Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Actually, as with many other issues, what I'm endorsing is the right of the majority to maintain the meaning of terms in their own language, as they understand it.

Care to cite an example of two ideas being united (i.e., "married") and given respective rights and duties by government, particularly an example that does not involve a man/woman union? The fact that one can cite "fuck" as an old statute doesn't mean its not just a swear word in the eyes of the majority.

As to the underlying point, I hate to tell ya, but you don't speak for me (or I believe the majority of the right and righteous in this nation). I do see gay unions as being worthy of the same protections, which is the same "relationships", and in fact I posted the same here early when the topic first came up (perhaps even before Atticus!).

But putting words in my mouth (e.g., "you do NOT see") and ascribing only your understanding of my beliefs to me does not lead to a proper conclusion that my basis is "weak". If it was so weak, you wouldn't have to mischaracterize my beliefs and skip a few steps before reaching an unsupported conclusion that they are "weak".

If you believe gay unions are worthy of the same protections and should be given the same "rights and protections" by the government as separate sex marriages, then I think it makes sense to simply call them "marriages" too. Retaining different words for the same thing ("union" verus "marriage") is in my view an attempt at "separate but equal" and a denial that they are/will be (in your view) the same.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
If you believe gay unions are worthy of the same protections and should be given the same "rights and protections" by the government as separate sex marriages, then I think it makes sense to simply call them "marriages" too. Retaining different words for the same thing ("union" verus "marriage") is in my view an attempt at "separate but equal" and a denial that they are/will be (in your view) the same.

Sure "it makes sense", except that many people have lived their whole lives understanding otherwise and for whatever reason (nostalgia?), don't want to learn new definitions.

Did you really say "separate but equal"? I was going to pooh-pooh it (and chide you), but if its merely a matter of ensuring that the "marriage department" at city hall becomes the "marriage and civil union department" (with a single line for everybody), than I guess I can see a reason you would be concerned that wouldn't happen. If its nothing more than calling two arrangements, identical but for the relative genders of the parties involved, by different names, I don't think the term applies. But if you are thinking of something like the G creating a new (and separate) department for this, than I guess that's something we'll all have to watch for with vigilance.

B/c we all know the tendencies of government. As I once told a girl who was going to work at the CBO (who absolutely hates my guts for this and other funnies), "sweetie, of course your job is gonna be easy... if there was enough for one person to do, they'd hire two people to do it". For reasons that I think you and I might share, I'm against that happening in any context including the one we are discussing.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Did you really say "separate but equal"?

Did you really say "nostalgia"?

Anyhoo, "Colored folk" is kind of nostalgic too. Folks will just have to just buck up to the fact that "marriage" may involve two pooty stores instead of one. (NTTAWWT)

If its nothing more than calling two arrangements, identical but for the relative genders of the parties involved, by different names, I don't think the term applies.

Well if you're saying the rights/duties for both same and different sex unions should be equal, but should have separate names, I'd say that's a "separate but equal" concept.

Anyways, if it's so important to have a different word apply, why not create TWO new terms. One for lesbo marriages, one for gay ones. How about even MORE new terms describing something that really is, in fact, simply "marriage", such as a word for unions where one of the parties is an FTM (female to male transexual). And one for an MTF. And one.....oh, you get the point.

B/c we all know the tendencies of government.

Gay tendencies? Only in NJ government, baby.

As I once told a girl who was going to work at the CBO (who absolutely hates my guts for this and other funnies), "sweetie, of course your job is gonna be easy... if there was enough for one person to do, they'd hire two people to do it". For reasons that I think you and I might share, I'm against that happening in any context including the one we are discussing.

I don't get this. But then I think the only thing you and I are sharing is retarded conversation on a Friday night. And I'm on percocet. So Hay Tello Ta Mee!!!!

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
A friend sent me an e-mail from an RNC hack trashing Kerry on various and sundry grounds, including:

• Kerry also said he was a big fan of Manny Ortez, who apparently plays for no MLB team at all. The nominee then corrected himself and said he was a big fan of David Ortez, another non-existent Big League player.

No, but anyone who knows anything about MLB knows that two of the Red Sox' best players are Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz -- players this troll is apparently unfamiliar with. Since this was doubtless an oral Q&A, the other mistake was made by whoever wrote down Ortez instead of Ortiz.

They're just working so hard to slime him.

Actually Ty, any mudslinger worth his salt would stick with the Kerry baseball gaffe from many years ago. Manny Ortez is practically nothing more than a typo.

When questioned about his loyalty to RSN, Kerry avidly proclaimed that his favorite Red Sox player of all time was Eddie Yost!!!!

Yes, not Teddy Ballgame, Yaz, Tiant, Freddy, Rice, Rocket or Nomah .... Eddie Yost.

Who, as anyone in Red Sox Nation knows, was a 14 year veteran of ..... the Washington Senators.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Did you really say "nostalgia"?

Anyhoo, "Colored folk" is kind of nostalgic too. Folks will just have to just buck up to the fact that "marriage" may involve two pooty stores instead of one. (NTTAWWT)

Well, why should the majority have to learn a new definition? Why not make the minority? We could call the less manly of a gay couple, you know, like a "male bride", and we could call the less womanly of the lesbian couple, you know, like a "female groom"! As for colored folk, I think the definition hasn't changed. People just use the term less. What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, changing definitions. So why not take the easy way instead of redefining words.

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton

Well if you're saying the rights/duties for both same and different sex unions should be equal, but should have separate names, I'd say that's a "separate but equal" concept.

And, just like I'd hope that Rosa Parks doesn't want crackheads hijacking her legacy by appropriating the term "civil rights" to include a made-up right to use harmful substances, I'd hope that the many oppressed people who see "separate but equal" as something, well, more than a mere difference in terminology, would object to your hijacking the image of their suffering for what is (for the sake of argument) only a difference in terminology (i.e., if the treatment is equal except for the title). Sitting at the front of the bus this is not (yet). And slippery slope arguments are for those who don't have a current basis of objection, in case you really are arguing that the marriage office will have a second unattended line for gay folks.

Its this hijacking of legacy that got government involved in the marriage business in the first place, ain't it?

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton

Anyways, if it's so important to have a different word apply, why not create TWO new terms. One for lesbo marriages, one for gay ones. How about even MORE new terms describing something that really is, in fact, simply "marriage", such as a word for unions where one of the parties is an FTM (female to male transexual). And one for an MTF. And one.....oh, you get the point.

We can create as many as you want. The point is, our people don't want to destroy ones we already have. Whether the PC crowd* can force middle-America to use new words is another matter. I doubt the folks in Peoria keep up on the lingo as it is; and its the idea that they don't want to that might explain why the majority of this country seems to object to appropriating the term "marriage" but doesn't object to sharing the concept of equal rights and responsibilities.

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton

Gay tendencies? Only in NJ government, baby.


I don't get this. But then I think the only thing you and I are sharing is retarded conversation on a Friday night. And I'm on percocet. So Hay Tello Ta Mee!!!!

A. Former Gov. Thompson of IL, recently of the 9/11 commission, was the subject of rumors for years at the hands of the Chicago democrats. And I know I'm missing someone else. Something about that state where people are always saying not to mess with them.

B. Tello Ta Mee!!!!

Hope ya feel better. The joke was that I told a girl who was anxious about starting a new job (and had been working 12 hour days for her first 2 weeks) that her gov't job couldn't be that hard, because if there was enough work for her to do, they would have hired two people to do it. Hard working gov't types don't seem to appreciate that kind of thinking.

The point is, if gov't sees an opportunity to create new gov't jobs, gov't will create new gov't jobs. Say hello to the department of civil unions and meet my cousin Lenny who joins us from Streets and San!

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Actually Ty, any mudslinger worth his salt would stick with the Kerry baseball gaffe from many years ago. Manny Ortez is practically nothing more than a typo.

When questioned about his loyalty to RSN, Kerry avidly proclaimed that his favorite Red Sox player of all time was Eddie Yost!!!!

Yes, not Teddy Ballgame, Yaz, Tiant, Freddy, Rice, Rocket or Nomah .... Eddie Yost.

Who, as anyone in Red Sox Nation knows, was a 14 year veteran of ..... the Washington Senators.

At least he didn't trade Sammy Sosa. Better ignorant than dangerous (or both).

[sgtclub]

Alston received his serious wounds in that same exact battle that took Peck out of service. On January 29th, Alston was medevaced out to a hospital with head wounds and no records indicate that he ever returned to the unit. Kerry took command of PCF-94 the next day. Alston never served a day under Kerry's command. In fact, Kerry received a replacement, Fred Short, on 28 February as a replacement for Alston.

Now what does that tell us about Kerry and his Viet Nam narrative?

1. He and Alston conspired to deceive people about Alston's service under Kerry. That conspiracy was intended to give John Kerry cover against exactly the kind of campaign he faces from the other Swiftvets.

2. The "end of January" language on Kerry's website was intentionally vague in order to fuzzy up the timeline and keep Alston's true status a secret. Obviously, Sandusky remembers the dates well enough, and Kerry could easily have gotten them from him if he wanted to be as specific as his other dates on the timeline.

3. The DNC either were saps or actively participated in the conspiracy in order to assist Kerry in his Viet Nam mythology. Otherwise, why would they have allowed David Alston to speak at the convention about his experiences serving with John Kerry on the boat?

4. Kerry's band of brothers have some complicity in this cover-up as well. Those who served on PCF-94 surely remember that Alston never served under Kerry; Sandusky specifically recalls Peck being wounded and removed from command, but he wouldn't remember that Alston left at the same time?

5. One could argue that they served on the same boat, of course, and I look forward to that Clintonian parsing used in Kerry's defense. After holding Alston up as an expert on his leadership, he'll be hard pressed to explain how that expertise came to Alston from a hospital bed miles away from Kerry and his old PCF.

If this gets out to the mainstream media, this story kills Kerry's campaign. This isn't just a guy embellishing his war record -- this is a deliberate and longstanding attempt to mislead and defraud people by creating his own witnesses after the fact. That he could have done such a clumsy job should disqualify him for higher office on that basis alone.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/002251.php

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/002251.php

"Yachtzee!", indeed.

But who the hell is Alston? What, exactly, did the Kerry campaign do with him? Why is his campaign over (today)?

It's always wonderful to hear that someone discovered that it was Mr. Mustard in the Library with the candlestick, but I wasn't aware of the circumstances surrounding the murder. Help a brother out?

[Skeks in the city]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
"Yachtzee!", indeed.

But who the hell is Alston? What, exactly, did the Kerry campaign do with him? Why is his campaign over (today)?

It's always wonderful to hear that someone discovered that it was Mr. Mustard in the Library with the candlestick, but I wasn't aware of the circumstances surrounding the murder. Help a brother out?

It's my understanding that he is one of the band of brothers, and 1 of the 6 who has said he was on Kerry's boat and supports him. He apparently also spoke at the convention. This blog suggests that he served on Kerry's boat, but before Kerry got there. I don't have any idea whether this is true or not.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's my understanding that he is one of the band of brothers, and 1 of the 6 who has said he was on Kerry's boat and supports him. He apparently also spoke at the convention. This blog suggests that he served on Kerry's boat, but before Kerry got there. I don't have any idea whether this is true or not.

So, the other five are in on the conspiracy too!

Egads! Next you'll be telling me that Bush protected cocaine smugglers while he was Governor of Texas!

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Egads! Next you'll be telling me that Bush protected cocaine smugglers while he was Governor of Texas!

S_A_M

No, that was Clinton. See the Mena airfield stories.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Retaining different words for the same thing ("union" verus "marriage") is in my view an attempt at "separate but equal" and a denial that they are/will be (in your view) the same.

That won't happen. Gays might be able to abolish the term "marriage" as a legal term and force legal institutions to refer to all such hetero or homo unions as "civil unions." Gays could even use the term "marriage" informally. However, gays cannot force the country to apply the term "marriage" as a legal designation to homosexual unions. And if gays hold out for that, they'll be holding out for a loooong time.

If you don't understand this, you don't understand the cultural/religious conservatives that form much of the republican base. And before you complain about them, just remember, you libertarian and pro-business republicans couldn't get the votes for your economic agenda without them. It's quid pro quo, baby. That's why they and the demo's cut each other loose.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/145144|top|08-15-2004::10:28|reuters.html

Top Iranian Judo guy reufses to fight Israeli

Olympics Hit by Crisis Over Iran-Israel Contest

By Douglas Hamilton
ATHENS (Reuters) - Iran's world judo champion Arash Miresmaeili refused to compete against an Israeli Sunday, triggering a fresh crisis at the Olympic Games where race, creed or color are not allowed to interfere with sport.

The International Judo Federation (IJF) failed to agree how to deal with the politically explosive issue at an emergency meeting and said it would hold further talks Monday.

The burning issue was whether any penalty would hit Miresmaeili alone or the entire Iranian team.

What's really screwed up is it sounds like he may have been ordered not to show. Olympic spirit?

A statement by the Iranian National Olympic Committee in Tehran suggested the real reason had nothing to do with kilos.

"This is a general policy of our country to refrain from competing against athletes of the Zionist regime and Arash Miresmaeili has observed this policy," it said.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

What's really screwed up is it sounds like he may have been ordered not to show. Olympic spirit?

I blame Carter for all this boycott B.S.