Friday, October 22, 2010

The President Speaks: It Gets Better

President Obama has contributed to Dan Savage's It Gets Better campaign with a video of his own. Watch it HERE. Here's what he said:
Like all of you, I was shocked and saddened by the deaths of several young people who were bullied and taunted for being gay, and who ultimately took their own lives. As a parent of two daughters, it breaks my heart. It’s something that just shouldn’t happen in this country.

We’ve got to dispel the myth that bullying is just a normal rite of passage—that it’s some inevitable part of growing up. It’s not. We have an obligation to ensure that our schools are safe for all of our kids. And to every young person out there you need to know that if you’re in trouble, there are caring adults who can help.

I don’t know what it’s like to be picked on for being gay. But I do know what it’s like to grow up feeling that sometimes you don’t belong. It’s tough. And for a lot of kids, the sense of being alone or apart—I know can just wear on you. And when you’re teased or bullied, it can seem like somehow you brought it on yourself—for being different, or for not fitting in with everybody else.

But what I want to say is this. You are not alone. You didn’t do anything wrong. You didn’t do anything to deserve being bullied. And there is a whole world waiting for you, filled with possibilities. There are people out there who love you and care about you just the way you are. And so, if you ever feel like because of bullying, because of what people are saying, that you’re getting down on yourself, you’ve got to make sure to reach out to people you trust. Whether it’s your parents, teachers, folks that you know care about you just the way you are. You’ve got to reach out to them, don’t feel like you’re in this by yourself.

The other thing you need to know is, things will get better. And more than that, with time you’re going to see that your differences are a source of pride and a source of strength. You’ll look back on the struggles you’ve faced with compassion and wisdom. And that’s not just going to serve you, but it will help you get involved and make this country a better place.

It will mean that you’ll be more likely to help fight discrimination—not just against LGBT Americans, but discrimination in all its forms. It means you’ll be more likely to understand personally and deeply why it’s so important that as adults we set an example in our own lives and that we treat everybody with respect. That we are able to see the world through other people’s eyes and stand in their shoes—that we never lose sight of what binds us together.

As a nation we’re founded on the belief that all of us are equal and each of us deserves the freedom to pursue our own version of happiness; to make the most of our talents; to speak our minds; to not fit in; most of all, to be true to ourselves. That’s the freedom that enriches all of us. That’s what America is all about.

And every day, it gets better.

44 Comments:

Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anons,

Care to comment? Do you agree with what the President said? If not, why not?

October 22, 2010 8:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one should be bullied. It is mean and probably morally wrong.
Agreed. But do you make this a crime ? Or is this big govt gone nuts ? How do you keep kids (esp. young kids) from bullying anyone ? Tough problem.

But if we are going to teach anti-bullying for gays, why not teach it for fat people, black people, nerd, geeks etc. And is it bullying to declare a winner in kids soccer games ? So maybe we shouldn't keep score (hint, the kids will keep score on their own).
At some point, like teaching pre-schoolers that they might be gay, or having awards for everyone because you don't want anyone to feel bad, you have gone WAY WAY too far. It is under the guise of anti-bullying that diversity classes for first graders like the one in Montana was introduced.

David, do you consider the firing of Juan Williams bullying by NPR ?
Because I do.

And if a group of 8 dressed in Muslim garb entered the plane you were flying on, in all honesty, would that make you nervous ...

I got a new bumpersticker for my car today "Obama, why stupid people shouldn't vote". Does that make me a bully ? Do you think that the govt should be able to make me take the sticker off under anti-bullying laws ? Or do I have a right to free speech too even if it is unpopular.....

October 23, 2010 10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Do you think that the govt should be able to make me take the sticker off under anti-bullying laws ?"

Do you think if you were thrown out of a open-to-the-public political event because of that bumper sticker on your car, you would have been bullied?

October 23, 2010 11:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

not bullied, but it would be a violation of my free speech rights. if an event is advertised, as "open to the public" it should be just that. Not open to the public who agrees with you.

the bush stickers were definitely worse than my sticker.

on the other hand, if one is being disruptive and interrupting the speaker, of course they should be thrown out.

October 23, 2010 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

OK, so Obama isn't entirely bad. But is discharging lgbt service members bullying? Is forcing people to live in the closet?

October 24, 2010 7:31 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon writes:

"No one should be bullied. It is mean and probably morally wrong."

"Propably" morally wrong? So you think there is a possibity that it is morally ok, or neutral? What is your compass for determining what is moral?

And the President did not say anything about making bullying a crime. The is the typical kind of straw man that people set up when they are trying to avoid dealing with a disturbing issue.

If you want to define bullying as any improper behavior toward others, then you can certainly create a slippery slope. But I think it fair to define bullying as gratuitously attacking people, either physically or emotionally, in ways designed to cause anguish and harm.

As for Juan Williams, there is certainly no bullying there. When I saw the whole clip, I did not see that as a firing offense, even in the context of NPR's policy that its analysts should not be presenting their personal political opinions on air. Nor do I believe that that should have been the last straw for NPR -- even though there may have been many other straws. While I understand the counterargument that when people with big megaphones say what he said at the beginning of the exchange, then others take cues -- specifically, that the statement is a valid one -- I think that here Williams was admitting his own shortcoming, and then trying to explain why it is a shortcoming.

As for your bumper sticker, it is not bullying. It says far more about you than it does about President Obama. Of course, if I were to consider putting a bumper sticker on my car with such language, I would substitute a different first word -- actually, I could substitute a lot of differnt first words. But I would never consider doing that because it does nothing than to degrade the public discourse.

October 24, 2010 11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But is discharging lgbt service members bullying? Is forcing people to live in the closet?"

Robert, what you don't seem to understand is that putting LBGT members in close quarters with non LBGT members you are disregarding the rights of the non LBGT members.

You tromp on one groups rights to give full rights to the other.

These folks live in close quarters with each other. So if you make it okay to come out of the closet, and they all bunking and showering together, are you also going to have a policy on, well, it's okay to come out of the closet, but the guy next you needs to be perfectly okay with you eyeing him while you are both showering ....

you are going to say that won't happen... okay, what if it does ..

I know if I were showering with guys I would look ! I wouldn't be able to resist. And you are telling me that a group of guys showering with girls wouldn't look ?
Of course they would. So it would be expected for a gay guy showering with guys to look.

Okay, so if looking is okay, is coming on to the other guys okay ? Where do you draw the line ?

October 24, 2010 12:36 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

Anon, are you saying that coming out means "eyeing" people in the shower? How does that work?

It is weird and interesting that you think soldiers would rather not know if the guy they're fighting with is gay or straight. Your position does not make you appear more intelligent.

Merle

October 24, 2010 1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"
"putting LBGT members in close quarters with non LBGT members you are disregarding the rights of the non LBGT members." Rights? And what what rights would those be?

Would you make the same argument about separating Christians from Jews, or believers from non-believers, or Blacks from Whites in any public arena? After all, isn't "forcing" Christians to associate with heathens and non-believers a violation of their "rights"?

We all would be interested in knowing just how many instances of a gay guy coming on to another guy in the shower you can cite for your ridiculous emotional and revealing suggestion.

GLBT folks do not enlist in the armed services to ogle or to come on to their compatriots. To make such ludicrous statements tells us more about your own insecurities as anything else you have said on this blog site.

If I were you, I'd be more concerned about consorting with the felons and the rapists and the other "upright citizens" who enlist these days in our military. You are more likely to have your "rights" violated by these folks.

Get real. Most guys who believe and make such assertions that they are in any way attractive to GLBT service members are more likely mortified by the possibility that anyone else would seriously consider looking at their itsy-bitsy, teeny weenies under any circumstances, much less "come on to them"...so forget about your own fantasies once in a while.

Meanwhile...get a life!

October 24, 2010 1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the lunatic fringe gay advocates have found new depths of immaturity and incivility as a way to respond to other anon

her point, however, is perfectly valid

an accepted convention in our society is that we avoid putting people in closer quarters if there is a potential sexual component to their relationship, even if there is a good possibility it won't be realized

for example, men and women generally don't bunk and shower together

by the same reasoning, straights and homosexuals of the same gender should be segregated

why should we make another change to accomodate those who like to rub themselves on people of their own gender?

it would probably be easier to exclude open homosexuals form military service all together

for the life of me, I can't figure out why gays would object to this

war is hell

what sane person is dying to participate?

if you have some loophole to exploit and get out if it, take it and find another way to contribute

go ask Klinger

October 24, 2010 5:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

agreed other anon. If you were to put Jim in a room full of naked women could he, based on the perception of improprietry, avoid a physical reaction.

Jim ? you have posted here about naked teenage women before... your thoughts ? Given a room full of girls gone wild teenagers, naked, in the shower with you, there would be no perceived physical reaction ? you have this much control.....

And if we are to believe the gay movement, they are absolutely attracted to the same sex. So in a shower full of them, all naked, they could someone restrain what we heterosexuals can't ?

And the impact on those men and the other men of such a reaction...

Alternatively, you can believe that they can control their reaction.


thus, it was always a matter of choice.

I am going back to my yard work before the sun completely disappears.

I know it is difficult, but please argue the point and restrain from personal insults.

October 24, 2010 5:57 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, it seems you have never been to a nude or topless beach. The thrill wears off after about a minute.

And remember, DADT doesn't suddenly allow gays and lesbians into the military. They're there now. What it does is allows them to be honest about who they are. You're not against honesty, are you?

JimK

October 24, 2010 6:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And of course, "Anonymous" (are you the "he" or the "she" Anonymous"? Perhaps you are a husband and wife team?) the reason why GLBT folks enlist in the military is precisely because they want the military to "accomodate those who like to rub themselves on people of their own gender"

What kind of foolish talk is that? And you talk about "new depths of immaturity and incivility"? It seems like you have no compunctions
about hurling your own insults over and over in this site. You seem to get such pleasure in hurling insults against the thousands of GLBT who have served this nation in the military with honor and decency and respect for others.

"we avoid putting people in closer quarters if there is a potential sexual component to their relationship...straights and homosexuals of the same gender should be segregated."

I assume that you would advocate closing all health spas and gyms? Or segregating (your word) all beaches (I believe the folks at Ocean City or Rehoboth might have something to say about that, not to mention the legal authorities who enforce the laws against segregation) because heterosexuals are so afraid of homosexuals?

"So in a shower full of them (sic), all naked, they could someone (huh?) restrain what we heterosexuals can't ?"
Answer: YES

October 25, 2010 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You seem to get such pleasure in hurling insults against the thousands of GLBT who have served this nation in the military with honor and decency and respect for others."

I don't think it's an insult to take them at their word when they say they have certain desires.

I didn't judge the desire.

Saying my description, which is accurate, represents an insult, as you have done, would actually seem to be an insult.

"I assume that you would advocate closing all health spas and gyms?"

Spas and gymns are private institutions. They can devise their own policies. I think it's common knowledge that male homosexuals like to hang around gyms to gawk at the guys working out. If they are too blatant and the gym decides to respond to the objectification by throwing the offenders out, I see no problem with that. And if they decide to make a blanket policy concerning homosexuals that's fine too.

But, again, I don't see that the government has any place in the whole thing.

Interestingly, the AIDS epidemic in America was incubated in gyms frequented by gays in NY and SF.

"Or segregating (your word) all beaches"

it's not a matter of national security like military life is

"heterosexuals are so afraid of homosexuals?"

don't get taken in by your own propaganda

heterosexuals don't fear gays so much as dislike homosexuality

October 25, 2010 11:30 AM  
Anonymous glimmering said...

here it comes

here it comes

here comes your 19th nervous breakdown:

"Just over a week before Election Day, signs of widespread Republican enthusiasm are apparent in the early-voter data, including in some places with highly competitive statewide races.

POLITICO surveyed early voting through Saturday in 20 states, and in 14 of the 15 that have voter registration by party, the GOP's early turnout percentage is running ahead of the party's share of statewide voter registration — whether measured against 2006 or 2008, when President Barack Obama's campaign led to a surge in Democratic voter registration. As a result, Republicans say they're turning the tables on the Democratic dominance of early voting that paved the way for Obama's victory in 2008 — and that independents' lean toward the GOP this year will do the rest."

October 25, 2010 12:12 PM  
Anonymous shove it, Barry said...

Rhode Lsland Democratic gubernatorial candidate Frank Caprio doesn't want the endorsement of Barack Obama.

"He can take his endorsement and really shove it", Caprio told John Depetro and the WPRO morning news. Caprio told WPRO he would not seek the President's endorsement.

"We had one of the worst floods in the history of the United States a few months back and President Obama didn't even do a fly over of Rhode Island. He ignored us and now he's coming into Rhode Island and treating us like an ATM machine", said Caprio.

October 25, 2010 1:53 PM  
Anonymous your 19th nervous breakdown said...

"Until not long ago, the only people who took seriously the notion that Palin would make a White House bid in 2012, let alone win the Republican nomination, were those who huff pixie dust. When Palin quit the Alaska governorship in 2009, her political career seemed over. And even after she resurrected herself, emerging through her media ubiquity and her aggressive endorsement strategy as arguably the most powerful figure in the GOP, much of the political world believed that she was animated by non-presidential motives. To further pad her bank account. To redeem her reputation. To turn herself into the party’s preeminent kingmaker. Or possibly all three.

But today the conventional wisdom about Palin is being revised again, nowhere more so than within the ranks of professional Republicans. Among senior strategists and operatives there is a growing consensus that Palin is setting herself up to run. All agree that her entry would radically and fundamentally transform the race. Most say that if she steps into the fray, she stands a reasonable chance of claiming the Republican prize and may already be the de facto front-runner.

For many Republicans, a Palin nomination would be a shrieking nightmare just as for most Democrats, it would be a wet dream. Asked about the possibility by reporters, David Plouffe, Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, quipped, "Something tells me we won’t get that lucky." The emotions here are diametrically opposed but based on a shared conviction: that Palin, whose national approval rating in a CBS News poll this month stood at 22 percent, is irredeemably unelectable, and thus her nomination would essentially guarantee Obama a second term.

Or would it? In a two-way contest, almost maybe. But what if a Palin nomination provoked a credible independent candidacy? What if the candidacy in question was that of, oh, Michael Bloomberg? What would happen then?"

I'll tell you what would happen:

Bloomberg would take NY, NJ, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida and California.

Obama would take Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maryland, DC, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon,Washington and Hawaii. (and this is being generous)

Palin would take the rest.

Add it up.

Palin 276
Bloomberg 138
Obama 124

Sounds pretty feasible to me.

Note that even if you gave all of Bloomberg's states to Obama, Palin still wins.

October 25, 2010 2:34 PM  
Anonymous a little comic relief said...

35,000 supporters jammed into the Oval on the Ohio State University campus to cheer the president. It was his largest crowd since his inauguration.

Will that crowd -- and similarly enthusiastic crowds the president has drawn recently in Wisconsin, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles -- translate into victories for Democrats next Tuesday?

As one Ohio television newscaster asked on the night of the rally, “Will the Obama magic work?”

The answer from the White House is a firm “yes.”

October 25, 2010 4:14 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

"I think it's common knowledge that male homosexuals like to hang around gyms to gawk at the guys working out. If they are too blatant and the gym decides to respond to the objectification by throwing the offenders out, I see no problem with that. And if they decide to make a blanket policy concerning homosexuals that's fine too. "

This is simple, blatant, fear-mongering prejudice. Do you not see that? You put the lie to your own claims of disinterest.

October 26, 2010 4:37 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Study Finds Gays Do Not Undermine Canadian Military Performance


Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has not led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.
* Self-identified gay, lesbian, and transsexual members of the Canadian Forces contacted for the study describe good working relationships with peers.
* The percent of military women who experienced sexual harassment dropped 46% after the ban was lifted. While there were several reasons why harassment declined, one factor was that after the ban was lifted women were free to report assaults without fear that they would be accused of being a lesbian.
* Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found no increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems.
* None of the 905 assault cases in the Canadian Forces from November, 1992 (when the ban was lifted) until August, 1995 involved gay bashing or could be attributed to the sexual orientation of one of the parties.

October 26, 2010 5:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This is simple, blatant, fear-mongering prejudice. Do you not see that?"

no, I don't

"You put the lie to your own claims of disinterest."

my position is that I don't care but I have no problem with people who do care

if gays want to stare at me while I lift weights, I won't let it ruin my day but some people might not like that and they have the right to their space

"Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has not led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline."

that's like saying nightly wine and cheese gatherings in the barracks haven't hurt the performance of French troops

they had no real performance to begin with

October 26, 2010 8:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

t-minus 7 days until the liftoff of Tea Starship

October 26, 2010 8:30 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

"if gays want to stare at me while I lift weights, I won't let it ruin my day but some people might not like that and they have the right to their space."

You know, if we put all the queer people on an island by themselves they won't bother anyone. If they find a gay gene, we could have blood tests, or something.

I see why you don't identify yourself on this blog.

October 26, 2010 10:10 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"if gays want to stare at me while I lift weights, I won't let it ruin my day but some people might not like that and they have the right to their space"

You have the same right to your space as a pretty girl has to her space when she walks past a construction site.

October 26, 2010 10:12 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Weekend Update with Seth and Amy:

What do think, gay soldiers are getting something out of the deal?

“Hey, I’m totally gaming the system, all I’ve got to do is go to Afghanistan for 18 months where a bunch of people are trying to kill me, but on the plus side I might just catch a glimpse of some guy’s wiener in the shower.”
---
“You tromp on one groups rights to give full rights to the other.”

I don’t believe you’ve addressed this, would you please?

“Would you make the same argument about separating Christians from Jews, or believers from non-believers, or Blacks from Whites in any public arena? After all, isn't "forcing" Christians to associate with heathens and non-believers a violation of their "rights"?”
---
“If I were you, I'd be more concerned about consorting with the felons and the rapists and the other "upright citizens" who enlist these days in our military. You are more likely to have your "rights" violated by these folks.”

Army Giving More Waivers in Recruiting

“It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide.

Perfect example of why this has nothing to do with gays peeping in the showers. Dropping the soap in the shower in front of an ex-con is of no concern to you. Neither is bunking next to someone whose been proven to attack with malicious intent.
---
I don’t mind being insulted to my face anywhere near as much as I mind cowards who rely on talking points because they don’t have the guts to say how they truly feel.

I understand that you think our love is fake (as compared to yours), and I realize you think we’re all just to confused to recognize that we are, in actuality, heterosexuals. But if your going to spout talking points to make your point, at least think them through first and be honest about how you really feel. I realize that doing so would make you look like a hateful bigot, but you are, and we all know it, so why hide it?

Ick Ick Ick, eeeeew gross, ishy poo, they’re disgusting, eating poop isn’t as nauseating as what homosexuals do with their genitals. Anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex, anal sex…

You’re right Sociopathanon, the best people to defend our country should be those who get grossed out by their own thoughts about gay people. That trait should come in handy in combat.

I’m sorry, what I meant to say was “those who get grossed out by their deeply held religious beliefs.”

October 26, 2010 10:17 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Emproph, your comment got stuck in the spam filter. There were three copies, I unstuck one.

JimK

October 26, 2010 10:25 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Thanks, Jim, I was wondering.

October 26, 2010 10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paranoia, "Anonymous" ("if gays want to stare at me while I lift weights, I won't let it ruin my day but some people might not like that and they have the right to their space") is not a particularly endearing personal quality.

Do you actually believe that guys who patronize the gyms to lift weights are oblivious to other guys staring at their bodies? The vast majority of patrons of gyms are heterosexual guys whose major purpose is to show off their bodies (otherwise they would cover up themselves with sheets while they preen and pose for the benefit of others).

If you are shy or embarrassed about your body, perhaps you should consider doing your reps in the privacy of your bathroom...with the door shut, of course.

October 26, 2010 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Today's WaPo MoCo BOE endorsements said...

County voters will also elect four members to the Board of Education, which has the critical task of hiring a superintendent to replace outgoing Jerry D. Weast. Incumbents Patricia O'Neill (District 3), Judy Docca (District 1) and Shirley Brandman (at large) received our endorsement before the nonpartisan primary, and we hope voters will give all three another four-year term. They are able leaders with a keen understanding of the challenges facing the system.

In District 5, incumbent Mike Durso is the better choice over Martha Schaerr, a stay-at-home mom and PTA activist. Mr. Durso possesses valuable insights as a former high school principal; as for Mrs. Schaerr, we are troubled by her involvement in a group hostile to gay rights. She is also member of the board of the Family Leader Network, one of the groups that sued Montgomery school officials in an unsuccessful effort to block a new sexual education curriculum that dealt forthrightly with sexual orientation.

October 26, 2010 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can see why improv doesn't comment more

he just embarasses himself

he probably hits and then thinks "why did I say something so stupid?"

poor guy

"You know, if we put all the queer people on an island by themselves they won't bother anyone. If they find a gay gene, we could have blood tests, or something.

I see why you don't identify yourself on this blog."

you're over-reacting, Robert

I didn't really expect that

is it because I've hit a nerve by pointing out that gay guys are gawking at straight guys in gyms?

it's fine in general public places, as long as it's not blatant or crass, but, in private businesses, there is some right to pseudo-privacy among an exclusive set, that is, other members

part of that exclusivity may entail keeping out those with deviant desires

deal with it

"You have the same right to your space as a pretty girl has to her space when she walks past a construction site."

well, that's out in public but a more apt comparison would be a women's aerobics class in a health club room

if some guys are standing outside
staring at the women, they might be asked to move on

they'd generally laugh and comply

none would have Robert's reaction here

October 26, 2010 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"as for Mrs. Schaerr, we are troubled by her involvement in a group hostile to gay rights. She is also member of the board of the Family Leader Network, one of the groups that sued Montgomery school officials in an unsuccessful effort to block a new sexual education curriculum that dealt forthrightly with sexual orientation"

there you go

now, Jim can stop whining that someone keeping a big secret

October 26, 2010 10:48 AM  
Blogger David said...

The Schaerr campaign clearly tried to keep it a secret from the electorate at large. It is no longer a secret because people like Jim brought it into the public discourse.

Careful voters who read the Washington Post and Gazette will now know the full picture. Those who only read campaign posters may still be in the dark.

October 26, 2010 11:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

most voters are in the dark about most issues, especially in a school board race, David

it's always that way

this issue is not really relevant right now

I know you guys believe anyone who hasn't supported your view of homosexuality should be eliminated from consideration for public office in perpetuity, but most voters, even educated ones in MC, don't agree

go figure

October 26, 2010 11:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, I had some insults to improv and some discussion on Robert and Bea's comments disappear so you might want to consider releasing it if you want to keep the readers emotionally engaged

October 26, 2010 11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fox News report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txU55iFG9UA&feature=player_embedded

Rand Paul supporters manhandle, tackle, and stomp on a protesting woman's head before debate with Jack Conway last night.

October 26, 2010 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

news flash:

Nancy Pelosi supporters try to pull off a socialist coup!

You may have heard that Nancy was whining on Monday that Democrats "haven't really gotten credit for what we've done."

You know, she's right.

I, for one, am planning to give them credit, in my own special way, next Tuesday in the voting booth.

You may have heard that Gene Taylor, a Democrat Congressman from Mississippi, said over the weekend that he voted for John McCain in 2008.

He said he won't vote for Nancy as speaker. Nor will a growing list of Democrat Congressmen around the country. Minnick of Idaho, Altmire of Pennsylvania, Bright of Alabama, Edwards of Texas,....

Democrat candidate Brett Carter from Tennessee has requested she not run at all.

Democrat incumbent from North Carolina, Mike McIntyre, has a TV ad saying he doesn't work for her.

Joe Donnelly of Indiana has ads opposing "Nancy Pelosi's energy tax on Hoosier families."

Of course, Democrat Governor Joe Manchin has an ad where he shoots a bullet through the "cap and trade" bill and says he would have voted against Obamacare.

Why are so many people who oppose Democrat policies calling themselves "Democrats"?

Give Nancy Pelosi credit.

October 26, 2010 1:00 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

That's just sophistry, anonymous, not thought. Did you study with Jesuits?

You should be aware that when you discuss a group of people to which you do not belong, especially those others' thoughts, with "It is well known...," you are running the risk of revealing, not commonly accepted truth, but your own prejudice. What you learned in the middle-school playground may not in fact relate directly to the real world.

Have you ever actually been to a gymnasium? I have, and haven't observed what you claim to be so.

As I said before, I see why you don't identify yourself on this blog.

Now, about that island: one of the bahamas, maybe? Somewhere in the Aegean? I hear Mykonos is lovely.

October 27, 2010 5:18 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“I can see why improv doesn't comment more

he just embarasses himself

he probably hits and then thinks "why did I say something so stupid?"

poor guy”


Compelling rebuttal.

October 27, 2010 7:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really interesting comment, "Anonymous" ("in private businesses, there is some right to pseudo-privacy among an exclusive set, that is, other members...
part of that exclusivity may entail keeping out those with deviant desires")

It says more about you then readers really care to know about you.

#1- What on earth is "pseudo privacy"?
#2 - No where in this "discussion" was "private businesses" ever mentioned. The discussion centered on public facilities.
#3 - "keeping out those with deviant desires" (is this a reference to rapists? physical abusers of spouses and children? those who attend "Swinging Partners" events? serial divorcers? spousal cheating?) Once you get into the area of designating "deviant desires" I'm afraid you would have to close down all such public places that cater to the general population.

Imagine, keeping out the heterosexuals with deviant desires!! The absolute death-knell of free enterprise!!

October 27, 2010 10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know what, "Anonymous"...you really are a creep!

("Jim, I had some insults to improv and some discussion on Robert and Bea's comments disappear so you might want to consider releasing it if you want to keep the readers emotionally engaged")

You have finally confessed to your true motive for filling up this site with your tripe and uncivil posts! You come here only to insult other readers, spout your drivel and bigotry, and then you ask the moderator to consider releasing your crap to "emotionally engage" readers.

As stated before, you really are a creep!

October 27, 2010 11:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, as creepy as it seems, my views reflect the majority of mankind currently on the planet and throughout history

here's what most of us who inhabit the globe think:

segregating people who have potential sexual attraction into seperate sleeping quarters and showering facilities and locker rooms is a reasonable policy

if allowing gays into the military makes that problematic, it would be better to exclude gays from military service

DADT was probably as far as we should be willing to go to accomodate behavior and desires that most consider deviant

I guess that says more about me than the Rocky Horror Picture Show gang, right?

October 27, 2010 7:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"here's what most of us who inhabit the globe think:

segregating people who have potential sexual attraction into seperate sleeping quarters and showering facilities and locker rooms is a reasonable policy"

Prove it.

Show us a couple places around the "globe" that have "sleeping quarters and showering facilities and locker rooms" marked "Straight" and "Gay" to facilitate this segregation you claim most "who inhabit the globe" think is reasonable.

"Israel Defense Forces policies allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and without discrimination or harassment due to actual or perceived sexual orientation. This was put into effect in 1993 after an IDF reserves officer testified before the Knesset claiming that his rank had been revoked, and that he had been barred from researching sensitive topics in military intelligence, solely because of his sexual identity.

Homosexuals serve openly in the military, including special units, without any discrimination. Moreover, gays in the IDF have additional rights, such as the right to take a shower alone if they want to. According to a University of California, Santa Barbara study, a brigadier general stated that Israelis show a "great tolerance" for gay soldiers. Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York, who was interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times, said, “It's a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.”

Uncloseted gays in the Jewish state are treated no differently than straights. Mandatory service draws every 18-year-old man and woman into the military, without exception. Said a recently Americanized Israeli soldier: "I had thought Israel was less tolerant than the United States, but when I enlisted, I never witnessed any morale problems caused by homosexuals and didn't really hear any homophobic talk--nothing along the lines of 'He shouldn't be serving.' There were openly gay soldiers I encountered, but no one seemed to resent it. It's not even an issue. I don't know why it is in America."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service#Israel

Israel is only one of the many nations that allows gays to serve openly in the military. So do:

Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Philippines
Poland
RomaniaRussia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom
Bermuda
Uruguay

Nations that agree with "Anonymous" and do not allow gays to serve openly in the military include:

Cuba
People's Republic of China
Egypt
Greece -- The Greek ban on homosexuals is the object of criticism by the European Union, as EU law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Iran
Jamaica
North Korea
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Singapore
South Korea
Syria
Turkey
Venezuela
Yemen

October 28, 2010 8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One who professes to be a Christian would be considered a "deviant" for not following the teachings of Jesus Christ. How do you stand on this issue, that of being a "Cafeteria Christian", "Anonymous"?

October 28, 2010 10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The posting you are responding to did not address your homophobic views, "Anonymous" ("well, as creepy as it seems, my views reflect the majority of mankind currently on the planet and throughout history") but rather your ..." insults to improv and some discussion on Robert and Bea's comments" and your complaint that your views to "emotionally involve" (sic)readers "disappeared".

Asking for special dispensation from the moderator has fallen on deaf ears for a good reason!

October 28, 2010 10:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home