Friday, August 21, 2009

Conflicting Stories About Incident at the Tastee Diner

It's not clear exactly what happened at the Tastee Diner recently. A pair of lesbians were ... doing something ... as they paid for their late-night meal and the manager of the place ... said something. They may have just been hugging and the manager told them to leave, or they may have been friskier than that and the manager asked them to cut it out.

Whatever happened, the result was a "kiss-in" at the diner Wednesday night, the couple has filed a complaint, and the diner has released security-camera footage that they say supports their side.

Here's how NBC News has it:
SILVER SPRING, Md. -- The lesbian couple that organized last night's sit-in demonstration at Tastee Diner has filed a complaint against the restaurant.

Meanwhile, the restaurant has released surveillance video they say backs up management's decision to ask them to leave for behaving inappropriately.

Aiyi-nah Ford and Torian Brown contend the restaurant's night manager improperly asked them to leave after showing innocent affection for each other near the cashier at about 2 a.m. Aug. 12. Last night, the couple and about 40 friends staged a polite sit-in at the diner in protest.

"They had their bodies pressed and rubbed up against one another, and at one point, one of their faces goes down in the other girl's breast, and we found that to be inappropriate," General Manager John Littleton said.

The diner released several minutes of surveillance video, which it contends shows the inappropriate behavior and justifies the night manager's decision.

"If you start touching each other and going beyond the point of kissing and things start to become a little bit X-rated, we're going to ask you to stop," said Lisa Wilkes, whose family owns three popular diners. "And if you don't stop, we're going to ask you to leave."

The diner is willing to sit down with the women to discuss the incident, Littleton said. The couple said they were embarrassed and have not been offered an apology.

They do not intend to eat at the restaurant again, but they have filed a complaint with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations. They said the commission has opened a preliminary investigation. Lesbians Tossed From Tastee File Complaint

I live in Rockville and don't make it over to Silver Spring as often as I'd like, but I am told that TTF met at the Tastee Diner once several years ago, or ate there after a meeting. I don't really remember it, but you know what they say, memory is the second thing to go. It's one of those local places where everybody goes, it's open all night, I've never heard anybody complain about it before.

Jennifer Deseo at the Silver Spring Penguin blog has the most thorough coverage of the situation. Jennifer, I hope you don't mind if I steal some of your text ... Readers, follow the link and look around that site, the Penguin news staff works around the clock to bring you the latest scoop from the streets of Silver Spring. There's always something interesting there.
It was a same-sex love fest at the Tastee Diner Wednesday night, as gay and lesbian couples protested what they claimed was the restaurant’s objection to public displays of affection.

About 50 people huddled in booths inside the Cameron Street diner, most of them chatting, few of them eating. The quasi sit-in was sparked by one couple’s recent late-night dispute with the manager, who told them to take the cuddling outside.

Ironically, neither the amorous lesbians nor the manager differed much in their retelling of that night’s events. But there is disagreement on the degree to which certain things went down.

About one week ago (or one month ago, if you ask the diner’s owner), Aiyi’nah Ford and Torian Brown ducked into the diner for some 2:00 a.m. nosh. They paid the bill and were at the diner’s main counter while waiting to give their server a tip.

Ford described her interaction with Brown (below) as an embrace, with her girlfriend sitting on a stool as she stood. But Lisa Wilkes, whose family owns the Tastee Diner, told The Penguin that the women were doing more than that. While she wasn’t there the night of the incident, Wilkes said surveillance video showed the couple in “rated R to X” action, with one woman placing her face in the other’s “breast area” more than once. Gay couples protest restaurant’s objection to PDA

The Penguin has interview video, the two women describing their version of the story. They say there was a heterosexual couple nearby engaging in behavior that was "much more extreme" than what the women were doing. When the manager said something, they assumed he was talking to the straight couple.

The blog continues.
Whatever. Back to what everyone agreed on.

Ford and Paul Terko, the diner’s graveyard-shift manager involved in the incident, both said a heterosexual couple got hot and heavy nearby. That’s when Terko said, “Can you all take that outside?” There was no response (Ford believed Terko was addressing the heterosexual couple), so he repeated his request.

“I turned around and looked at him, and my exact words were: Are you serious? It’s 2009,” Ford said (and Terko confirmed). “He said this is a family establishment, and people are trying to eat. As if what we were doing would sicken someone.”

But Terko said he just wanted them “to stop the contact,” which he described (below) as inappropriate for a restaurant setting. He did not ask the couple to leave. (Similarly, Ford and Brown gave no indication that they were told to get out.)

There is another video of the manager talking. He says "I just asked them to stop the contact, that's all I wanted them to do. They got up and said, 'Well, they're throwing the gays out' and out the door they went."

As far as I know, Tastee Diner is not apologizing, neither side is backing down. If they can demonstrate that they interrupt all public displays of affection equally, straight and gay, then everybody just needs to go to their room and catch their breath. If it's only against the rules for same-sex couples then it's time for some education at the diner.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

they can make any rules they want for their restaurant

if they say guys have to wear ties, they don't need to make a rule that girls have to wear ties

if they say that guys shouldn't be kissing guys, they don't have to say that guys shouldn't be kissing girls

if gays want to be tolerated in our society, they need to adhere to society's standards

we don't want passionate same-gender kissing in our restaurants

this may seem harsh but gays always need some restraint on their exhibitionist tendencies

to quote lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups:

"There shouldn’t be any blatant French kissing, or licking, or anything that appears crass or sloppy, nor should there be any removal of clothing, grinding, or groping."

August 21, 2009 11:53 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "they can make any rules they want for their restaurant".

No they can't, there are laws about what they can and cannot do.

Bad anonymous said "if they say that guys shouldn't be kissing guys, they don't have to say that guys shouldn't be kissing girls".

Whatever is apropriate for an opposite sex couple is appropriate for a same sex couple, anything else is discrimination and should be outlawed.

Bad anonymous said "if gays want to be tolerated in our society, they need to adhere to society's standards".

Gays are adhereing to society's standard - its acceptable to give your loved one a kiss in public and gays do that just like straights.

Bad anonymous said "we don't want passionate same-gender kissing in our restaurants".

If passionate kisses aren't accepted between heterosexuals, that's fine, if they are, then no double standard should be allowed.

The time when it was socially acceptable to deny gays the same rights straights have is rapidly disappearing. Just as blacks once staged a sit-in at lunch room counters in contravention of society's standards its the duty of gays to stand up to inequality and publicly kiss like their hetereosexaul counterparts in defiance of biogoted social "standards".

Bad anonymous, you are not in any position to talk about what YOU want in terms of "we". You don't speak for all of society, you are increasingly in the minority, most people accept that gays should be equals in all ways. You have no right to dictate what any life should be like other than your own.

August 21, 2009 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The time when it was socially acceptable to deny gays the same rights straights have is rapidly disappearing."

"rights" are granted by governments

gays have no right to be liked or to have their public displays of passion tolerated

discriminating patrons go to restaurants where they don't have to look at blatant French kissing, or licking, or anything that appears crass or sloppy, or any removal of clothing, grinding, or groping

August 21, 2009 1:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I was a teenager, my boyfriend and I were kissing in a restaurant and they asked us to stop. (girl and boy)

Guess what? We stopped.

We didn't complain.

We didn't hold a kiss in.

We didn't run to the State of Maryland for help.

Funny thing, eh?

August 21, 2009 1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

exhibitionism is a new "right" gays have discovered

August 21, 2009 2:05 PM  
Blogger The Silver Spring Penguin said...

The heterosexual couple displaying affection in the diner that night was asked to tone it down, according to the manager. (His statement is in the video.)

August 21, 2009 5:15 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

This is obviously a developing story -- thanks to you guys for staying on it!


August 21, 2009 5:22 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I thought rights were endowed by our creator.

August 21, 2009 6:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MINNEAPOLIS -Leaders of the nation's largest Lutheran church voted Friday to allow sexually active gays and lesbians in committed relationships to serve as clergy.

Gays and lesbians are currently allowed to serve as ministers in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America only if they remain celibate. The proposal to change that passed with 68 percent approval.

At 4.7 million members and about 10,000 congregations in the United States, the ELCA is one of the largest U.S. Christian denominations yet to take a more gay-friendly stance on clergy.

The final decision on whether to hire gay clergy in committed relationships will lie with individual congregations.

August 21, 2009 8:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some critics of the proposal have predicted its passage could cause individual congregations to split off from the ELCA, as has been the case with other Christian denominations, including the Episcopal Church.

The debate over the so-called "ministry recommendations" got under way first thing Friday, and delegate Al Quie, a former Republican governor of Minnesota, proposed an alternative: "Practicing homosexual persons are excluded from rostered leadership in this church."

The proposal, which would have left the church's policy more or less unchanged, failed. Conservatives had lost an important vote Wednesday night when the convention's 1,045 delegates approved by a two-thirds supermajority a "social statement on human sexuality" that said the ELCA could accommodate diverging views on homosexuality.

The Rev. Katrina Foster, a pastor in the Metropolitan New York Synod, pointed out that the church has ordained woman and divorced people in violation of a literal interpretation of scripture.

"We can learn not to define ourselves by negation," Foster said. "By not only saying what we are against, which always seems to be the same — against gay people. We should be against poverty. I wish we were as zealous about that."

August 21, 2009 8:20 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

"gays have no right to be liked"

No one mentioned the "right to be liked", this is a common distraction tactic, where you make up a position the opposition doesn't have and then criticize it.

"or to have their public displays of passion tolerated"

they should be tolerated as much as opposite sex couples are tolerated. Contrary to your small minded thinking, G-rated activity is still G-rated, even when it's two women or two men. A hug is G-rated, no matter who is giving it, and who is receiving it.

"discriminating patrons go to restaurants where they don't have to look at blatant French kissing, or licking, or anything that appears crass or sloppy, or any removal of clothing, grinding, or groping"

None of which is part of this story, so far. Again, you are inventing things so you can attack them as if we are promoting your imaginary examples.

We do not fully know the story. If the couple was behaving in a way that would be x-rated for straights, then yes, they were in the wrong. But that hasn't been made clear yet.

I find it peculiar that a simple hug is considered exhibitionism. You must have a very tame, sheltered life if hugs are risque.

August 22, 2009 12:54 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Silver Spring Penguin's Jenifer has posted the video from inside the diner (keep scrolling down into the comment section to find it). Everybody can see for themselves what both couples did during the 5 minute clip.

August 22, 2009 8:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" (our relentless "bad anonymous" differentiate him from other Anonymous posters here):

Blah, blah, blah, blah (take a quick breath), blah, blah, blah. Blah, Blah...You, the font of wisdom and truth on everything, need to start your own Blog site where you can prate and prattle and preen about anything and everything to your heart's content. And have an adoring fan club, too - imagine that? I know you would love that! Messrs. Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al. are probably quivering in their boots at that prospect!
Save the world someplace else!

August 22, 2009 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I went to the Arlington Fair today. AGLA was there, as was PFOX, but I didn't see PFLAG. I stopped by the PFOX table and had a nice discussion with the folks there about math and Latin. I picked up some flyers, and didn't see anything I hadn't seen before, except for a flyer by Richard Cohen about his group. I thought PFOX had separated themselves from him.

My copy of Kevin Roose's The Unlikely Disciple, a book about a more-or-less secular student's experiences at Liberty University. I'll see how he does.


August 22, 2009 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I watched the video of the Tastee Diner. I didn't see anyone's head in anyone's cleavage. I saw someone put her tired head on her partner's neck. Maybe I'm naive.

August 22, 2009 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this all so juvenile

the restaurant manager asked these two to stop their behavior or leave

the proper response was to do one or the other

not look around and say "they did it too"

homosexuality can be tolerated if done in private

in public places, we don't want to see it

practice discretion

August 22, 2009 3:11 PM  
Anonymous citizen's font of wisdom said...

Barack Obama has seen his approval rating drop to its lowest point during his eight months in office, reflecting the brutal political battle over health care. Worse news for Democrats in Congress came on Thursday from the well-respected Cook Political Report. It predicted a net Democratic loss in the House and Senate of "between six and 12 seats" in the 2010 elections.
In fact, the report's founder and "indispensable" National Journal columnist, Charlie Cook, projects the Democratic losses look much bigger to him: "The situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and congressional Democrats." Although the president's party almost always loses some midterm election seats, the political guru writes in a special commentary that a loss of as many as 20 Democratic seats does not seem unreasonable.

August 22, 2009 3:30 PM  
Anonymous citizen's font of wisdom said...

"WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is challenging his critics on a national health care overhaul, accusing them of making "phony claims" about the legislation.

"This is an issue of vital concern to every American, and I'm glad that so many are engaged," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.

"But it also should be an honest debate, not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions"

Sure, Barry, let's have an honest debate.

Let's start with the fact that you say this will cost us nothing.

That's not true.

It's a willful misrepresentation and outright distortion.

Insurance companies will be forced to cover everyone regardless of whether they are in need of treatment in excess of their premiums.

Who's going to pay for that?

Currently, insurance companies have about a 2% profit margin.

They'll have to raise their rates.

They have this law in Maine and rates are 3-4 times as high as New hampshire.

We're the ones who pay those higher rates.

Of course, if you're poor you won't pay the higher rates, the government will subsidize you.

Then, raise taxes.

The CBO is estimating this will be about a trillion dollars.

We're the ones who will pay those taxes.

Of course, there's all those people who don't have insurance who will now be forced to- or get a big penalty.

That will raise a bunch of money.

On the backs of those who are supposedly the beneficiaries here.

Problem is, legal experts are now saying that the requirement to purchase health insurance will be unconstitutional and likely overturned by the Supreme Court.

Barry, while we're having this honest debate, how about what Sen. Kent Conrad, your boy on the Senate Finance Committee says:

"anyone who thinks the House bill would pass the U.S. Senate, is mistaken"

August 22, 2009 5:26 PM  
Anonymous citizen's font of wisdom said...

also, Barry, honestly, about those death panels

yes, Sarah was exaggerating a bit but she did a service by bringing the whole issue up because there are some pro-life issues here

"We have to tell the defenders of the notorious Section 1233 of H.R. 3200 that it is not quite as benign as they pretend. To offer government reimbursement to any doctor who gives end-of-life counseling -- whether or not the patient asked for it -- is to create an incentive for such a chat.

What do you think such a chat would be like?

Do you think the doctor will go on and on about the fantastic new million-dollar high-tech gizmo that can prolong the patient's otherwise hopeless condition for another six months?

Or do you think he's going to talk about -- as the bill specifically spells out -- hospice care and palliative care and other ways of letting go of life?

Why get Medicare to pay the doctor to do the counseling?

Because we know that if this white-coated authority whose chosen vocation is curing and healing is the one opening your mind to hospice and palliative care, we've nudged you ever so slightly toward letting go.

Oh, it's not a death panel. But it is subtle pressure applied by society through your doctor.

And when you include it in a health-care reform whose major objective is to bend the cost curve downward, you have to be a fool or a knave to deny that it's intended to gently point the patient in a certain direction, toward the corner of the sickroom where stands a ghostly figure, scythe in hand, offering release."

Are you a fool, Barry?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

August 22, 2009 5:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea not anon
I watched the video. From what I saw, the women could have been friends or relatives. Not that anyone would mistake my daughter and me for anything but mom and daughter(I'm pretty sure)- but she is an adult. She has been known to drape herself over me and kiss me on the hair a number of times. So is that offensive behavior?

Separately, gosh, have I said this week what a fool anon is?? A living will is an important document- so that you make the decisions about what you want done -so your family knows and the hospital knows- and no one is taking away medication or food nor is anyone pulling the plug- you say what you want. If you want every life saving measure- but don't have a living will and are not able to tell anyone at that point- your family can make that decision- and it may not be what you wanted.

Finally- Anon, you sad sad thing, It is President Barack Hussein Obama to you.

August 22, 2009 7:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea -- Not sure why you brought up a living will, but yes, a living will is a good thing IF you want a living will. If you don't want a living will, then a living will is not a good thing. Some people like to be in control, while others could care less.

August 22, 2009 10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really, Andrea?

Obama just wants the doctors to talk to you about putting in place a living will and other such instruments.


Then consider the actual efficacy of a living will. When you are old, infirm and lying in the ICU with pseudomonas pneumonia and deciding whether to (a) go through the long antibiotic treatment or (b) allow what used to be called "the old man's friend" to take you away, the doctor will ask you at that time what you want for yourself -- no matter what piece of paper you signed five years earlier.

You are told constantly how very important it is to write your living will years in advance. But the relevant question is what you desire at the end -- when facing death -- not what you felt sometime in the past when you were hale and hearty and sitting in your lawyer's office barely able to contemplate a life of pain and diminishment.

Well, as pain and diminishment enter your life as you age, your calculations change and your tolerance for suffering increases. In the ICU, you might have a new way of looking at things.

A living will is more a literary than a legal document, basically says: "I've had some good innings, thank you. If I have anything so much as a hangnail, pull the plug." It shouldn't be taken terribly seriously because unless you're comatose or demented, they're going to ask you at the time whether or not you want to be resuscitated if you go into cardiac arrest. The paper you signed years ago will mean nothing.

And if you're totally out of it, your family will decide, with little or no reference to your living will. Why? I'll give you an example. When my father was dying, my mother and brother and I had to decide how much treatment to pursue. What was a better way to ascertain my father's wishes: What he checked off on a form one fine summer's day years before being stricken; or what we, who had known him intimately for decades, thought he would want? The answer is obvious.

Except for the demented orphan, the living will is quite beside the point. The one time it really is essential is if you think your fractious family will be only too happy to hasten your demise to get your money. That's what the law is good at -- protecting you from murder and theft. But that is a far cry from assuring a peaceful and willed death, which is what most people imagine living wills are about.

August 22, 2009 11:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you sad sad thing, It is President Barack Hussein Obama to you"

When Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) left the Republican Party in April to become a Democrat, the situation for the Grand Old Party was so dismal that even one of Washington's most vocal Republican bashers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), declared that "our country needs a strong, diverse Republican Party."

But after looking as if they would drift into irrelevance, Republicans are showing signs of being energized.

The party's grass-roots activists, at times moribund during last year's presidential campaign, have mobilized against President Obama's agenda, vastly outnumbering Democrats at some of this month's health-care town hall meetings.

After badly trailing the campaign of then-Sen. Barack Obama in raising money last year, the Republican National Committee has raised more than the Democratic National Committee this year, figures released last week show.

Ahead of next year's elections, several potentially strong GOP candidates, including popular Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, have decided to run for seats in the Senate.

In this year's gubernatorial races, polls show the GOP candidates ahead in both New Jersey and Virginia.

What has emerged in the last few months is a more confident GOP. Republicans, who earlier this year thought they could not block a Democratic health-care reform bill and should focus on simply stopping one of its more liberal components -- a government-run insurance option -- have set their sights on forcing the president to dramatically scale back his proposal."

August 22, 2009 11:13 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Newly married Charlie Crist.

August 23, 2009 8:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Robert- did Charlie Crist get married again but I guess his "marriage" is a somewhat new marriage.I guess it makes a good pretense for the GOP. Since their "family values" people cheat on their wives in any number of ways, being married to a woman makes you a GOPer in good standing- being a single gay man- I don't think so. As we know with the GOP everything is ok no matter how often you cheat and hurt your own family- and you are still maintaining their version of FAMILY VALUES- as long as it doesn't involve a dead girl or a live boy- or as long as you aren't a Democrat.

August 23, 2009 2:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

has Charlie Crist suggested criminalizing adultery, divorce or remarriage?

if not, your personal attacks are gratuitous

as the country is finding out, there is more to Republicanism than just opposing murdering unborn children, fighting against rationing health care for the elderly and defending the definition of marriage

they do support those moral issues

but they also oppose socialism

the government has taken our tax money and aquired 60% of GM, more than 20% of AIG and Citicorp, and 7% of Chrysler

oh, we had to invest in those companies for the sake of the greater economy

but if Obama wasn't socialist, he'd support distributing those shares evenly to the 200 million Amricans who paid taxes last year

Republicans have introduced legislation to do that and the Democrats have voted it down


because the acquistions are part of an agenda to socialize America

can anyone think of any other reason?

August 23, 2009 5:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"because the acquistions are part of an agenda to socialize America"

Do you have a point? Maybe there is something bad about socialism that you would like to explain to the rest of us, something bad about a government actually governing. The pinnacle of Republican leadership was Katrina, that's what you can expect under a Republican regime, powerful positions go to incompetent cronies who are praised for doing a heckuva job and the citizens are left to drown in their attics with no rescue in sight.

August 23, 2009 5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Maybe there is something bad about socialism that you would like to explain to the rest of us,"

Yes, it is detrimental to freedom, innovation and general societal advancement.

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

"something bad about a government actually governing"

the above doesn't meet the definition of "governance"

"The pinnacle of Republican leadership was Katrina,"

Republicans have been in power for much of the last 40 years. Katrina wasn't the only disaster.

It was unique in its severity however and there's no reason to think a Democrat would have handled it better

Obama's appointments really haven't been that stellar

August 23, 2009 6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is nothing about socialism that is detrimental to freedom, you're just blowing smoke. People in socialist-leaning countries such as the Netherlands and France have just as much freedom as we have.

And Katrina was exactly the fruition of the conservative dogma of the Republican Party. You want smaller government, there's what you get, the destruction of a major American city while the President jokes around. A Democratic president would have had someone competent in charge, and would have taken a leadership role himself, like maybe what Al Gore did in the aftermath of Katrina, rescuing people himself and flying them out of there.

August 23, 2009 8:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is nothing about socialism that is detrimental to freedom, you're just blowing smoke."

Other than the fact that you're not free, no.

Perfect example is the healthcare bill. You'll be required to purchase health insurance whether you want it or not- or pay a huge fine.

Is that freedom?

"People in socialist-leaning countries such as the Netherlands and France have just as much freedom as we have."

Actually, France like many Western European countries is moving our way- or, at least, our way before January 2009. Sarkozy resisted Obama's pressure to enact a stimulus bill and France has pulled out of recession before us. Sarkozy, after meeting Obama, famously said "Isn't he weak?"

btw, Obama is saying his stimulus bill is responsible for the improvement in the economy.

How can that be when 85% of it hasn't yet been spent?

The socialist response was obviously misguided and unnecessary.

Free in France? Unless you want to wear a chardor or cross to class.

"And Katrina was exactly the fruition of the conservative dogma of the Republican Party. You want smaller government, there's what you get, the destruction of a major American city while the President jokes around. A Democratic president would have had someone competent in charge, and would have taken a leadership role himself, like maybe what Al Gore did in the aftermath of Katrina, rescuing people himself and flying them out of there."

This is BS.

Major American city? If it was such a wonderful place why did so many of the displaced choose not to return? The touristy parts weren't that damaged. The rest of the city was a nightmare before Katrina.

The catastrophe was unprecedented.
There were several other hurricanes during Bush's term. What was unique in New Orleans was the incompentent Democrat city government.

August 23, 2009 8:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Socialism also becomes extremely dangerous once the wrong leader steps in. If all of the socialist mechanisms are in place, it becomes very easy for a brutal dictator to take charge.

Remember that the definition of communism is simply socialism by revolution.

Also, remember this quote by Ronald Reagan:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

August 23, 2009 11:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the most deceitful things about Obama being a socialist is that he won't admit he's a socialist. Had he admitted that he was a socialist, and came clean with the socialist policies he wanted to implement, at least we could have then had a rational discussion in this country about whether we wanted socialism.

Then, if the majority of people felt that we should be socialists, we could have looked at other socialist candidates to see which socialist suited us the best.

August 23, 2009 11:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, it's nice and easy calling names, but you don't have a case. Calling him a "socialist" is just like calling him a "Muslim" or saying he's not a natural-born American. The more idiots like you blather on, the more intelligent people realize they don't want to be like you.

August 23, 2009 11:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, okay. He's not a socialist. He's just someone who wants to completely implement socialist policies.

August 24, 2009 12:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Calling him a "socialist" is just like calling him a "Muslim""

oh yeah

it's just like that

other than the fact that it's true

August 24, 2009 6:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, he implements different policies from the idiots who preceded him, and I get it, you don't like that. But he's not going to infringe anybody's freedoms -- which the previous idiots demonstrably did. Can you imagine if somebody had tried to carry a loaded gun to a Bush speech? Nobody's freedom is in any danger here, you're just mad because your side lost, so you're calling any name you can think of.

August 24, 2009 6:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, you're just mad because we're not all skipping down the lane whistling "Feelin' Groovy"

the liberal argument has now become:

"he was elected so you have to go along with anything he says"

Democrats are discovering that even with the Presidency and veto-proof majorities in Congress, they still have to listen to their constituents

and, unfortunately for them, America is not socialist

we will hold them accountable in 2010 and 2012

realizing that belatedly, Democrats are now scrambling to find policies and proposals that acknowledge that

one has to pity the poor hapless Democrat nominee for Virginia governor

thought he could score some points by attacking his opponent's pro-life record

he must not have read the most recent Gallup poll that 51% of Americans describe themselves as pro-life and only 42% are pro-choice

and that's in all of America

Virginia is much more pro-life

despite the media hype and misinterpretation of the 2008 election results, America's views have remained pro-family, pro-freedom and pro-prosperity

in the fall of 2012, Barack Obama will be on TV debating Sarah Palin, an individual with more executive experience than Obama had when he was elected

she's a tough cookie and won't let him weasel out of his socialist record


August 24, 2009 7:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting. "Fascist" didn't stick because it applied too well to the Bush doctrines of government-corporate collusion trampling on individual rights, nationalism and international belligerence, and doesn't apply at all to the liberal policies of corporate regulation, personal liberty, and international diplomacy of the current administration.

So where last week we were drawing Hitleresque mustaches on Obama's picture and calling him a "fascist," this week the talking point is that he's a "socialist."

Anon, I know this will work with the same handful of people who supported Bush till the end, the Palin voters. It would be naive to overestimate the public's intelligence and critical-thinking abilities. But people know empty name-calling when they hear it.

Do I hear "Obama's a communist" in the future? Come on, let's bet on it.

August 24, 2009 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you might have missed the campaign last fall

far from being the issu-of-the-week, the socialist proposals of Obama were discussed and his socialist policies have been discussed with regularity

ever hear of Joe the Plumber?

do you read the newspaper?

August 24, 2009 8:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're kidding me! You're quoting Joe the Plumber?

August 24, 2009 9:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

typical line of argument among socialists

personal attack on some innocent individual without any substantive comment

they built a caricature in the media and then simply denounce anything the individual says summarily

Ann Coulter...Bill O'Reilly...Sarah Palin...Newt Gingrich

all very intelligent individuals with clear and consistent vision

liberals can't defeat their arguments so the simply dismiss them and act like everyone agrees

it's a tactic getting old

America's catching on

I was noting that the socialist agenda of Obama has been regularly discussed since Joe the Plumber brought it up

as far as I know, the guy has said nothing that would disqualify him from the national debate

if you have other information, let us know

August 24, 2009 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll tell you what, I sincerely hope the Republicans run Joe the Plumber for president in the next election! I would love that! Go for it, please.

And yes, Anon, you got something right -- there is a terrible tendency among liberals to disregard the utterances of stupid people, I admit it.

Go With Joe! Go With Joe! Go With Joe!

August 24, 2009 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe the Plumber knows as much about socialism as I know about plumbing. Get in touch with me if you have a leaky faucet or a toilet that is running over!

August 24, 2009 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Well I see Anon has spent a couple of days spinning lies to scare people about the healthcare bill and making personal attacks on Vigilance commenters who support it. What else can she do? The GOP is irrelevant these days so all they can do is squawk. When Democrats were in the minority, they complained about Bush's policies too, especially those that were approved by the GOP without one iota of input from the Democrats. Of course with Obama being a truly bipartisan leader, unlike Bush who only paid brief lip service to it, we are all waiting to see what the Gang of Six comes up with.

The Gang of Six is perfectly bipartisan -- 50-50 from both parties, unlike any panel ever put together by GOP Congressional leaders from 2000-2006. We all remember that Democrats were not even allowed to attend reconciliation sessions during those dark years of absolute GOP rule.

Unless the Gang of Six can work something out that is agreeable to both sides, the Democrats will do what's needed without GOP input. The New York Times reported yesterday and Senator Shumer made it clear on Meet the Press that Senate Democrats are considering passing a public option with a simple 51 majority vote because the Max Baucus' Gang of Six is expected to fail to find a compromise.

" was “looking less and less likely” that Republicans would support Democratic proposals to subsidize coverage for tens of millions of the uninsured. And Senate Democratic leaders said they had little hope that the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, would be able to forge a bipartisan compromise.

In the last week, Democrats have begun to talk openly of using a procedure known as budget reconciliation to pass a health bill in the Senate with a simple majority, assuming no Republican support. .."

[because] ...Mr. Hatch said, “every Republican says that they will not be for a public option.”

The GOP minority can keep screaming NO PUBLIC OPTION, KEEP INSURANCE PREMIUMS HIGH, JUST LIKE OUR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS, THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, LIKE THEM. They'll be just as effective as the birthers have been with all their lawsuits -- all have been dismissed.

Thank goodness the Democrats are serious about the reform we need.

August 24, 2009 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Joe the Plumber says:

"Why hasn't he [Senator Chris Dodd] been strung up?"

"Let me start off by saying that I don’t advocate the violence, however, that being said, Congress has been lying to us for years. They take advantage of us, they manipulate us, and years ago people like that would’ve been taken behind the woodshed and slapped upside the head a couple times. I’m not telling people to go out and do that and I don’t advocate that if we can make our point through facts."

I hope he isn't talking about "facts" like these because these two are about as far from facts as you can get:

"They [the Founding Fathers] knew socialism doesn't work. They knew communism doesn't work."

I'm with Meghan McCain on this one. Meghan McCain: "Joe the Plumber -- You Can Quote Me -- Is A Dumbass. He should stick to plumbing. "

August 24, 2009 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The GOP is irrelevant these days"


polls show their objections about the healthcare bill have convinced most Americans

on the face of it, that sounds relevant

"Unless the Gang of Six can work something out that is agreeable to both sides, the Democrats will do what's needed without GOP input."

Well, the Gang of Six has made ti clear that the House Democrats' bill won't pass the Senate.

Democrats don't have the votes.


August 24, 2009 11:10 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Poor baby Anon. Quote all the polls you want. We realize they're the flotsam that keeps your mouth above water as you spin around the drain.

The only poll that will count will be taken in Congress when they vote to approve the healthcare bill with a public option.

August 24, 2009 11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, the poll in November 2010 is the one that counts

that's why your friends in Congress are so scared

August 24, 2009 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Oh brother, Anon.

My "friends in Congress" like Senator Schumer are going to forge ahead and pass healthcare reform with or without your "friends in Congress," whose only mantras these days are:




My "friends in Congress" have written a bill that reforms healthcare and provides health insurance coverage for every American regardless of preexisting condition, illness, or employment status. Your "friends in Congress" have refused to produce their preferred version of this bill for discussion, comparison and vote. Why? Because THE GOP LIKES THE STATUS QUO with nearly 50 million uninsured Americans and highly compensated healthcare CEOs.

It's pretty obvious your "friends in Congress" are not only scared, but bereft of ideas other than JUST SAY NO while my "friends in Congress" are displaying the leadership necessary to bring another change Americans overwhelmingly voted for last fall.

Yes we can!

Yes we will!

August 25, 2009 9:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 25, 2009 10:44 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home