responsible to represent ALL the constituents, not just the minority who support her radical right-wing views. Your "nation of immoral children" assertion is laughable. What party was in power for the last 8 years while these kids were transitioning from nine to seventeen years old? When authority figures are obviously hypocritical about sex (not to mention completely uptight about it to the point of being unable to even talk intelligently about it) what you get is a load of kids who see right through the BS, and presume that they cannot trust ANYTHING that any authority figure says, including their parents. What we need from government is LESS stodgy and provincial attitudes about human sexuality, and more willingness to talk about it in a mature and measured way. "Abstinence only" is the biggest cop-out and perhaps the biggest social fraud ever perpetrated by a bunch of holier-than-though , sexually repressed neoconservatives who, as George Carlin pointed out, nobody wants to fvck anyway! (Tuesday Sep 2 | post #37)
The facts (the education) have been available for several decades. Religious right-wingers have spend BILLIONS trying to keep the information from the public--banning it in schools; removing it from public libraries. The sex that anybody engages in is a civil liberty under the heading "the pursuit of happiness" as declared by Thomas Jefferson. The notion that what consenting adults do privately in their own bedrooms is their own business is widely regarded as a fundamental assumption of the right to privacy. You say the government doesn't want to get involved with sex? Hmmm. the government has ALWAYS involved itself with sexuality, usually with counter-productive if not outright disastrous results. The government has at various times declared that: *In Alexandria, Minnesota, it is illegal for a man to make love to his wife with garlic or onions on his breath. *In Ames, Iowa, a man may not take more than three sips of beer after lovemaking while lying with his wife or holding her in his arms. *In Connorsville, Wisconsin, it is illegal for a man to fire a gun while his wife is experiencing an orgasm. *In Fairbanks, Alaska, there is a law prohibiting Moose from having sexual intercourse on the city streets. (I wonder how many moose have been arrested?) *One Kentucky statute actually read: "No female shall appear in a bathing suit on any highway within this state unless she be escorted by at least two officers or unless she be armed with a club." *In the state of Washington there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances. (Including the wedding night). I agree with you--the government has no business dictating what consenting adults do in private. Neither does it have the right to dictate that heterosexuality is "right" and subsidize it, while declaring that homosexuality is "wrong" and discriminating against LGBT couples. There is NO logical reason... which makes any sense morally, socially, or scientifically to justify this governmental stance. You say that, for the most part, all you know is where you "feel the most comfortable with your sexual orientation." Fine. Nobody is challenging that--in fact this is all about your RIGHT to declare WHERE you feel comfortable, and not having the government decide that for you--because that's EXACTLY what the government is doing to LGBT people. You go on to say: "But for now, can we acknowledge a difference in philosophy and not make this a Constitutional or civil rights issue?" NO. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. LGBT people didn't "make" this a civil rights issue--it ws the other way around. It was the people who seek to oppress LGBT people who went too far too many times, and have galvanized LGBT communities into speaking out, and taking action to STOP the discrimination. So, tell you what... you make hate crimes stop, make anti-gay discrimination stop, provide equal LEGAL rights to LGBT couples comparable to Hetero couples, and we'll stop "making such an issue" out of it. Mmmm'Kay Ducky? (Tuesday Sep 2 | post #160)
