Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I apologize for my poor choice of graphic, but the pot and kettle are both black, no?

So are you saying it's okay for blacks to use the n-word with each other?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
On that note, any suggestions for other yin/yang partners on the board? Of course Penske, errrr, Sparton falls into his own category, but any others?

Ty before 9PM PST, Ty after 9PM PST

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty before 9PM PST, Ty after 9PM PST

Latist fuck.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Latist fuck.

I see it more as being an earliest fuck.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I see it more as being an earliest fuck.

If earliest fucks are being discussed, I believe those belong on the FB.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
I just heard that the CA Supreme court voided the gay marriage licenses that Newsome issued. What a damn waste of taxpayer money this whole spectacle has been.

This is the right decision from a process standpoint, but I don't think it was a waste of money. Newsom and the Mass SC did a lot to put this issue front and center, and while I don't think a mayor should willfully oppose the will of the people or that a few judges should decide the issue for the country, this is an issue whose time has come.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is the right decision from a process standpoint, but I don't think it was a waste of money. Newsom and the Mass SC did a lot to put this issue front and center, and while I don't think a mayor should willfully oppose the will of the people or that a few judges should decide the issue for the country, this is an issue whose time has come.

2.

It will also be fun to watch the CA sup ct justices receive accolades from conservative congresspeople over the next few days for their bravery in standing up to Pretty Boy Gavin's power play, only to be branded with the scarlet letter "A" for activist by those same folks when/if the supremes (lower case "s") rule in favor of the constitutional claims of the same sex marriagees.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
2.

It will also be fun to watch the CA sup ct justices receive accolades from conservative congresspeople over the next few days for their bravery in standing up to Pretty Boy Gavin's power play, only to be branded with the scarlet letter "A" for activist by those same folks when/if the supremes (lower case "s") rule in favor of the constitutional claims of the same sex marriagees.

Could happen. While all of the justices agreed he acted contrary to law, two of them would have allowed the previously-issued licenses to stand. It's obvious where those two stand on the Constitutionality issue, at least.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is the right decision from a process standpoint, but I don't think it was a waste of money. Newsom and the Mass SC did a lot to put this issue front and center, and while I don't think a mayor should willfully oppose the will of the people or that a few judges should decide the issue for the country, this is an issue whose time has come.

Sadly, I'm beginning to fear this is not so. While I think this is the kind of thing that needs to come from a change in fundamental legislative policy, like much of the civil rights movement did (the Civil Rights Act had to be passed by Congress before there could be an Ollie's Barbeque case), I very much fear that the "marriage for both or marriage for neither" position staked out by the gay rights advocates will be its undoing.

I would guess maybe 55-60% of Americans, when pressed, will say there should be civil unions for same sex couples, because it's unfair that you're born gay and you don't have basic rights to make a family. But I would guess 80% of Americans would say that marriage is something that can only exist between a man and a woman. I am so frustrated that the gay rights movement totally misjudged the temperature of the American people on this issue that they misframed the debate and ensured legislative losses all around the country to counterbalance their one judicial victory. I posted about this before --- the symbolic insistence on the term marriage would result in too much pushback to accomplish the more basic policy goal of equality.

If there were a way to retreat gracefully from marriages to "thanks, we'll be happy with equal tax treatment and survivorship and custody rights under state law," it should be pursued now. What's the use of having a symbolic right in California and Massachusetts that isn't going to be recognized in any of the other 48 states? In three years, we'll be having child custody battles where gay Massholes will abscond with their kids across state lines, then claim out-of-state courts can't recognize their marriage or the relationship between the non-custodial parent and the kids. All because of the pushback over the word "marriage." Fucking hell.

Originally posted by Not Me
Racist fuck!

SHOVE IT!

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Sadly, I'm beginning to fear this is not so. While I think this is the kind of thing that needs to come from a change in fundamental legislative policy, like much of the civil rights movement did (the Civil Rights Act had to be passed by Congress before there could be an Ollie's Barbeque case), I very much fear that the "marriage for both or marriage for neither" position staked out by the gay rights advocates will be its undoing.

More than you are willing to admit. Gays want to be accepted. But the best they will ever get is tolerated. There is a world of difference between those two concepts.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If there were a way to retreat gracefully from marriages to "thanks, we'll be happy with equal tax treatment and survivorship and custody rights under state law," it should be pursued now.

Though I'm as far right as they get, I disagree strongly. I suspect if you took a poll among the non-religious conservatives and righties you'd find a decent support base for marriage for gays, with me among them. There is an appeal among the "family value" set for people who want to settle down into a family and even if gay, raise kids. An astounding amount of children have been raised by gay parents for quite a long time (I read stats on this somewhere). The gay parents have fit in pretty well with their fellow PTA conservatives. I don't personally know one rightie who is against gay marriage. I don't think they should sell out.

[SlaveNoMore]

Diane_Keaton
I don't personally know one rightie who is against gay marriage.

Go West, my dear. Like across the Hudson. And there you'll find plenty.

[SlaveNoMore]

Apparently, the UN knew about the Oil for Food farce all along, yet didn't do a damn thing to prevent it

Link - and it gets even better, it's from the NYT

So I guess Chalabi didn't make it all up, after all.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Though I'm as far right as they get, I disagree strongly.

Then you're not nearly as far-right as they get, even in NYC.