Thursday, October 02, 2008

The Shower-Nuts Are Still Trying

The shower-nuts' lawyers at Alliance Defense Fund report that they have filed a lawsuit in Montgomery County to force the Board of Elections to stop the new gender identity nondiscrimination law from going into place.
BALTIMORE — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys and allied attorneys filed a lawsuit Monday on behalf of Montgomery County voters against the Montgomery County Board of Elections for unconstitutionally denying voters the right to be heard on a new law giving special legal protections based on “gender identity.”

“A democratic government should not silence its people. The board has no legal authority to shut out 900,000 Montgomery County voters who should have their say on this new law,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Amy Smith. “We hope the court will recognize the constitutional rights of Maryland voters and allow their valid signatures to count.”

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a decision by Maryland’s highest court in Doe v. Montgomery County Board of Elections to disenfranchise county voters. A group of homosexual behavior advocates had filed that suit to challenge petitions submitted by Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government to put the “gender identity” bill on the Nov. 4 ballot. Even though the Montgomery County Board of Elections certified the petitions, and the number of signatures collected greatly exceeded the requirement, the high court reversed a lower court’s decision to let the petitions stand (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4623).

The new lawsuit argues that the board has no authority to remove the referendum from the Nov. 4 ballot. ADF attorneys are also asking the court for a temporary restraining order to prevent the “gender identity” law from going into effect since voters have been unconstitutionally denied the opportunity to vote on the measure.

ADF-allied attorneys John Garza, Matt Paavola, and Daniel Cox are assisting in the case. A copy of the complaint filed in Bloem v. Montgomery County Board of Elections is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/BloemComplaint.pdf.

Fight to let Montgomery County citizens vote on ‘gender identity’ bill continues

I think this is a new twist, calling groups like Equality Maryland "homosexual behavior advocates." We could have a lot of fun with that, like, it doesn't matter how you feel about girls, these groups promote getting it on with your buddies. We could probably come up with some pretty good mottoes for a group like that.

You can follow the link to the document they filed, a hundred eleven pages of stuff. I'm no lawyer and I don't know how this shakes out in the legal system, so I'm not making a guess about it. I can't imagine that a judge can just un-do a law that has been passed by the legislative body and signed by the executive of the county because referendum rules were not handled well. I would think the best a judge could do is to give them a new deadline for another referendum, and I don't really see why he'd do that. Sometimes the government screws up. Sometimes good guys get charged with crimes they didn't commit, sometimes people get tickets when they were under the limit, stuff happens sometimes. This time, the Board of Elections told the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever they needed so-many signatures, when in fact the needed such-many. I don't blame them for being unhappy about it, but ... just imagine if every time the government did something incompetently somebody sued them. The Maryland Court of Appeals has ruled on this already, that's as high as you can go in the state. The CRW got barely the number of signatures they thought they needed, by lying to people at grocery stores and election polling places, and there were very many irregularities in the petitions. The Board of Elections has not been able to do its job at any level, from giving out the wrong target number to certifying invalid signatures to not proactively calling off the referendum with the Circuit Court said there weren't enough signatures. Everybody's unhappy with them, but I don't see any way that suing them can make this law go away.

40 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
There is nothing that requires voters to approve laws so there is no reason to stop the law from going into effect. This is just another move funded by Republicans elsewhere to try to show they still have support in a county that has repeatedly rejected them.

October 03, 2008 9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is nothing that requires voters to approve laws so there is no reason to stop the law from going into effect."

There is something in the law that requires that voters be given an opportunity to veto legislation.

That requirement of the law was not met because of the either duplicitous or incompetent behavior of the government.

The bill should, in a lawful and just land, be invalidated and the process restarted.

It's the only way.

October 03, 2008 10:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Homosexual behavior advocates." Hadn't heard that one before.

It seems every day or so I hear about another suit ADF has filed; does anyone know their source of funds?

rrjr

October 03, 2008 12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Homosexual behavior advocates." Hadn't heard that one before."

Do you advocate homosexual behavior, rjjr?

"It seems every day or so I hear about another suit ADF has filed; does anyone know their source of funds?"

They are a member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability which posts financial profiles of all their members on their website, ecfa.org.

They are also a 501(c)3 so you can find their form 990 on the guidestar website, although the government doesn't release the identity of contributors to the public. You can see their public support as a percentage on Schedule A of that form though.

They're supported by your tax money.

Thanks for the help!

October 03, 2008 12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon

No, the law should not be invalidated. It was passed by the County Council. I am sure that the right wing bigots will try to get it on the ballot again but in the meantime,the law was passed and stands. Too bad for bigotry.

October 03, 2008 12:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor little bigots are crying. I am sure that Jesus is up in heaven crying right now because his children are judging and hating each other so much.

October 03, 2008 12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, the law should not be invalidated. It was passed by the County Council."

Of course the law should be validated. It takes more than passage by the County Clowns. A law also must run the public veto gauntlet and be signed by the County Excess-cutive.

The County Government hindered one of these processes. Like in Miranda, the government should bear the burden of not fulfilling its duty.

The bill should get the heave-ho!

"Poor little bigots are crying. I am sure that Jesus is up in heaven crying right now because his children are judging and hating each other so much."

Could you be more specific, Slick?

Who is and how are they judging and hating each other so much?

October 03, 2008 1:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is and how are they judging and hating each other so much?

That's easy. It's the CRWeirdos who ask Montgomery County citizens to sign their petition to place Law 23-07 on the ballot by spreading fear and lies about some of our friends and neighbors. The CRW and their deep pocketed friends robocalled voters in MoCo; their script included "Are you concerned that the safety of women and children in the shower is being threatened in Montgomery County." Their website included the headline "*Action Alert -- Legalized Indecent Exposure *" They published fliers that said the law "puts women and children ...business owners ...day care centers... landlords....churches ...and school children...at risk."

When the CRW spreads these lies, they are mis-"judging" transgender and gender variant people as well as demonstrating their "hatred" for them.

October 03, 2008 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous person - You seem to have the understanding of the way a law is enacted of a 3rd grader. ("Of course the law should be validated. It takes more than passage by the County Clowns (sic.). A law also must run the public veto gauntlet and be signed by the County Excess-cutive (sic.)."

The Council is empowered to propose legislation, a hearing is held, the Council then votes as to whether to enact the measure or not. If enacted, it is sent to the County Executive for his/her veto or his/her signature. Once signed, it becomes a law. Which of the above steps was not followed in enacting the law? Where in the County Charter or in the Constitution of Maryland does it say: "A law also must run the public veto gauntlet"?

Citizens may petition the law to referendum (is that the "veto gauntlet"?), in which case the enactment of the law is put on hold if the referendum is approved or becomes law if it is not. Assuming all legal steps in the process have been followed by all parties concerned, the referendum either is or isn't placed on the ballot for a vote. Even if the process is appealed through the court system on the basis of opposition to the law enacted by the Council and signed by the Executive, it may ultimately reach the Court of Appeals for a final decision. The Court rules on the legality of the process; once the Court's decision is handed down, the measure becomes a law at that point. Done. You don't like either the process or the result. Sorry about that.
I expect you to launch a full-scale attack on the law in two years when you run a full slate of candidates for open seats on the Council and the County Executive. Perhaps the major promise of your campaign will be to void the law and reinstitute discrimination against transgender citizens in the County. That's how you will change this law.
Lots of luck!
RT

October 03, 2008 3:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Once signed, it becomes a law."

You're contradicting yourself here:

"Citizens may petition the law to referendum (is that the "veto gauntlet"?), in which case the enactment of the law is put on hold"

You see, it's not law until the voters either decline to challenge it or vote to approve it.

The step that wasn't properly adhered to was this.

Assigning grade levels to other people's understanding is a little foolish when you don't have an understanding yourself.

Of course, my guess is you understand it perfectly but are throwing around a bunch of insults hoping no one will notice that you don't make any sense.

October 03, 2008 4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When the CRW spreads these lies, they are mis-"judging" transgender and gender variant people as well as demonstrating their "hatred" for them."

Oh, so now you aren't complaining about judgment but mis-judgment.

No one ever said transgenders would do these things. They said the way the DD Dummies constructed the bill would allow sexual predators to take advantage of the law.

You can argue they're wrong about that but if you say they have accused actual transgenders of anything, you're lying because you have had this explained to you repeatedly.

October 03, 2008 4:06 PM  
Blogger Lisa Harney said...

RT made sense.

The bill should, in a lawful and just land, be invalidated and the process restarted.

In a lawful and just land, any marginalized groups civil rights would never ever be held hostage to the tyranny of the majority. You're exploiting an imperfect system to perpetuate oppression for a group of people that really aren't in a position to hurt you, despite the vicious lies CRW spread to get the signatures they did get.

And what's going to be argued at this lawsuit, that CRG didn't try hard enough to get as many signatures as possible because they thought they didn't need as many as they got? That somehow, if the BOE had given the right number, those additional signatures would have magically materialized? Please.

October 03, 2008 4:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In a lawful and just land, any marginalized groups civil rights would never ever be held hostage to the tyranny of the majority."

Nobody's civil rights are being "held hostage".

Economic and social success is not a right. If you want to make it one, you'll have to include the idiosyncrasies of everyone not just sexual deviants in order to claim any fairness.

"despite the vicious lies CRW spread to get the signatures they did get."

They didn't tell any lies.

"And what's going to be argued at this lawsuit, that CRG didn't try hard enough to get as many signatures as possible because they thought they didn't need as many as they got? That somehow, if the BOE had given the right number, those additional signatures would have magically materialized? Please."

That's why they went and got the signatures and submitted them to the BOE last week. They demonstrated that they'd have been able to obtain the signatures if they had received correct information.

It wasn't magic. It was democratic action in a lawful and just land.

October 03, 2008 5:26 PM  
Blogger Lisa Harney said...

They didn't tell any lies.

Well, sure, except for all the lies they told about how the law would cause a rape epidemic in women's restrooms and allow men to just hang out in those spaces by claiming to be trans. I've seen the notmyshower website, debunked a few lies I found there, and identified numerous others. If you believe "they didn't tell any lies" to be true, I don't know how what you say can be taken as reliable in any context - you might as well assert that the sky is green and that water brings drought.

What stopped them from getting as many signatures as they could the first time around? That's the part that's not clear - how the number BOE provided somehow prevented CRW from getting as many signatures as possible in their allotted time frame?

And does it really matter if they got enough signatures outside of that time frame when they're still trying to get signatures through lying? And did they really get enough signatures or did they just manage to get enough more signatures that the petition would have gone through had it not happened outside the 10-day window?

October 03, 2008 6:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Arizona Needs Your Help

Remember the state that became the first in the nation to defeat a so-called "marriage amendment" in 2006? Arizona desperately needs your help today in 2008:

Supporters of a measure that would change Arizona¢s constitution to ban gay marriage have raised $6.9 million, 17 times more than opponents have raised, according to figures released Thursday.

Arizona became the first state in the nation to defeat the so-called marriage amendment in 2006. Today, our opponents are furious that they lost, and they are pouring millions of dollars into the state to upset the will of the voters. They threatened and coerced the legislature to put this on the ballot because they didn't want to spend the money to mount a petition campaign. In other words, there has not been a single Arizona voter who signed on to have this put on the ballot. The legislatures actions amounted to a several hundred thousand dollar gift to put this on the ballot for free.

On the positive side, I firmly believe that Arizona is about to lose its distinction of being the only state to turn back one of these amendments -- because this year California and Florida will have their own victories to add to the tally. And that will be reason for a huge celebration next month.

However, if things don't change soon, then Arizona will lose something else: our historic 2006 victory. And if that happens, then the victories in Florida and California won't be secure. If Arizona loses in 2008 what we won in 2006, our opponents will learn a very important lesson. If they don't like the answer they got this year, all they have to do is come back again in a couple of years, spend millions of more dollars, and wear us down until they finally get what they want.

I am optimistic that we can defeat this proposed amendment in Arizona. Our internal polling shows that we don't have to match our opponents dollar-for-dollar in funding. We don't even have to come close. They've spend millions of dollars in the past two weeks, but the polling numbers haven't budged by a single percentage point since we fielded our own poll last June. They've spent millions, the votes for their side haven't budged one iota. Which means that so far, they've been wasting their millions.

Our internal polling also shows that there are huge numbers of "yes" voters who don't believe that this proposed amendment is important. Our polling also shows that our message can not only sway large numbers of undecided voters, but "yes" voters as well. We know we can do this.

But we cannot actually change the vote until we get our message out to the voters. And television and radio ads cost a lot of money.

So we need your help. Please give as generously as you can. Because this has implications not just for Arizona, but for California and Florida as well. If we really want to secure our victories, it is imperative that we tell them that no really means no.

Otherwise, they'll just come back again in a few more years in California and Florida.

http://votenoprop102.com/web/donate.php

October 03, 2008 7:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well, sure, except for all the lies they told about how the law would cause a rape epidemic in women's restrooms and allow men to just hang out in those spaces by claiming to be trans."

Look, this law says if one "expresses" as a gender, then they can't discriminated against by treating them as another gender. Men could indeed take advantage of that. You've taken the authority away from owners of facilities, included gender segregated ones, over their own property.

Whether that will cause the problems cited is a matter of opinion and every voter knows that. We are all well aware that no one can predict the future.

It's not a lie to have a different opinion or prediction.

You and virtually every TTFer are shameless liars for not recognizing the difference.

October 03, 2008 9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't predict the future but you can look at crime statistics in the other 100+ jurisdictions that have passed similar anti-discrimination laws to learn what to expect. You will find that no crime waves of men in skirts accosting females in restrooms have ever occurred once these law were enacted.

No matter what they are wearing and no matter what location they are in, men who accost women are commiting a crime.

And while you can't predict the future, you could try this reality check: read the law, especially the part that says "This division does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal."

October 03, 2008 9:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one maintains a crime record of that detail that's easily searched.

I know of public schools, for example, that have violent incidents that are suppressed in the cause of not alarming the public.

I don't think it would surprise anyone to learn that if such an incident like this occurred, it might not be publicized to protect the gay community from public reaction.

And I'm not saying that has happened but just that reported incidents aren't the only ones taking place in our communities.

"you could try this reality check: read the law, especially the part that says "This division does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal.""

This has been discussed at length here. This doesn't mean bathrooms. Do some legal research.

October 03, 2008 9:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Biden Fails to Grasp Impact of Roe v. Wade

When Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden spoke with CBS' Katie Couric recently, she asked him why he believed Roe. v. Wade was a good decision.

"Because it's as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours. What does it say? It says in the first three months that decision should be left to the woman. And the second three months… the state, the government has a role. … And the third three months, they say the weight of the government's input is on the fetus being carried."

Biden left out some key details.

The senator fails to point out the same-day ruling of Doe v. Bolton that provided broad health exceptions for women seeking abortions, including physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age — thus allowing abortionists carte blanche to nullify any abortion restriction they so please.

When the full extent of the Supreme Court's decision is brought to light, it clearly shows there is no 'consensus' on Roe v. Wade.

Biden, along with his running mate, Sen. Barack Obama, supports the so-called Freedom of Choice Act, which could wipe away every federal and state law limiting abortion, undoing decades of legal work and educational successes.

And that's why no American of conscience can vote to make Barack Obama leader of the free world.

October 03, 2008 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NEW YORK (Oct. 3) - Who's running for president, anyway?

More than 70 million people watched Thursday's vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin on television, far more than the audience for the first contest featuring the top of the tickets.

That would make it the second most-watched political debate ever, behind only the 80.6 million people who watched President Jimmy Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan in their only 1980 encounter, according to Nielsen Media Research.

When John McCain and Barack Obama met in their first debate on Sept. 26, Nielsen recorded 52.4 million viewers. They will have two more debates, the first of them next Tuesday.

Palin has been a television star since joining the GOP ticket a month ago. The curiosity factor undoubtedly brought in viewers this week after Palin raised doubts about her readiness for the job with some wobbly TV interviews.
Most analysts said she erased those doubts Thursday.

October 03, 2008 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most analysts said she erased those doubts Thursday....but didn’t necessarily win the debate or bring more voters into the McCain camp.

Timing may also have played a part in the big ratings. Thursday is one of the most popular nights of the week for TV-watching, while Friday, when McCain and Obama first debated, is one of the least popular.

Generally, only Super Bowls bring together so many Americans to watch the same thing.

Nielsen estimated that 69.99 million people watched Palin and Biden on either ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC America, Telemundo or TeleFutura. The figure does not include PBS or C-SPAN, which also showed the debate, but PBS estimated its audience at 3.5 million.

The audience far exceeded any other vice presidential debate. The closest was in 1984, when Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman on a major-party ticket, and 56.7 million people watched her and Vice President George Bush.

ABC claimed a pundit victory. Its audience for the half hour of post-debate analysis Thursday was larger than that of NBC or CBS.

October 03, 2008 11:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The senator fails to point out the same-day ruling of Doe v. Bolton

So did Palin.

October 03, 2008 11:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

notice that qualifier term "necessarily"

in other words, they don't know if she did or not

if they don't know why are they bringing it up?

what a reporter doesn't know is not news

it's called biased reporting

btw, Obama didn't necessarily stay drug free this week

regardless of the reason, the big numbers are significant because so many Americans now know that Palin is qualified for the vice presidency

alot of people, however, doubt that Katie Snowflake is qualified to anchor the evening news on a major network

October 03, 2008 11:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So did Palin."

Biden misstated the facts because he omitted this.

Palin didn't.

Wonder why we haven't heard about this...

October 03, 2008 11:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/01/eveningnews/main4493062.shtml

Palin, Biden Trade Views On Abortion

Oct. 1, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin have put in some very long days preparing for their Thursday night debate. To give voters a better sense of who these candidate are, and where they stand on a number of issues, CBS News anchor Katie Couric asked Biden and Palin some "Vice Presidential Questions." This installment tackles Roe v. Wade and Supreme Court decisions.
Click here to read more of what the vice-presidential candidates had to say and see our series, "Presidential Questions."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Katie Couric: Why do you think Roe v. Wade was a good decision?

Joe Biden: Because it's as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours. What does it say? It says in the first three months that decision should be left to the woman. And the second three months, where Roe v. Wade says, well then the state, the government has a role, along with the women's health, they have a right to have some impact on that. And the third three months they say the weight of the government's input is on the fetus being carried.

And so that's sort of reflected as close as anybody is ever going to get in this heterogeneous, this multicultural society of religious people as to some sort of, not consensus, but as close it gets.

I think the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment … offers a right to privacy. Now that's one of the big debates that I have with my conservative scholar friends, that they say, you know, unless a right is enumerated - unless it's actually, unless [it] uses the word "privacy" in the Constitution - then no such "constitutional right" exists. Well, I think people have an inherent right.

Couric: Are there Supreme Court decisions you disagree with?

Biden: You know, I'm the guy who wrote the Violence Against Women Act. And I said that every woman in America, if they are beaten and abused by a man, should be able to take that person to court - meaning you should be able to go to federal court and sue in federal court the man who abused you if you can prove that abuse. But they said, "No, that a woman, there's no federal jurisdiction." And I held, they acknowledged, I held about 1,000 hours of hearings proving that there's an effect in interstate commerce.
Women who are abused and beaten and beaten are women who are not able to be in the work force. And the Supreme Court said, "Well, there is an impact on commerce, but this is federalizing a private crime and we're not going to allow it." I think the Supreme Court was wrong about that decision.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Couric Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

October 03, 2008 11:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous asserted:

“regardless of the reason, the big numbers are significant because so many Americans now know that Palin is qualified for the vice presidency”

Do you ever get dizzy from all the spinning Anon?

I only managed to catch the last 40 minutes or so of the debate on radio. It is clear from subsequent reports I’ve read that I didn’t miss much. My analysis of the two debaters can be summed up in a single word for each:

Binden: uninspiring.

Palin: vacuous.

What I found more telling was that the analysis immediately afterwards focused on how both of them managed to avoid saying or looking too stupid – Biden for not going off on an obscure, long-winded tangent and Palin for not coming off more like a Paris (Hilton) and torpedoing McCain’s floundering campaign. Basically it came down to “Hey, neither of them screwed up too badly!”

Is this all we can expect from our politicians these days? That they “don’t screw up too badly?” Looking at the congress and the White House over the past two weeks, I’m afraid so. The financial crisis we face now didn’t start 2 weeks ago, or even two years ago. It has been well over a decade (perhaps 2) in the making. Not being able to pass a decent bill the first time around, or fix the inherent problems with it, congress did what it knows how to do best with difficult bills – it added pork. We can now all sleep better at night knowing that the economy-critical children’s wooden arrow industry is getting a much needed tax break. (That’s not to say that I’m against cutting the 43 cent excise tax on a 30 cent children’s arrow, just that I really have to wonder how that became a “priority” in the midst of the “greatest financial disaster since the great depression.” ( http://www.cnbc.com/id/26995651 )

Both McCain and Obama tried to make congress our government aware of a looming crisis in their own ways some time ago, but neither got any traction. Lobbyists apparently have a more powerful voice in our congress than our own congressmen.

When it comes to lobbyists, why is it that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were allowed to have lobbyists in the first place? They were “unique” combinations of “private” corporations implicitly (now explicitly) backed by the US government insuring their loans with money from US citizens. For some reason only NOW is it painfully clear that allowing them to lobby their own regulators for less regulation was what we call a “conflict of interest.”

And why is it that we only have 2 viable candidates running for president and both of them have readily traceable ties back to Freddie and Fannie? Why is it that we have NO major candidates that aren’t beholden to these kinds of interests?

The last time we had a viable 3rd party candidate it was a guy by the name of Ross Perot in 1992. After his surprising performance in those elections, Democrats and Republicans conspired to make it more difficult for third parties to participate in national presidential campaigns. It’s a shame, because the whole concept of fiscal responsibility and “balancing the budget” weren’t even on the radar of the D & R campaigns until Perot made it a major issue. Now the democrats and republicans have all the corporate lobbyists to themselves and are free to run Washington in the best interest of those corporations. ( http://perotcharts.com/ )

The fiscal crisis we find ourselves in now won’t be solved overnight, or even in the next two years. The revolving credit line they’ve given Paulson to use at his own discretion is bound to drive up inflation as he buys bad assets that no one else wants. (If these “bad debts” are going to “pay for themselves” as some people like to claim, why isn’t Warren Buffet buying them? He’s already spent 8 billion on Goldman Sachs and GE, can’t he find some pocket change for a few thousand homes?)

We find ourselves in this situation because for decades we have voted for the “lesser of two evils,” either the “tax and spend” democrats or the “borrow and spend” republicans. The voting public seems to swing back and forth between these two regimes in turn when we finally can’t miss the failings of each of these philosophies.

The next crisis I expect to hit us is the consumer debt crisis. Passing the bailout bill may have delayed it, but given that the average American consumer has a roughly 0% savings rate, (sometimes even negative over the past few years,) ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/08/BUG7IGJHEK1.DTL ) any slowdown in the economy or a tightening of the credit market is going to push thousands of families over the economic edge. Many Americans simply cannot live day to day without credit. What ever happened to “thrift” as an important American value?

The financial crisis is just beginning, and it’s going to take a lot of people smarter than what we have now in office to piece back together the regulatory system that was slowly but systematically “deregulated” at the alter of the “free market,” without realizing that many of those cumbersome laws were originally put into place to avoid the problem we face now.

And yet when it comes to the vice-presidential debate for arguably the most important voting decision some of us will make in our lifetime, all the pundits can definitively conclude is “Neither of them screwed up too badly?”

I did like to say “we deserve better than this,” but after all, we are the ones that voted these morons into office in the first place. So perhaps we got what we deserved.

Peace,

Cynthia

October 04, 2008 10:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cynthia,

I disagree with you on the VP debate. I thought both did fairly well not just better than expected.

However, your ramble here was filled with many other uncommon insights.

For example, how few Americans remember that Bill Clinton was pressured into balancing the budget rather than following his preference?

Also, I've long said that this country needs to see the rise of some new political parties. Simply put, George Bush is president because of the alternative.

and this:

"Many Americans simply cannot live day to day without credit. What ever happened to “thrift” as an important American value?"

I don't know if you caught it but Sarah Palin said pretty much the same thing. Early in the debate, in response to a question about the financial crisis, she said Americans need to "live within their means."

Heard any other politicians lately who are brave enough to say such a thing?

We have a leader for our future. We all pray for her success.

October 04, 2008 11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
I know anon is better at cutting and pasting then actually reading and even if it reads- it doesn't comprehend. See, the referendum issue did go to the Court of Appeals- and lost. So that is the end of this referendum issue this time. Do you get that now? You can sue the BOE for incompetence - I guess- but that doesn't change the fact that the council passed this law and Ike signed it.

I am with Robert- I can't wait to see the stunning candidates you and yours will put up for Council and County exec. I guess we will see the same losers recycled - maybe Peter James and Moshe Starkman? I can't even remember who they put up against Chris Van Hollen last time but he has run and lost for several other positions. The day of even moderate Republicans is over in MC- the nutters you guys would support must have lots of time and no jobs to be willing to even run.

October 04, 2008 11:34 AM  
Blogger Lisa Harney said...


Look, this law says if one "expresses" as a gender, then they can't discriminated against by treating them as another gender. Men could indeed take advantage of that. You've taken the authority away from owners of facilities, included gender segregated ones, over their own property.

Whether that will cause the problems cited is a matter of opinion and every voter knows that. We are all well aware that no one can predict the future.

It's not a lie to have a different opinion or prediction.

You and virtually every TTFer are shameless liars for not recognizing the difference.


This is so specious - an expressed opinion can in fact be a lie. For example, this one is a lie - these laws in other jurisdictions haven't caused these outcomes that CRW has been trying to foist on people as plausible.

Opinions are not unassailable - opinions can be wrong. Opinions can be criticized.

The future is not certain, but you can look at similar events and determine what likely outcomes there are. CRW's scaremongering is not a likely outcome from instituting the law.

And no, saying that this is probably happening and that the stories are hushed up to protect the gay community has no relationship with reality.

October 05, 2008 7:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"an expressed opinion can in fact be a lie"

no, it can't

redefinition of language is a common tactic of the gay agenda

"these laws in other jurisdictions haven't caused these outcomes that CRW has been trying to foist on people as plausible"

you don't know that

October 05, 2008 9:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" Troll:
What?
"an expressed opinion can in fact be a lie"

no, it can't

redefinition of language is a common tactic of the gay agenda"

You are so contradictory - you lie all the time and express your opinions here as if they were the words of the gods!
Of course, when you write your own "gay agenda" (a real one being nonexistent) it can say anything you want it to.
You are so full of horse-pucky!!

October 05, 2008 11:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Opinions are not unassailable - opinions can be wrong. Opinions can be criticized."

Absolutely, but that doesn't mean they are lies.

CRG hasn't lied to get the signatures of more than 5% of the registered voters in the county.

They did it by exposing a flaw in the bill.

"You are so contradictory - you lie all the time"

Could you give us one example?

"and express your opinions here as if they were the words of the gods!"

That's a pretty glowing review.

Tell me more about how wonderful my writing is.

October 06, 2008 5:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CRG hasn't lied to get the signatures of more than 5% of the registered voters in the county.

Yes they did. The name of their website is the lie they told, repeatedly, following GOP standard protocol: repeat the lie until people believe it. Bill 23-07 expressly does not apply to "accomondations which are distinctly private and personal." The CRG has continuously lied that this statement refers to privately owned clubs and the like but in fact it refers to bathrooms, lockerrooms, showerroom, places.

As has been reported, the President of the County Council and others have repeatedly explained:

"Nothing is any different than it was before," says Montgomery County Council President Mike Knapp. "People can feel safe and confident that they can walk into the restroom . Their safety is as protected as it ever was."

Knapp is fed up with a campaign that suggests that your safety is at risk in a public bathroom because the county enacted a new law that says you may not discriminate against someone based on his gender identity in employment, housing, cable TV, taxi service or public accomodations.

"Each individual facility still has the discretion, as it did before, to determine who and how the restrooms are used," Knapp says.

...Knapp says the [notmyshower] group has spread fear and misinformation.


Repeat your lie all you want, it didn't and won't help you. The good citizens of Montgomery County are happy to allow people to be free from discrimination in employment, housing, cable TV and taxi service, and public (not private or personal) accomodations regardless of their gender identity.

October 06, 2008 8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Knapp is lying.

His motive is obvious.

October 06, 2008 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"...You said: "Knapp is lying.
His motive is obvious."
That is soooo cryptic and mysterious and meaningless! Do you think you are cute by playing this game?
If you don't like Mr. Knapp (and we all know you don't), have the gonads (assuming you to be of the male gender) to be honest about it and tell us specifically what the problem is.

October 06, 2008 12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are Trolls known for their ability to determine other people's truthfulness? Ours seems to think he is. Or maybe he thinks people care.

Good entertainment, though.

rrjr

October 06, 2008 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you guys have never any problem calling anyone a liar, Robert

don't be a hypocrite

otherwise, Knapp will probably want to hire you

October 06, 2008 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can a law be "prevented from going into effect" when it is already in effect?

October 08, 2008 12:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just cannot for the life of me begin to understand how people can lie and lie and lie, and support false beliefs which encourage hatred, bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination if not misunderstanding in the very least, and yet you all have been caught in all of these lies repeatedly.

Over and over have all the CRG folks been called out on the table for your utter falsehood and distortion - yet still some of you - mostly always anons - still keep coming back for more.

It truly boggles the mind.

And, if your convictions are so strong, i will ask once again - and not one of you has ever answered this question -

instead of actually having the supposed strength of your supposed convictions, as given by no less than God himself to fearlessly express your so-called beliefs,
then why do all of you persist in hiding behind nothing but dark misleading unnamed shadows called "anonmymous" ?

If you have the guts to stand up for what you believe in - then stand up. Otherwise, shut up, or you are nothing but actual hypocrites.

Sincerely,


Maryanne

October 08, 2008 7:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's Thursday, October 9. I'm still waiting for the court to issue an injunction to stop the implementation of the amended Human Rights law in Montgomery County, as per the CRGs request. What happened?
CRG Mole

October 09, 2008 2:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home