Sunday, March 20, 2016

The Fickle Saccades of the Public

A running theme on this blog over the years is the extreme effect of the media on popular opinion, values, and behavior. Cameras gravitate toward the outlandish and emotional, maybe because that's what audiences want to see and maybe because that's what advertisers want to pay for. Or maybe the media define their role as alerting the population to the presence of bizarre beliefs and characters -- "Man bites dog" has got its own Wikipedia page.

Traditionally, the campaign cycle is built around fund-raising. The reason for that is so that the candidates can pay for advertising, so they can get their message to the public, so the public can wisely choose who to vote for. In recent years donations to candidates have become a news topic in themselves; the media publicize how much money the candidates have raised to pay the media to publicize them. The dollar amounts as a measure of support by the "donor class" are presumed to indicate the likelihood of a candidate winning the election, though this year's presidential cycle includes a self-proclaimed gazillionaire who doesn't need money from a bunch of losers and a guy who relies almost entirely on nickel-and-dime contributions from individuals, both very unusual situations.

The graph below, from the New York Times, tells you how the media's strategy is working out for us, the people. This is the image of this year's election, and the specter of the future. The history of our era will be about the role of the media in determining culture, and this will be the picture on the cover. You know the polling data, you know who has dropped out, look at which set of bars best correlates with political success.


It would be in the media's self-interest to feature politicians who are likely to pay them for advertising, wouldn't you think? But it doesn't seem to work that way. The media define their mission in terms of capturing attention in the short run, keeping your finger off the remote -- it's all clickbait, TL;DR, so they have "the numbers" to sell more advertising. It is more important to pander to the fickle saccades of the public than to consider the informational needs of their audiences, the actual importance of world events, or even the bird-in-the-hand advertising dollars of candidates who will pay big for attention.

Don't touch that button.

292 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, the media obsession with Trump has been a factor, squeezing attention from others, not allowing anyone else to catch on. But the media is not entirely to fault. He has a talent for doing and saying shocking things, not said and done before. He dupes them into thinking they'll win because they don't actually understand the American people - or they do and think they can manipulate popular opinion. Before Trump came along, most of the media thought they were a de facto branch of government - with veto power over what candidates could be elected.

Which leads to the larger way in which the media has failed the country - by continually turning Trump into a victim by lying and exaggerating and inappropriately extrapolating everything he says. The backlash promotes him. Trump never said all Mexicans were rapists, he didn't even say most were. He didn't say anything bad about Muslims, he simply said there are Muslims engaged in terrorism worldwide and until we get a handle on the situation, we need to stop admitting them. He didn't incite riots, Bernie and Black Lives Matter supporters did. Supporters at his rallies didn't make a Nazi salute, they raised their hand saying they were going to vote.

There are plenty of real issues with which to attack Trump. If the media would stop obscuring everything with fake issues, he might not still be in the race.

Things always go bad for a country that embraces the gay agenda. The SCOTUS made gay "marriage" a constitutional right and it's clear the country is now in deep trouble. Our possible future leaders? A cranky socialist, a scandal-plagued mediocre good wife who is under FBI investigation, a billionaire who builds tacky skyscrapers, a Senator detested by his colleagues, or a Midwest governor who always looks like he just rolled out of bed.

March 20, 2016 11:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "guy who relies almost entirely on nickel-and-dime contributions from individuals" raised $43 million in February 2016 after raising $20 million the month before.

Average donation = $27.

On the basis of individual small donors, Bernie wins in a landslide.

Your obsession with the gay agenda is part of what's tearing your Geezers Only Party apart.



March 21, 2016 8:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Australia is raising the alarm: Swathes of the Great Barrier Reef, the world’s largest coral reef system, are dying.

On Sunday, WWF Australia released shocking footage and photographs of bleached coral around Lizard Island, located in the northern part of the reef.

“The new video and stills are very concerning and show large sections of coral drained of all color and fighting for survival,” WWF spokesperson Richard Leck said in a statement.

Earlier in the day, Australia’s Environment Minister Greg Hunt had raised the reef’s threat level to its highest level after surveying parts of it by plane.

Bleaching in the northernmost quarter of the reef is a particular “cause for concern,” Hunt said. Experts say bleaching in that area is both widespread and severe.

“I’m witnessing the death of a very large part of this reef system. I’m extremely worried and upset,” said veteran marine researcher Justin Marshall from the northern section of the reef last week.

Soaring temperatures have been blamed for the reef’s bleaching crisis.

Russell Reichelt, chairman of the Great Barrier Reef marine park authority, told The Guardian that corals in the reef’s north, where surface sea temperatures surpassed 90 degrees in February, were “effectively bathed in warm water for months, creating heat stress that they could no longer cope with.”

“We still have many more reefs to survey to gauge the full impact of bleaching, however, unfortunately, the further north we go from Cooktown [in Queensland] the more coral mortality we’re finding,” he said.

Earlier this month, researchers at Lizard Island, located about 50 miles north of Cooktown, said the area was suffering from the worst coral bleaching event in at least 15 years.

“We do notice a bit of minor bleaching most summers, but this year is exceptional,” researcher Lyle Vail told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. “Unfortunately we’ve got the perfect storm conditions for coral bleaching. At the moment we’ve got brilliant clear sunny skies, calm conditions, little tidal movement. A lot of that hot water on top of the reef flat is just staying there and cooking the coral.”...

The Great Barrier Reef is not the only reef system in the world under threat from climate change. The world is currently in the the midst of the longest-ever global coral bleaching event — a crisis that began in 2014 and could extend to 2017. ..."


Continues here

March 21, 2016 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The "guy who relies almost entirely on nickel-and-dime contributions from individuals" raised $43 million in February 2016 after raising $20 million the month before.

Average donation = $27.

On the basis of individual small donors, Bernie wins in a landslide."

Yes, Bernie demonstrates nicely that Citizens United was the right decision. Allowing free speech doesn't prevent anyone with a message from succeeding.

Bernie's message is getting out. Still don't think America will support a socialist who honeymooned in a communist country.

And he may have painted Hillary into a corner she can't get out of. It may not matter though. Word is, the FBI investigator will resign if the DOJ doesn't indict Hillary.

"Your obsession with the gay agenda is part of what's tearing your Geezers Only Party apart."

The average age of the Republican candidates this year has been much less than the drooling fools running for the Dem nomination.

The GOP establishment unconditional surrender to the gay agenda assault on religious freedom is a part of their current troubles.

March 21, 2016 10:13 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Jesus raised thinking about sex to the same level as having it, making fantasizing about another person a thought crime. Apparently for the Christian faith, even your own thoughts about sex do not belong to you. In retrospect, that’s pretty messed up, you know it? A robust fantasy life is essential to having a rewarding sex life. Experience bears this out. Which brings me to my last point:

Our real-life sexual experiences invalidate the Christian narrative about sex again and again.

It’s no wonder the church works so hard to scare people away from having too much sex. If you ever get out there and start doing it, you’re going to discover something they don’t want you to discover: A great many of those horror stories you hear about negative consequences befalling “loose” men and women are complete B.S.

I’m not saying there are no rules at all, and I’m not saying you should put yourself in harm’s way. But I am saying the church has multiplied and magnified what constitutes harm in order to scare you into restricting your sexual encounters to the ones their ideology prescribes.

Touching yourself won’t really make you go blind. Having sex with a person doesn’t give away a piece of your soul. Casual sex doesn’t necessarily cause babies or give you a disease if you’re safe about it. And being attracted to someone of the same sex does not in any way relate to your character or your moral uprightness. What you do with your genitals is NOT the most important thing about you. In the grand scheme of things, I would argue it’s one of the least relevant things in determining what kind of person you really are.

The church has never understood that. Even to this day, their hangups about sexuality are tearing entire denominations apart. It’s too important to them to simply agree to disagree. They would rather schism than give up their right to tell you what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom.

There's an enlightening moment when you realize that in many ways the world isn’t as “messed up” as you were told it is. It simply is what it is. It’s not wrong or right, it just is…and so are you.

You just are who you are, and it doesn’t matter how much they try to tell you that you’re not who you’re supposed to be. If you’re lucky, you reach a point at which it finally sinks in that they don’t know what they’re talking about. You are just fine the way you are. They seem so confident in their condemnation of who you are but they are way off. They are regurgitating a socially reinforced construct, and nothing more. Real life is challenging their narrative, and real life is far more convincing than the stories they tell.

March 21, 2016 12:18 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Islam does not hold to freedom of religion".

Christianity does not hold to freedom of religion either. Republicans are well known for insisting the basis of the U.S. constitution is the ten commandments and demand that the ten commandmandments be the basis for all laws. And the first commandment? "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". And god knows a lot of (primarily Republican) Americans want to ban Mosques and Islam.

Its a farce when christians try to pretend chrisitianity is somehow better or different than Islam.

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Islam is not a race, it is a set of beliefs, ideas and value so, for example, is Nazism can we ban Nazis?".

Christianity is not a race, it is a set of beliefs, ideas and value so, for example is Naziism can we ban Nazis?

No, by your own law you cannot ban Nazis anymore than you can ban Islam or chrisitianity. What determines whether or not something can or should be banned is whether or not its harmful and there's no way you can make the case that the doctrines of christianity are any more or less harmful than the doctrines of Islam

How hypocritical of you to criticize Islam for not allowing freedom of religion and then in the same breath advocate for banning Islam. Your astounding lack of awareness of your own hypocrisy would be funny if it weren't so scary. What a tool!

March 21, 2016 12:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Bernie demonstrates nicely that Citizens United was the right decision. Allowing free speech doesn't prevent anyone with a message from succeeding.".

Newsflash fool, Bernie is not succeeding, he's losing badly to Hillary. When you combine the $ spent by the candidates and the $ of free coverage the media has given candidates the ones that have the most money are the ones leading. If it weren't for the free media coverage given to Trump the ones who've spent the most money would be leading. Obviously money still buys elections even if its the combination of the money of the candidate and the money through free media coverage given to the candidate.

Citizen's united was a very bad decision that takes away power from ordinary voters and gives it to the super wealthy.


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "And he may have painted Hillary into a corner she can't get out of. It may not matter though. Word is, the FBI investigator will resign if the DOJ doesn't indict Hillary.".

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

No more is coming of Hillary's emails than came out of the Republican attempt to blame her for Benghazi. Hillary did the exact same thing as Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. The American public simply couldn't care less about Hillary's emails and there will be no legal repercussions.

Good anonymous said "Your obsession with the gay agenda is part of what's tearing your Geezers Only Party apart."

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "The average age of the Republican candidates this year has been much less than the drooling fools running for the Dem nomination.".

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Irrelevant! The voters that make up the Republican party are the same people who watch Fox news - old white men. It really is the Geezers Only Party!

March 21, 2016 12:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "The GOP establishment unconditional surrender to the gay agenda assault on religious freedom is a part of their current troubles.".

Talk about redefining words! In the twisted dysfunctional world of bigots like Wyatt, if christians aren't allowed to discriminate against gays its an "assault" on christian "religious freedom".

By the same "logic" christians aren't allowed to discriminate against women or blacks so the female and black "agenda" is an assault on religious freedom. Funny how you never hear them demand the right to discriminate against women and blacks to "protect" their "religious freedom". By the same logic the laws that make it illegal to discriminate against christians are an assault on the freedoms of non-christians.

And in a rare moment of lucidity Wyatt/bad anonymous ADMITS the Republican party is in trouble.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

March 21, 2016 1:03 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump Supporter Charged For Viciously Punching And Kicking Protester

A Trump supporter at a rally in Tucson viciously assaulted a protester who was being led away. The disturbing melee pitted a kicking, punch-throwing Trump loyalist against Bryan Sanders, 33, a protester kicked out of the rally for chanting "liar" amid a rabid crowd.

Trump has encouraged this violence at his rallies with comments like "Back in the good old days [these protesters] would have been carried out on a stretcher", "I'd like to punch [that protester]", "maybe that protester deserved to be roughed up", and "Don't hurt [the protester](wink)...if you do I'll pay to defend you in court".

March 21, 2016 1:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jesus raised thinking about sex to the same level as having it, making fantasizing about another person a thought crime"

actually he said married people who indulge fantasies about sex with someone they aren't married to are guilty of adultery

he said the same about a number of sins, indulging thoughts of doing them is morally equivalent to doing them

the context was a sermon demonstrating that all people have a sinful nature

anyone disagree?

"It’s no wonder the church works so hard to scare people away from having too much sex"

actually, orthodox Christianity holds that sex is a gift from God, within a monogamous marital relationship, there are no limits set

"Touching yourself won’t really make you go blind. Having sex with a person doesn’t give away a piece of your soul."

never hear anyone in a church say either

"Casual sex doesn’t necessarily cause babies or give you a disease if you’re safe about it"

promiscuous sex will sometimes produce children, which is a crime to the child

promiscuous sex will cause more disease than monogamy

"And being attracted to someone of the same sex does not in any way relate to your character or your moral uprightness"

indulging such an attraction is immoral, per virtually all religious systems

"What you do with your genitals is NOT the most important thing about you"

it seems to be to secularists


March 21, 2016 2:24 PM  
Anonymous Words of GOP primary voters' top choice for President said...

Donald Trump’s interview with the Washington Post is totally bananas

March 22, 2016 3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kansas Tax Cuts: A Closer Look

"...Republicans want to replicate these policies on a national level, but even when you buy couch cleaner they tell you to try it on a small patch of fabric first. That's what happened here -- Kansas was the small patch of fabric. Not only did the cleaner not work, the couch exploded..."

March 22, 2016 4:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Words of GOP primary voters' top choice for President said.."

this guy is a non-interventionist

I told you that a while back

I would have thought you'd be giddy since he basically agrees with TTF on foreign policy

Europe was randomly attacked by ISIS today

getting closer to Beruit by the day

word is ISIS has 5,000 underground soldiers on the continent waiting to cause mayhem

and in certain European cities, the police have given up trying to protect women from Muslim immigrants who are raping infidel females, telling them to just stay home at night

looks like Trump wasn't so crazy after all to suggest leaving Muslims in their home land

he's a big government isolationist who defends Planned Parenthood, favors raising taxes on Wall Street, likes single payer health insurance

sounds a lot like a TTFer

March 22, 2016 6:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Except the man you call "a big government isolationist who defends Planned Parenthood, favors raising taxes on Wall Street, likes single payer health insurance" is currently the GOP's top pick to run for President in 2016.

You must be so proud of your fellow Geezers Only Party members for choosing Drumpf over President Huckabee and President Ben, who have dropped out of the race.

March 23, 2016 8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess it's nice you like to hear yourself talk. Let us know if you come up with anything interesting.

Sounds like only geezers need apply for the Dem nomination.

Both Trump and Bernie are attracting young people to overthrow the tired old establishment. Big difference: minorities dislike Bernie.

btw, I'm not a Republican. I'm a libertarian who has generally voted GOP in recent general elections because they were closer to my positions than Dems. With the Trump takeover that may no longer be true. We'll see.

I'm a registered Dem, however.

March 23, 2016 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.thenation.com/article/there-were-five-hour-lines-to-vote-in-arizona-because-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/

March 23, 2016 12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

typical misleading TTF comment

there have been long lines everywhere

voting is greater than anticipated because Trump and Sanders have energized the electorate

neither guy is my cup of tea, but give them credit for what they have accomplished

it is not constitutional to apply laws to certain states and not others

there is no evidence that the Federal government should have to approve Arizona's voting laws and not, say, Vermont's

Arizona screwed up but it's a local matter

primaries aren't required by law at all

and political parties are not government agencies

March 23, 2016 4:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By all means, seep your head firmly planted in the ground.

From http://www.thenation.com/article/there-were-five-hour-lines-to-vote-in-arizona-because-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/ above:

"....The lines were so long because election officials in Phoenix’s Maricopa County, the largest in the state, reduced the number of polling places by 70 percent from 2012 to 2016, from 200 to just 60—one polling place per every 21,000 voters.

Election officials said they reduced the number of polling sites to save money—an ill-conceived decision that severely inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of voters. Previously, Maricopa County would have needed to receive federal approval for reducing the number of polling sites, because Arizona was one of 16 states where jurisdictions with a long history of discrimination had to submit their voting changes under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This type of change would very likely have been blocked since minorities make up 40 percent of Maricopa County’s population and reducing the number of polling places would have left minority voters worse off. Section 5 blocked 22 voting changes from taking effect in Arizona since the state was covered under the VRA in 1975 for discriminating against Hispanic and Native American voters...


And from http://usuncut.com/news/arizona-polling-disaster/

"Arizona’s primaries aren’t even done yet, and there’s already legal action being taken as a result of incompetence or possibly even intentional sabotage.

Leaders from the Arizona branch of the Democratic Party have confirmed that its lawyers are officially making an inquiry after multiple Democratic voters showed up to the polls only to find that they were listed as independents, Republicans, or had no party affiliation at all....

...This isn’t just conspiracy theory, either. Maricopa County, home of Phoenix, which is traditionally very conservative, is four times larger than Pima County, which houses Tucson, a traditionally liberal city. Yet despite over 4 million people residing in Maricopa County, and less than 1 million living in Pima County, Pima had twice as many polling locations as Maricopa, according to AZCentral.com.

Joe Dana, a reporter with 12 News in Phoenix, tweeted that despite 500,000 more primary voters in 2016 than 2012, Maricopa County polling places had dwindled considerably for this election:

Joe Dana
@JoeDanaReport

Consider: 2012 primary had 300,000 voters and 200 polling places. 2016 primary has estimated 800,000 voters at 60 polling places."......

March 23, 2016 5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only political entity less popular than Congress and the GOP? Donald J. Trump.

"Few people in this country have a trickier job than Reince Priebus. The chairman of the Republican National Committee is the guy who was selected to ensure that the party maintains power and stability, to double-check every brick and seal every crack in the GOP firmament.

But now the party's base has gotten hold of a wrecking ball, and he finds himself in the uncomfortable position of having to simultaneously keep the establishment from being destroyed while also praising how well his voters are operating that heavy machinery.

The question that looms over this primary season, dominated by Donald Trump — who is only a few short months away from having balloons drift down onto his fabulous hair on a stage in Cleveland — is how the party will survive. Trump is one of those parasitic wasps that burrows inside a beetle to lay its eggs, and Priebus is like, nice egg-laying, man. What will this Trump-led party look like? What will it stand for? How will the beetle-shell move its limbs?

So it is with pleasure that we can present Priebus with a bit of good news. When the pollsters Selzer & Co. recently surveyed Americans for Bloomberg, they asked peoples' opinions on a number of people and organizations. And the Republican Party was not the least popular! I mean, you may have guessed that, since obviously the party would still be more popular than Congress, which basically everyone hates.* But there is someone even less popular than the Republican Party and less popular than Congress. That person is Donald Trump..

GRAPH Net favorability over time

That is absolutely remarkable. Trump's negative ratings are driven by the 53 percent of Americans who view him "very unfavorably" — the stronger of the two options for "unfavorable." For reference, only about a third of Americans hate Congress that much. But half of the country gives Trump the worst rating it possibly can.

Opinions of the GOP have stumbled, mind you. After the 2014 elections, opinions of the party were about half-and-half. It's slipped downward since then, likely powered by the anti-establishment sentiment within the Republican electorate itself and, we might assume, unhappiness from others about the party's front-runner. Ted Cruz's popularity has also dropped over the last year or so, a product of his candidacy, no doubt. Hillary Clinton's tanked and then recovered a little. Weirdly enough, Paul Ryan and the Democratic Party are both viewed relatively positively. Who knew...."

March 24, 2016 10:09 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...


World’s Largest Psychiatric Association Calls For End To Ex-Gay Torture And Legalization Of Gayness

Today, the world’s largest organization of mental health professionals—representing more than 200,000 people in 118 countries—called for an end to the discredited practice of “conversion therapy,” which is linked to serious harms, including depression, substance abuse, and suicide.

In a statement issued today, the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) says: “WPA believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that innate sexual orientation can be changed. Furthermore, so-called treatments of gayness can create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination flourish, and they can be potentially harmful. The provision of any intervention purporting to “treat” something that is not a disorder is wholly unethical… Psychiatrists have a social responsibility to advocate for a reduction in social inequalities for all individuals, including inequalities related to gender identity and sexual orientation.”

The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) has this week released its strongest position statement on LGBTI rights to date, calling for the universal decriminalization of sex between people of the same gender. The WPA represents more than 200,000 psychiatrists from 118 countries and its membership includes 138 national psychiatric societies around the world.

The WPA says it was prompted to issue a statement on the issue due to recent controversies around homosexuality in many countries around the world. ‘WPA considers sexual orientation to be innate and determined by biological, psychological, developmental, and social factors,’ the group said in a statement.

The WPA statement says that diversity in sexual orientation had now been studied extensively for over 50 years and it was now known that around 4 percent of the people in any society experience meaningful same-sex attraction, while around one-in-two-hundred identify with a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth.

The WPA also says that LGBTI people are known to experience higher rates of psychiatric disorders the wider community but that their mental health improves in environments where they have equal rights.

March 24, 2016 1:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The latest Fox "News" poll has Clinton beating Drumpf by 11 percentage points.

Its early and a great deal can change between now and election day but at this point in time it looks like Clinton and Drumpf will be the nominees and Clinton will handily beat Drumpf in the general election and Democrats will retake at least one of the bodies of Congress.

So, of course Republicans are thrilled at the terrorist attacks in Brussels because many Americans wrongly think their talk of blind use of extreme force will solve complex problems. Republicans are hoping for more terrorist attacks before the election preferably directly against the U.S.

March 24, 2016 1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Election officials said they reduced the number of polling sites to save money—an ill-conceived decision that severely inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of voters. Previously, Maricopa County would have needed to receive federal approval for reducing the number of polling sites, because Arizona was one of 16 states where jurisdictions with a long history of discrimination had to submit their voting changes under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act"

The justification for Federal supervision expired. Locals made have been mistaken to reduce the number of polling sites but, again, turnout was heavier than anyone expected and there is no evidence of racist intent. It's a local concern and not a matter of concern for the Feds and certainly not liberal agitators on a blog on the East coast. If you want to interfere in issues that are none of your business, have about the early voting that means that many voters wasted their vote on a candidate that has already dropped? The whole early voting thing was dreamed up Obama people trying to get more minority votes. Turns out it's causing big problems.

btw, voting in GOP primaries is way up and in Dem primaries down so many Dems may not vote in November

ut-oh!

"The only political entity less popular than Congress and the GOP? Donald J. Trump"

howzabout Hillary?

hate to break into your fantasy but Trump is likely to be the next Prez

yeah, everybody's negative but in the same way they are about certain relatives

few are not familiar with him and that's been true for a long time

they don't necessarily like him but they aren't uncomfortable with him

Hillary has a different type of negativity attached

she's associated with both sleaze and incompetence

despite his offensiveness, people believe he's sincere in wanting to restore America and that he is competent

he will ruthlessly demolish Hillary

I say this without any glee

I think he has the potential to be authoritarian

still, America will likely take the chance

they believe, rightly, that Obama has driven our society down

March 24, 2016 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"World’s Largest Psychiatric Association Calls For End To Ex-Gay Torture And Legalization Of Gayness

Today, the world’s largest organization of mental health professionals—representing more than 200,000 people in 118 countries—called for an end to the discredited practice of “conversion therapy,” which is linked to serious harms, including depression, substance abuse, and suicide."

you could say the same about any quest for self-improvement

people have a right to seek to make their self better

"In a statement issued today, the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) says: “WPA believes strongly in evidence-based treatment."

only when it advances the gay agenda

you ever notice you never see medical professionals banning together over the abundant evidence that children are completely alive long before birth and calling for an end to the slaughter of that life?

it's a bunch of political crap

"There is no sound scientific evidence that innate sexual orientation can be changed."

the same could be said for a complete cure for cancer but it doesn't mean you stop trying

"Furthermore, so-called treatments of gayness can create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination flourish, and they can be potentially harmful."

OK, so it really had nothing to do with any "evidence"

right?

"The provision of any intervention purporting to “treat” something that is not a disorder is wholly unethical…"

so much for cosmetic surgery

"Psychiatrists have a social responsibility to advocate for a reduction in social inequalities for all individuals,"

no more than anyone else

just ask Karl Marx

"including inequalities related to gender identity and sexual orientation.”

"inequalities related to gender identity and sexual orientation" is based on behavior

it's a euphemism for consequences of your own actions

"The WPA says it was prompted to issue a statement on the issue due to recent controversies around homosexuality in many countries around the world. ‘WPA considers sexual orientation to be innate and determined by biological, psychological, developmental, and social factors,’ the group said in a statement."

OK, so if it is due to psychological, developmental, and social factors, it probably means such people could have gone another way and there is no reason to believe these factors can't be ameliorated and deviant tendencies eliminated

"The WPA statement says that diversity in sexual orientation had now been studied extensively for over 50 years and it was now known that around 4 percent of the people in any society experience meaningful same-sex attraction, while around one-in-two-hundred identify with a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth."

fascinating

other diseases are more widespread

"The WPA also says that LGBTI people are known to experience higher rates of psychiatric disorders than the wider community"

good to know

when I point out that FACT, TTFers deny it's true

"but that their mental health improves in environments where they have equal rights."

oh, surely

but there is still underlying mental issues that comes from the denial of self worth

it's a constant

March 24, 2016 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BuzzFeed News, Obama vs. Trump: Talking About Women

March 24, 2016 5:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary should respect the office and the American people

drop out:

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-email-scandal-its-time-hillary-suspended-her-campaign/

March 25, 2016 9:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the new McCartyism, the effort to persecute, harass and intimidate those question global warming alarmism:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/punishing-climate-change-skeptics-1458772173

March 25, 2016 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hillary should respect the office and the American people

drop out:"


That is a very unwise thing for you to wish for because Sanders beats all GOPer challengers by even wider margins than Hillary does.

But it's looking like Hillary is going to beat Bernie.

You should start getting used to saying "Madame President."

Oh, and here's a good ole American McCarthyism fan for you:

Cruz National Security Adviser: Joseph McCarthy Was 'Spot-On'

March 25, 2016 4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That is a very unwise thing for you to wish for because Sanders beats all GOPer challengers by even wider margins than Hillary does"

as I've pointed out many times, I'm not a GOPer and the current GOP voters seem to have diverged from my point of view

they still may be the best choice, but will wait until the nom process is through

at this point, Bernie represents a rejection of the establishment

Americans have no idea what he stands for

"But it's looking like Hillary is going to beat Bernie"

it looks like she will either be indicted or there will be a major political scandal

Jerry Ford lost by pardoning his predecessor

if the Obama DOJ bucks clear FBI evidence, there will be a political meltdown

"You should start getting used to saying "Madame President.""

you mean the old lady who screams out everyone in her Mao smock at every primary party?

we know her too well

"Oh, and here's a good ole American McCarthyism fan for you"

oh, have you heard about students being disciplined at Emory for writing Trump for President in chalk on the sidewalk?

it scared the other students

the attempt to protect students from the fear of people with different ideas than them is the beginning of...

March 25, 2016 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"as I've pointed out many times, I'm not a GOPer and the current GOP voters seem to have diverged from my point of view"

Good. Voting against whichever Democrat is nominated to run for President this year will be a waste of time and effort anyway.



March 25, 2016 4:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Voting against whichever Democrat is nominated to run for President this year will be a waste of time and effort anyway."

Hillary will be lucky to avoid jail time

Bernie is a convinced communist and will never win once the truth is out

Trump will beat Hillary although some resistance seems to be developing to him getting the nom

if Trump gets to the convention with less than 1000, Cruz has around 800 and Kasich has about 400, Trump won't get the nomination

right now, Cruz is ahead in Wisconsin, Kasich in Pennsylvania

either will win with Scott Walker as VP

March 25, 2016 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Put a bird on it.

Crowd goes wild as bird lands on Sanders's podium in Portland

March 25, 2016 9:11 PM  
Anonymous What a brilliant idea! said...

Nearly 20,000 support petition to allow guns at Republican National Convention

"Nearly 20,000 people have signed a petition to allow the open carry of firearms at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July.

The group Americans For Responsible Open Carry started the petition on Change.org on Monday, according to the Akron Beacon-Journal. The petition had a goal of 5,000 signatures and by Wednesday it had reached the goal. As of early Saturday morning, the group had reached just over 18,000 signatures.

The GOP Republican National Convention is going to be held at the Quicken Loans Arena from July 18-21. The Ohio Republican Party told the Beacon-Journal it wasn’t aware of the petition.

The Secret Service along with Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, state and federal officials are handling the security at the event. The Secret Service banned guns at the GOP Convention in Florida four years ago.

“They are coordinating and will be continuously refining security plans leading up to the national convention,” Republican National Convention spokesperson Alee Lockman told the newspaper.

The group has a list of demands for the convention.

First, the group wants the arena to suspend its open-carry ban during the convention. The group then wants the NRA has to condemn Ohio’s law banning guns in some public places.

“Policies of the Quicken Loans Arena do not supersede the rights given to us by our Creator in the U.S. Constitution,” the petition reads.

Americans For Responsible Open Carry also want presidential contender Ohio Gov. John Kasich to use his executive power to override the so-called gun-free zone loophole in Ohio’s law. RNC Chairman Reince Preibus also must explain how “a venue so unfriendly to Second Amendment rights was chosen for the Republican Convention and have a backup plan to move the site if the group’s demands aren’t met.

Finally they call for the three other candidates to pressure the GOP to protect the Second Amendment.

Ohio is an open-carry state, but they are not permitted in the Statehouse and even if concealed, could be banned by businesses and property owners, according to the Beacon-Journal.

Quicken Loans Arena forbids guns and weapons of any kind from “heavily attended” events.

The arena said it is following the state’s concealed carry law and the right for private businesses to ban firearms on its property.

The petition claims that because Cleveland is one of the most dangerous cities in the world, forcing attendees to leave their weapons at home is putting everyone at risk.

“Without the right to protect themselves, those at the Quicken Loans Arena will be sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers, criminals or others who wish to threaten the American way of life.”"

March 26, 2016 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there's a good possibility that, this November, Americans will have the choice between a potential authoritarian on the GOP side and a confirmed, convinced Communist on the Dem side

let's not be too cavalier about undermining the right of the citizens to bear arms

we may need them if the Constitution is suspended and martial law declared at some point in the near future

March 26, 2016 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

< eye roll >

I see reading comprehension remains a problem for you.

The petition is not about carrying guns anywhere but at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

Petitioning to allow participants to pack heat at the Republican National Convention after the GOP's leading potential "authoritarian" has threatened "I think you'd have riots," should he not be nominated is par for the GOP course and could make the violence at Drumpf rallies look like walks in the park.

March 26, 2016 10:44 AM  
Anonymous Martian Law said...

I don't remember reading anywhere about a process for "suspending the Constitution..." How will they do that? And who?

March 26, 2016 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read it perfectly fine. As we all know, liberals have the bright idea that if law abiding don't have guns, the world will be a safer place. And we know as well that if Bernie tried to take 90% of people's hard-earned money, a major upgrade of law enforcement coercion will be necessary.

And don't start up with the Eisenhower crap if you want to not look stupid.

btw, Trump is a POTENTIAL authoritarian. He has certain personality qualities that might make him susceptible to overkill in certain circumstances if he has the power of the Presidency so electing him will be a gamble. It may be, in the final analysis, a safer gamble than either of the Dem options: (1) a lady crook who has no accomplishments despite extensive experience and who has demonstrated she can't be trusted with the stewardship of the nation's secrets or (2) an honest Communist who concedes he thinks people should work for the government and the government distribute the profit as they see fit

I've given the downside of Trump. He is actually, however, on the center-left side of the GOP, and would probably be an Eisenhower/Rockefeller/Nixon type. So policy-wise, he doesn't match my preferences but he might not be a catastrophe. He's competent, has strong leadership skills (although compromised by juvenile behavior), and wants to be liked. He's a risk but that's life.

We'll see where we are after the conventions

March 26, 2016 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't remember reading anywhere about a process for "suspending the Constitution..." How will they do that? And who?"

on the Spotify playlist for Bernie and Donald:

if I was the President

the minute Congress called my name

I'd say "who do you think you're foolin'?"

I got the Presidential seal

up on the Presidential podium

March 26, 2016 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, just ask President Huckabee!

He's got all the answers.

March 26, 2016 11:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

maybe I'll ask President Gore!!

he probably has a special portion of the internet he created for liberal fantasies

March 26, 2016 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

he's too busy working on a rocket to send his child to another planet before the Earth dies...

hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

or maybe President Hillary...

she was a shoo-in in 2008 before she wasn't!!!

of course, she wasn't under FBI investigation then

then there's Presidents Dukakis and Kerry and John Edwards and Gary Hart and ......

March 26, 2016 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you mean Hillary "I like Instagram because it deletes automatically" Clinton

and Michael "let's not get carried away if someone kills Kitty" Dukakis

and John "my wife has a lot of ketchup" Kerry

and John "so, I've got needs while my wife is on chemo" Edwards

and Gary "just follow me to see if there's any monkey business" Hart

and Al "I got a Nobel for making lots of peace" Gore?

March 26, 2016 1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

when people are allowed to kill unborn children that aren't perfect, it's called eugenics

it's evil:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/defending-our-culture-against-eugenics/article/2586886

March 26, 2016 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...It is linguistically and politically accurate to suggest that 2016 has been a year of near-total humiliation for the GOP establishment.

Throughout 2015, the great candidate of the Republican establishment was former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who was then pummeled and humiliated by Trump during the primary campaign. Trump defeated the man he dubbed "low energy" so thoroughly that Bush was never a serious rival to Trump in primaries or polls and was driven out of the campaign very early.

Bush and the GOP establishment were first humiliated by Trump, who thrashed their list of establishment favorites one by one, and they are now being humiliated by Cruz, around whom they are now uniting publicly despite their private contempt for him.

It must have been humiliating for the Bush family to watch Jeb Bush endorse Cruz for president. Jeb could not even endorse the candidate Trump dubbed "little Marco," Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, when it might have saved the GOP, and now he is reduced to endorsing the man Trump calls "lying Ted," who has himself called the Republican leader in the Senate a liar.

During the primaries, the only candidate in either party, in my view, who spoke cogently about how to defeat Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorists was South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R). Trump offered Graham the ultimate insult: He ignored him. Graham, who had mocked and ridiculed Cruz for good reason, was ultimately forced to endorse Cruz with the same enthusiasm Count Dracula would have shown if the count were forced to endorse the cross.

There are a few Republicans in the media left who offer a brave face by suggesting scenarios predicting that Trump can be elected in November. I feel their pain and would offer them an opportunity to make a sporting wager with me on this subject!

For a liberal Democrat like me, it is a pleasure to read polls showing that the socialist senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, and the former secretary of State who is the bete noir of the GOP right, Hillary Clinton, both thrashing the Republican front-runner by landslide margins, while Trump offers praise for the strongman dictator of Russia and more than 100 Republican national security leaders warn voters he would endanger America if he ever becomes commander in chief.

While elections are never predictable, the most likely outcome is that the ultimate humiliation for the Republican establishment will be to end the year reluctantly endorsing Hillary Clinton, or remaining silent while hoping she wins, and preparing for the pleasure of attending her inauguration as president in January 2017.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/274312-trump-and-cruz-humiliate-gop-establishment

March 26, 2016 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

another lousy job by a lousy Democrat:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433222/black-americans-barack-obama-going-backwards-under-president-obama

March 26, 2016 2:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is linguistically and politically accurate to suggest that 2016 has been a year of near-total humiliation for the GOP establishment"

this applies to the entire establishment in America

it's a catastrophe courtesy if the worst presidency in American history

how humiliating to the Dem establishment that their preferred candidate is under FBI investigation for taking bribes from foreign governments while serving as Secretary of State and has lost 11 states to a confessed socialist, maybe 3 more today

and how humiliating to all of America to see their President speaking in front of a Che Guevera mural, saying Fidel Castro has a point about America, or kicking back at a ball game with a Communist dictator, laughing and doing the wave while ISIS launches attacks on Europe, or saying Christians shouldn't get up or their high horse when Muslims behead innocent people, or having rings run round him by Vlad Putin, dictator of a second rate power

let's face it: Americans are considering electing a vengeful and possibly dangerous narcissist President because he says he will restore our dignity from the humiliation suffered at the hands of the Manchurian candidate in the White House who tricked America into voting for him

anywhere ever heard of the Weimar Republic?

btw, on last scary thing about Trump: at one of the debates he actually said our problem is we don't use our nuclear weapons enough

March 26, 2016 5:47 PM  
Anonymous Martian Law said...

The Obama presidency has been spectacularly successful by every measure. The current GOP meltdown is the natural conclusion of seven years of op-posing everything and not pro-posing anything. The Republicans have nothing to offer but anger and resentment, and so that's what you've got.

The Democrats in this primary election cycle offer a choice between an idealistic and extremely honest candidate with a lot of experience, and a pragmatic and diplomatic candidate with a lot of experience. Both choices are good. It is a real choice and it's close. Both candidates represent solid liberal values of equal treatment under the law and strengthening the middle class, but they offer different approaches to implementing those values.

Meanwhile, the GOP voter has to choose whether to carpet-bomb the Middle East or to torture more people and kill their families. There is no question that the winning candidate will try to take away women's access to abortion, deny LGBT people equal rights, and get us into a war as fast as they can. Really no difference among the candidates, except maybe how big their "hands" are.

March 26, 2016 6:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

news flash: Bernie won Alaska today

more humiliation for Hillary

you may remember that Montgomery County schools began to decline when the gay curriculum of TTF was enacted, to the point where more than half of all students, including those in honors and AP courses failed their finals

it got so humiliating that MC has now cancelled finals

and now, America is suffering humiliation after declaring gay "marriage" a constitutional right

about a month later, Trump declared and America's future prospects began to decline

this will continue until America repents

March 26, 2016 6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you must not be black:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433222/black-americans-barack-obama-going-backwards-under-president-obama

or someone with a kid who will spend their whole life paying interest on the debt that Obama MORE THAN DOUBLED in 7 years

despite the massive borrowing and near-zero interest rates, Obama has presided over a economy that is mediocre, at best

you must not live in Europe or Libya or Syria where ISIS has decimated local population, arising solely from Obama incompetence

you must be a Martian

March 26, 2016 6:30 PM  
Anonymous Martian Law said...

Nobody does everything right, especially working in a complex position like CEO of a country of 300 million, with an oppositional Congress whose goal is to accomplish nothing.

Still .. he has done a spectacular job, by any measure. Go ahead, click, check out that list.

March 26, 2016 8:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Somebody had to pay for all Bush's fuck ups.

A Reminder to Republicans of Just How Bad Things Were Under George W. Bush

March 28, 2016 8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like Martian Law better than nobody

March 28, 2016 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Georgia’s Republican Governor Vetoes Anti-Gay Bill

March 28, 2016 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here, in a nutshell, is why Donald Trump is on the verge of completing his hostile takeover of the Republican Party, or at least badly rupturing it along the way: It turns out he’s better at scamming Republican voters than GOP elites are.

That’s the clear message that emerges from a big piece the New York Times published today that reports on how GOP elites lost touch with GOP voters’ economic concerns, resulting in them getting caught off guard by Trump’s rise. The piece features Republican observers acknowledging a phenomenon we’ve repeatedly discussed in this space: Trump is succeeding in part because he’s offering economically struggling GOP voters something more than the promise that free markets and limited government contain the keys to their economic salvation.

As the Times piece reports, Republicans are realizing that the GOP elite donor agenda can no longer be sold to GOP voters: The Republican elite “abandoned its most faithful voters, blue-collar white Americans, who faced economic pain and uncertainty over the past decade as the party’s donors, lawmakers and lobbyists prospered.”

But this one anecdote captures this whole phenomenon as perfectly as any other that I’ve seen. Last March, GOP lawmakers met privately to figure out how to sell the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, which GOP elites support, to Republican voters who were suspicious of it:

For help, the lawmakers turned to Frank Luntz, the Republican messaging guru. For two decades, Mr. Luntz had instructed Republicans on how to talk about thorny issues. Do not say “estate tax.” Say “death tax.” Do not privatize Social Security. “Personalize” it.

Few issues were now as dangerous to them as trade, Mr. Luntz told the lawmakers, especially a trade pact sought by a president their voters hated. Many Americans did not believe that the economic benefits of trade deals trickled down to their neighborhoods. They did not care if free trade provided them with cheaper socks and cellphones. Most believed free trade benefited other countries, not their own.

“I told them to stop calling it free trade, and start calling it American trade,” Mr. Luntz said in an interview. “American businesses, American services — American, American, American!”


Most of the ingredients paving the way for the rise of Trump are on display here. GOP lawmakers, faced with the problem that economically struggling GOP voters might not believe freer trade would help them, asked for guidance on how to better message it. Luntz also personifies longtime Republican efforts to sell the GOP drive to end the estate tax (a boon mostly to wealthy families) and the longtime GOP drive to reform Social Security. Broadly speaking, the GOP elite agenda has included free trade deals, tax changes that would deliver windfalls to top earners, and entitlement reform that would reduce benefits, and for many years, Republicans have messaged these things as good for American workers...

March 28, 2016 3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, many Democrats also have supported free trade deals, including the Obama-backed TPP, and yes, the Dem establishment is currently paying for that in the form of the Bernie Sanders challenge.)

But GOP voters don’t appear to believe this messaging any longer, if they ever did. A national poll of Republican voters conducted recently by political scientist Alan Abramowitz found that majorities of them favor raising taxes on the wealthy and oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare. The poll showed an overlap between Republicans who hold those positions and support Trump. Exit polls have also shown GOP voters are suspicious of trade deals.

Trump appears to have exploited this disconnect. He does not reflexively defend free trade and vows not to touch entitlements. Now, Trump is peddling GOP voters a bill of goods: While he conveys the impression that he’d go after the favorable tax treatment of top earners, his tax plan would actually shower them with large windfalls. He oversimplifies the effect of trade deals on American workers and does not meaningfully detail policies that might actually help them. And Trump’s con job relies heavily on persuading struggling GOP voters that the way to remove a major economic threat to them is to carry out mass deportations.

But as James Pethokoukis points out, Trump at least seems to speak to these voters’ desire for a proactive agenda to address challenges arising from globalization and technological change. Yet when Paul Ryan was directly asked about this disconnect, he responded with more of the same 1980s-vintage rising-tide-lifts-all-boats dogma. There is a lot of talk about how Ryan and Trump now represent warring opposites inside the GOP, and that’s true. But if anything, what this polarity really illustrates is the paralysis of GOP elites in the face of Trumpism’s appeal. Not even clever Luntzian messaging may be able to bail them out this time. Trump is peddling a scam, but at least it’s a new scam.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/28/this-one-anecdote-perfectly-explains-how-donald-trump-is-hijacking-the-gop/

March 28, 2016 3:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

much of what you say (or copied) is true

but Dems have the same problem

Hillary is the scam artist, not Trump

he's misguided and belligerent

but he's sincere

Hillary is a chameleon who will say whatever is necessary

right now, she's a carbon copy of Sanders

much of Trump's support is from union members who feel the elites have deserted them

there is good reason to believe trump can bring minorities along with blue collar whites

in the famous words of Stevie Wonder to the Dem establishment:

you haven't done nothing

btw, Trump may have finally gone too far

currently, he is losing to Cruz in Wisconsin and California as well as Kasich on Pennsylvania

if he does get the nomination, this could easily be the best chance ever for a third party or independent candidate

March 28, 2016 4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More than 40,000 people have signed petition to allow guns at GOP convention

And if Drumpf doesn't get the nomination, "there will be riots!"

...Though the Secret Service may have something to say about that.

March 28, 2016 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GOP "family values" Gov. Robert Bentley had affair, says fired Alabama top cop

March 29, 2016 8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"GOP "family values""

Wow, wonder why Dems never do that?

oh, wait a minute....

March 29, 2016 9:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

currently, 147 FBI agents are actively involved in the Hillary investigation, her IT aide has been granted immunity, and interviews with all her aides have been scheduled

talk about liberal values...

March 29, 2016 9:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep, 147 FBI investigators will find this fact is still true:

Clinton never knowingly sent or received any messages that were marked classified at the time. It’s been shown in the year-plus of investigations into her server that there were a number of items on Clinton’s server that were classified after the fact, but there is no evidence to make her initial statement untrue.

March 29, 2016 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A really bad winter for the Arctic just got even worse

"First came January, when Arctic sea ice hit a record low monthly extent — the area of ice over the ocean was 1.04 million square kilometers lower than the average from 1981-2010, based on satellite observations.

Then came February — and the very same story. The ice grew in comparison with January, as is typical of the seasonal cycle, but still was at a record low for the month, and this time 1.16 million square kilometers below average.

The records aren’t over yet — on Monday, the National Snow and Ice Data Center and NASA announced that a few days ago, on March 24, Arctic sea ice “likely” hit its maximum extent for the year of 2016 – a winter peak from which the ice will now decline for months until it hits a low at the end of summer, usually in September. And it was the lowest maximum extent on record, at 14.52 million square kilometers, or 5.607 million square miles.

A low sea ice maximum may sound like a contradiction in terms, but it’s not: Each year, the ice hits a peak or maximum in winter, and a low or minimum in summer. And of late, both the annual highs and the yearly lows have been moving lower..."

March 29, 2016 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In Sex Scandals, GOP Trumps Democrats

"...• Republicans have more scandals (35 to 28), but Democrats have bigger ones, based on our methodology (13 out of the top 20).
• Democrats tend to have more problems with harassment, staffers, and underage girls; Republicans tend to have more problems with prostitutes, hypocrisy, and underage boys.

To offer some clarity, we’ve broken the scandals into categories, and graded them Cook Report-style...

Prostitution
This category combines both those who solicited a prostitute but for whatever reason did not accept—think former Idaho Senator Larry Craig—and those who went ahead and became johns. Republicans by a count of six-to-one have been involved in prostitution scandals. For our rankings, soliciting prostitution without accepting it was weighted slightly lower than becoming a john.
Solid Republican (6-1)

Staffer
There’s a clear abuse of power when a politician and his employee is involved in a sex scandal. Democrats, by a count of 16 to six, have seemingly leveraged that power imbalance more.
Solid Democrat (16-6)

Hypocrisy
Almost half the sex scandals we turned up involved someone saying one thing while doing another. The earliest example was womens’ rights champion Robert Packwood, who in 1992 was infamously slapped with several sexual-harassment and abuse charges from former female staffers.
Solid Republican (17-9)

Sexual harassment
Whether threats or phone calls, it’s mostly been Democrats.
Solid Democrat (9-2)

Adultery
Bipartisanship? More of a personal ethical issue rather than a legal one, the adultery category is the most populated, with Republicans and Democrats nearly even, with the Schwarzenegger scandal tipping the category to the Republicans.
Lean Republican (21-20)

Inappropriate conduct with a minor
This type of scandal indicates at the least a serious flaw or lapse in judgment. The most infamous example is former Representative Mark Foley, who exchanged sexually charged emails and instant messages with underage pages. Two Republicans and one Democrat have been involved in this type of scandal.
Lean Republican (2-1)

Sexual relations with a minor
Far more serious than above: the most serious charge, in fact, among all recent political sex scandals. Conviction carries more than a decade in jail, based on federal sentencing guidelines.
Toss up (3-3)

Out-of-wedlock child
Three Republicans have confirmed having children as a result of extramarital affairs, compared to one Democrat. Of course, Schwarzenegger is the latest.
Solid Republican (3-1)

Sexual assault
Six Democrats have faced allegations of sexual assault, compared to four for Republicans.
Lean Democrat (6-4)

Cuckolding
Republicans have had four scandals involving an affair with a married woman—compared to one for Democrats. The only woman on this list, Helen Chenoweth, created a cuckquean (who knew?) out of her lover’s wife.
Solid Republican (4-1)

Coverup
Either with money or behind-the-scenes wrangling or just weak denial lies, six Republicans have been caught covering up a sex scandal, compared with three Democrats, with payoffs ranging from $150,000 or a job for a spouse to, allegedly, $20.
Lean Republican (6-3)"

March 29, 2016 11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"on Monday, the National Snow and Ice Data Center and NASA announced that a few days ago, on March 24, Arctic sea ice “likely” hit its maximum extent for the year of 2016 – a winter peak from which the ice will now decline for months until it hits a low at the end of summer, usually in September. And it was the lowest maximum extent on record, at 14.52 million square kilometers, or 5.607 million square miles."

this should be a big relief for those alarmed about the excess population

you know, the liberal scrooges

vast portion of places like Siberia, Greenland, northern Canada and even Antarctica may soon be available for human habitation

"In Sex Scandals, GOP Trumps Democrats"

absolutely pathetic post

obviously, temptation is equally present in all political persuasion

just like any hunger

and the GOPers who do this are no more hypocritical in statements than the self-righteous Dems

we all remember how horrified TTFers were when Sarah Palin daughter became pregnant

they were shocked, shocked...

March 29, 2016 12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TTF wasn't shocked.

TTF applauded Bristol Palin and considered her to be a TTF Poster Child of the dangers to kids who live in areas that do not have good, comprehensive sex education.

Jim wrote:

"TeachTheFacts.org first came into existence to fight for comprehensive sex education in Montgomery County, Maryland, public schools. We've gotten into some tangential issues but there is one focal theme to most of it, and that is society's attitudes about sexuality. As a group we tend to believe that young people should be taught all they need to know in order to conduct themselves responsibly, especially when it comes to sex. They should know how everything works, what the risks are, there should be some preparation for adult emotions and behaviors, and they should give some thought to the ethical aspects of their choices -- what is right and wrong for them as individuals and for society in general.

Bristol Palin could be our poster child....

... It is serious stuff having a baby, oh they're cute and everything but when they're crying at three in the morning you will not sleep. It should not be a surprise. Students should be taught about the responsibilities of parenthood, how to prevent pregnancy, and what to do if you find you are pregnant.

This online article [in People magazine, Jim cited] is just a teaser to get you to buy the hardcopy of the magazine. I'm glad they are focusing some attention on the plight of young women like Bristol Palin, and I hope that she is able to get the word out to other teens, especially ones who might live in areas that do not have good, comprehensive sex education.

March 29, 2016 12:40 PM  
Anonymous And don't start up with the Eisenhower crap if you want to not look stupid. said...

...HABERMAN: Right, and I’m just wondering what is the era when you think the United States last had the right balance, either in terms of defense footprint or in terms of trade?

TRUMP: Well sometime long before that. Because one of the presidents that I really liked was Ronald Reagan but I never felt on trade we did great. O.K.? So it was actually, it would be long before that.

SANGER: So was it Eisenhower, was it Truman, was it F.D.R.?

TRUMP: No if you really look at it, it was the turn of the century, that’s when we were a great, when we were really starting to go robust. But if you look back, it really was, there was a period of time when we were developing at the turn of the century which was a pretty wild time for this country and pretty wild in terms of building that machine, that machine was really based on entrepreneurship etc, etc. And then I would say, yeah, prior to, I would say during the 1940s and the late ‘40s and ‘50s we started getting, we were not pushed around, we were respected by everybody, we had just won a war, we were pretty much doing what we had to do, yeah around that period.

SANGER: So basically Truman, Eisenhower, the beginning of the 1947 national security reviews, that’s the period?

TRUMP: Yes, yes. Because as much as I liked Ronald Reagan, he started Nafta, now Clinton really was the one that — Nafta has been a disaster for our country, O.K., and Clinton is the one as you know that got it done, but it was conceived even before Clinton, but you could say that maybe those people didn’t want done what was ultimately signed because it was changed a lot by the time it got finalized. But Nafta has been a disaster for our country.

SANGER: But you think of that period time that you most admire: late ‘40s, early ‘50s, it was also the most terrifying time with the build up of the Cold War, it’s when the Russians got nuclear weapons, we got into an arms race, we were —

TRUMP: But David, a lot of that was just pure technology. The technology was really coming in at that time. And so a lot of that was just timing of technology....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html?_r=1

March 29, 2016 4:10 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I think Trump is on his way out. He has a long history of anti-women comments from accusing a Fox employee of being on her period, to calling Carly Fiorina ugly and lately to posting a picture of his and Ted Cruz's wife basically saying "Your wife is ugly and mine isn't" to now defending his campaign manager who's been charged with assaulting a female reporter.

This all fits into the narrative of Trump as a misogynist and his approval ratings even amongst Republican women are very bad. I think this is going to be his undoing.

Shout out to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper who announced that he would not enforce the states recently passed anti-LGBT religious "freedom" law (freedom to discriminate against LGBT people, lol).

“We should not even be here today, but we are. We’re here because the governor has signed statewide legislation that puts discrimination into the law,” Cooper told reporters in Raleigh Tuesday.

According to Cooper, House Bill 2 (HB2) is in direct conflict with nondiscrimination policies at North Carolina’s justice department and treasurer’s office, as well as many of the state’s businesses. Though the LGBT community is targeted, he said, it could ultimately result in the discrimination of other groups as well.

“House Bill 2 is unconstitutional,” he said. “Therefore, our office will not represent the defendants in this lawsuit, nor future lawsuits involving the constitutionality of House Bill 2.”

Cooper called the new law a “national embarrassment” that will hurt North Carolina’s economy if not repealed.

Hey bigots, not being allowed to discriminate against LGBT people is not an infringement on your religious freedom. If it were then not being allowed to discriminate against christians is an infringement on the religious freedom of non-christians just as not being able to discriminate against black people or Jews would also be an infringment upon christians religious freedom. But of course you'll never hear anti-gay bigots saying that.

March 29, 2016 6:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous idiotically said "vast portion of places like Siberia, Greenland, northern Canada and even Antarctica may soon be available for human habitation".

It will cost trillions of dollars to move entire cities from flooding coastland to inland areas, not to mention thousands of times more than that to move entire populations away from a too hot to live equator to places like Siberia, Greenland, and Antartica. And Canada isn't going to allow Americans to move into Canada to escape intolerably hot climates.

It will cost a tiny fraction of what it would take to adapt to severe global warming to prevent it in the first place. This idea of waiting until the disaster has occurred to do anything is a profoundly bad idea.

March 29, 2016 6:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt reminds me of the Republicans saying we need to plan to terraform other planets in case the earth becomes inhabitable. In an unbelievable display of stupidity they think its easier to make a monumentally inhospitable planet like mars earthlike than it is to keep an earth that's what we need as it is. That's like saying instead of driving to the mountains to go skiing you're going to bring the mountains to where you live.

March 29, 2016 6:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

North Caroline'as anti-LGBT law would require these men to use the women's bathroom!

Think about it!

March 29, 2016 6:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now you apparently need to bring your birth certificate and submit to a genital check to pee in North Carolina.

Gov. McCrory is hoping his tyranny against God's LGBT creations will bring him the support of religious haters like himself he needs to win against NC Attorney General Roy Cooper, who is running to unseat him this year.

Cooper is right. HB2, which McCrory signed into law the very day he called for a special session of NC legislature to pass it, is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court will strike down this wrongly enacted unconstitutional law.

March 30, 2016 9:31 AM  
Anonymous A view from inside said...

An Open Letter to Trump Voters from His Top Strategist-Turned-Defector

Excerpts:

"I respect Trump's fans. That's why I can no longer support the man himself.

Even Trump's most trusted advisors didn't expect him to fare this well.

Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it.

The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%. His candidacy was a protest candidacy.

It pains me to say, but he is the presidential equivalent of Sanjaya on American Idol. President Trump would be President Sanjaya in terms of legitimacy and authority.

And I am now taking full responsibility for helping create this monster — and reaching out directly to those voters who, like me, wanted Trump to be the real deal...

...A devastating terrorist attack in Pakistan targeting Christians occurred on Easter Sunday, and Trump’s response was to tweet, "Another radical Islamic attack, this time in Pakistan, targeting Christian women & children. At least 67 dead, 400 injured. I alone can solve."

Ignoring the fact that at the time Trump tweeted this (time-stamped 4:37 p.m.) the latest news reports had already placed the number differently at 70 dead, 300 injured, take a moment to appreciate the ridiculous, cartoonish, almost childish arrogance of saying that he alone can solve. Does Trump think that he is making a cameo on Wrestlemania (yes, one of his actual credits)?

This is not how foreign policy works. For anyone. Ever.

Superhero powers where "I alone can solve" problems are not real. They do not exist for Batman, for Superman, for Wrestlemania and definitely not for Donald Trump...

...Trump is about Trump. Not one of his many wives. Not one of his many "pieces of ass." He is, at heart, a self-preservationist.

In fact, many people are not aware of the Trump campaign's internal slogan, but I will tell you. It is stolen from a make-believe television presidency on The West Wing where Martin Sheen portrayed President Bartlet. The slogan on the show amongst the idealistic group of Bartlet's staff was “Let Bartlet Be Bartlet.”

Inside the Trump camp, the slogan became "Let Trump Be Trump."...

...I consider myself a part of the silent majority that led to Trump’s rise, which is why I want you to know that I am with you — I wanted Trump to be real, too.

He is not.

He even says so himself. His misogyny? That's the character.

His presidential candidacy? That's a character, too.

The problem with characters is they are the stuff of soap operas and sitcoms and reality competitions — not political legacies.

Trump made me believe. Until I woke up.

And he has no problem abusing your support the same way he cheated hard-working men and women out of millions of dollars, for which he is now being sued.

I came into this eager to support a savvy businessman who received little outside funding. I loved Trump's outsider status. But a year has now passed since I was first approached to become part of Team Trump...."

March 30, 2016 10:05 AM  
Anonymous oh, those Dems said...

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/274631-house-candidate-reid-told-me-not-run-because-im-muslim

March 30, 2016 10:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least Reid didn't try to deport him or kill members of his family.

The GOP has declared war on American Muslims

"If you type GOP or Republican into the search engine of The American Muslim site, you will come up with a lot of articles about the GOP and most involve Islamophobia. In our TAM collection of anti-Muslim statements made by elected representatives and government officials, a great majority have been made by Republicans. This lengthy collection of statements has just been updated on 1/29/2015.

Here are just a few of the incidents over the past few years:..."


Educate yourself. Click the link to the article and read comments of elected US officials about Muslims.

March 30, 2016 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Educate yourself"

interesting thing to say to conclude such an ignorant post

Reid told a Muslim American citizen not to run for office

no GOP candidate has suggested deported or killing the families of Muslims who are citizens of the U.S.

you owe the blog, the GOP candidates, and America, in general, an apology for your demagoguery

exactly the type of a-hole who led to the demise of civility in our political discourse

we await the apology..

March 30, 2016 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think Trump is on his way out"

there was a tide starting to turn against him with the juvenile post against Heidi Cruz

but, once again, the press has blown it with the latest ridiculous hype about the supposed "assault" on a Breitbart reporter

making Trump a victim of hype once again and making the public sympathetic

everyone has seen the tape

the reporter was restrained from lunging at Trump

the idea that this caused a bruise is ridiculous

so are the quotes from the reporter saying this is the worst thing that ever happened to her

lucky girl

they may not get many celebs in desolate provinces of Canada but here in Washington, they're commonplace

they always have a entourage acting in an intimidating manner to protect the celeb

never occurred to me to have them arrested

"He has a long history of anti-women comments from accusing a Fox employee of being on her period,"

he said that was a misinterpretation and it's significant that he did

his usual MO with offensive comments is to double-down

"to calling Carly Fiorina ugly"

the press and media insult his appearance all the time

he has mocked his other opponents so this doesn't seem misogynistic

"and lately to posting a picture of his and Ted Cruz's wife basically saying "Your wife is ugly and mine isn't""

very puerile behavior but it is interesting how much focus is on him and not the pro-Cruz group is originally attacked Trump's wife

"to now defending his campaign manager who's been charged with assaulting a female reporter"

bogus

"This all fits into the narrative of Trump as a misogynist and his approval ratings even amongst Republican women are very bad. I think this is going to be his undoing."

Americans are actually sick of the media and liberals trying to stoke a gender war in America

Hillary found this out when she brought Gloria Steinem and Madelyn Albright up to New Hampshire

"Shout out to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper who announced that he would not enforce the states recently passed anti-LGBT religious "freedom" law"

do your job or get ready for recall, Roy

your corporate big wig establishment buddies are fading from power and won't be able to save you

"Hey bigots, not being allowed to discriminate against LGBT people is not an infringement on your religious freedom"

if by "discriminate", you mean declining to participate in activities that violate one's religious beliefs, then yes it is

the big business and republican establishment types who have sided with authoritarian aspects of the gay agenda are already losing at the ballot box

a lot of trouble caused when LGBT "folks" can simply use caterers and photographers and wedding bands that share their values

there are no lack of them

March 30, 2016 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like Drumpf's got your vote, just like McCain and Romney did before him.

(Not to mention Santorum, Huckabee, Cain, Carson and all the other losers you've supported over the years.)

I'll give you this -- you are a master of choosing losers for PUSA.

March 30, 2016 1:42 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Hey bigots, not being allowed to discriminate against LGBT people is not an infringement on your religious freedom"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "if by "discriminate", you mean declining to participate in activities that violate one's religious beliefs, then yes it is".

No one providing flowers or a cake for a wedding is in any sense "participating" in that wedding. Only the couple marrying can be said to be participating in a wedding. By your logic a christian gun shop owner is participating in murder everytime a gun he sells is used in a murder.

Besides, this is not just about weddings, its about this law allowing "good" christians to fire LGBT people from their jobs or evict them from their homes, or deny them any goods and services.

You heard it here folks - Wyatt/bad anonymous says its discrimination against christians if they aren't allowed to fire black people or Jews from their jobs.

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "if by "discriminate", you mean declining to participate in activities that violate one's religious beliefs, then yes it is".

LGBT people have never been allowed to deny services to christians. By your own standard Americans have been discriminating against LGBT people since the first amendment was passed. Wyatt wants laws to allow christians to discriminate against LGBT people but doesn't want to let LGBT people discriminate against christians - what a hypocrite!

March 30, 2016 2:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Grassroots Republicans are growing frustrated with their Washington Beltway counterparts, who they think are giving up the fight for the White House.

They see talk of diverting resources from the presidential fight and distancing House and Senate candidates from Donald Trump or Ted Cruz as a surrender.

The prospect of a brokered convention has depressed many in the GOP.

A nasty primary fight filled with schoolyard taunts had already soured some Republicans on their chances of winning the White House, particularly when it comes to rhetoric and policy positions that many believe could make it more di fficult for the party to win over female, Hispanic and black voters.

A fight at the convention could make it even more difficult for the party to unite in the fall. If Trump, the front-runner for the nomination, goes into the convention with the most delegates but leaves it without the nomination, many believe his supporters will not back the GOP nominee. And if Trump is the nominee, Republicans in the “Never Trump” movement will find it difficult to support him.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have already begun distancing themselves from Trump.

Ryan gave a speech last week criticizing the rhetoric in the GOP race. He has previously criticized Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims entering the United States.

McConnell, for his part, reassured nervous colleagues at a recent meeting that party resources can be focused on congressional races in the same way they were in 1996, when it became apparent that Bob Dole, the party’s nominee, wouldn’t beat Bill Clinton, according to a GOP senator who attended.

“We have two leading candidates for president who will almost surely will drag the ticket down,” said Vin Weber, referring to Trump and Cruz.

“We have to think about how we actually preserve the congressional majorities, which I think we can do,” Weber said.

Such talk is blasphemy to other Republicans.

“That kind of talk creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that will enable their very demise. They aren’t really as interested in defeating Democrats as they are in saving their own hides,” said Steve Deace, a conservative radio host based in Iowa who backs Cruz.

March 30, 2016 2:18 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "no GOP candidate has suggested deported or killing the families of Muslims who are citizens of the U.S.".

I find it hard to believe you are unaware that Trump has called for killing the families of ISIS members, regardless of whether or not they are U.S. citizens and even though that would be illegal under both American and international law.

You owe Good Anonymous, the blog, and the United STates, in general, an apology for your dishonesty

exactly the type of a-hole who led to the demise of honesty in Republican political discourse

we await the apology.

March 30, 2016 2:37 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Hans plays with Lotte, Lotte plays with Jane
Jane plays with Willi, Willi is happy again
Suki plays with Leo, Sacha plays with Britt
Adolf builds a bonfire, Wyatt/bad anonymous plays with it

March 30, 2016 2:41 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And Good anonymous never said any GOP candidate has "suggested deported[sic] the families of Muslims who are citizens of the U.S.".

You owe Good Anonymous, the blog, and the United STates, in general, an apology for your dishonesty

exactly the type of a-hole who led to the demise of honesty in Republican political discourse

we await the apology.

March 30, 2016 2:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the press has blown it with the latest ridiculous hype about the supposed "assault" on a Breitbart reporter"

Do you think the Jupiter, FL police department hyped the misdemeanor charge of battery too? Funny thing though, the cops didn't charge Lewandowski until after they saw the videotape from the security cameras.

"making Trump a victim of hype once again and making the public sympathetic"

Except for the fact that Drumpf's negatives are increasing day by day.

FYI -- Drumft down't want sympathy. He wants money and power.

"everyone has seen the tape

the reporter was restrained from lunging at Trump

he idea that this caused a bruise is ridiculous"


Everyone who sees the videotape knows you are lying just like Drumpf. Ms. Field's didn't lunge at Drumpf or anyone else in the shot, yet she ends up being yanked backward and twisted to face Drumpf's campaign thug, who had been behind her, before he moves ahead of her.

"the idea that this caused a bruise is ridiculous"

It would be interesting to hear your views about the woman yanked backward and twisted to face Mr. Lewandowski if she had been your daughter, wife or mother.

Here's what's ridiculous -- Trump tweeting photograph of the back of Ms. Field's hand holding a pen nearly touching his forearm and captioning it "Why is this reporter touching me as I leave news conference? What is in her hand??" There is no hint of distress on Drumf's face, everyone can clearly see the Washington Post reporter/witness (in the red and white checked shirt behind), and none of the Secret Service agents attempted to move Ms. Fields away.

Lyin’ Donald Trump Feigns Fear of Reporter Michelle Fields

It figures a Drumpf supporter would be as big a liar as he is.

March 30, 2016 3:38 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "the press has blown it with the latest ridiculous hype about the supposed "assault" on a Breitbart reporter"

Here's how I heard it put:

Regardless of whether or not its true Trump's flippant dismissal of allegation shows he's unconcerned about the allegation and doesn't take seriously the possibility that the reporter was assaulted. This plays into the narrative Trump's created that he doesn't care about women, he looks down on women, and would approve of oppressing/abusing women. If trump was smart he'd have said "This is a serious allegation and I'm going to examine it carefully and take action if need be". That way he would have shown he isn't unconcerned with how women are treated and automatically taking the anti-woman position.

March 30, 2016 4:38 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Breaking news:

Trump says women should be punished for having abortions. Even various Repulican anti-abortion groups have condemned his statment.

Trump has constantly fed the narrative that he's anti-woman. The last several examples in the past couple of weeks alone has hurt him. Once again, I predict Trump won't be the Republican nominee (although I'd like him to be) as he's losing support quickly with his antagonistic comments towards women.

March 30, 2016 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Politico reports:

Trump's popularity nosedives in critical stretch
As he inches toward the GOP nomination, Donald Trump is becoming more and more disliked among American voters.



March 30, 2016 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Do you think the Jupiter, FL police department hyped the misdemeanor charge of battery too? Funny thing though, the cops didn't charge Lewandowski until after they saw the videotape from the security cameras"

hysterical and riotous thing

police responded to a reporter pressing charges

btw, she said she wasn't going to press charges but was shocked, shocked because Lewandowski denied the incident

if she was really hurt, or the experience was as bad as she says, she wouldn't say that

this is obviously a push by the media to intimidate those who protect celebs and have a court rule that no one can lawfully stop them from forcibly accessing celebs

"Except for the fact that Trump's negatives are increasing day by day"

true

people don't appreciate his name-calling

wait a minute here: you call names too

"FYI -- Trump down't want sympathy. He wants money and power"

oh, he loves to act as the aggrieved party

"Everyone who sees the videotape knows you are lying just like Trump. Ms. Field's didn't lunge at Trump or anyone else in the shot, yet she ends up being yanked backward and twisted to face Trump's campaign thug, who had been behind her, before he moves ahead of her."

no, she wasn't yanked and twisted; she also lied and said he grabbed her and nearly tried to forcefully pull her to the ground, that she lost her balance; she's lying, for political purposes

"It would be interesting to hear your views about the woman yanked backward and twisted to face Mr. Lewandowski if she had been your daughter, wife or mother."

this was your response to my statement that the idea she got a bruise from the encounter was ridiculous? I'll take that as a confirm I was correct

btw, it would be interesting to hear your views about the person doing their job and being lied about if she had been your daughter, wife or mother who had a job protecting a celeb from the crowds

"Here's what's ridiculous -- Trump tweeting photograph of the back of Ms. Field's hand holding a pen nearly touching his forearm and captioning it "Why is this reporter touching me as I leave news conference? What is in her hand??""

you're right: it's ridiculous, which was Trump's point

but no more ridiculous than Fields claiming she suffered harm

no one was hurt here

the reporter is threatened by the idea that she doesn't have carte blanche to get in Trump's face whenever she wants

if Fields was assaulted, then hundreds of women get gang-raped on the subway daily

"There is no hint of distress on Trump's face"

sam applied to Fields

"It figures a Trump supporter would be as big a liar as he is"

gee, if you've been reading you know I don't support Trump

I think he has a potential to be dangerous and is unqualified for the presidency because of personal attributes

additionally, his views on issues are closer to Hillary's than mine

but, he's been victimized by the press

March 30, 2016 4:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good eye, Priya Lynn. We can all watch the Donald tell women what he thinks of some of their personal reproductive decisions tonight on MSNBC:

"Donald Trump once again managed on Wednesday to send shockwaves through the media with his blunt, vicious mouth, this time admitting out loud that he wishes to “punish” women who get abortions. After asked by Chris Matthews about abortion during an MSNBC town hall set to air in full Wednesday night, Trump reiterated the bog-standard Republican opinion that he is “pro-life” and that he would like to return to an era when abortion was banned.

But then the wheels fell off the whole thing when Matthews pushed Trump on what would happen to women who got illegal abortions under the proposed Trump abortion ban. After wiggling a little, Trump caved and answered, “There has to be some form of punishment.”

“For the woman?” Matthews pushed.

“Yeah,” Trump replied...."

March 30, 2016 5:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...Trump is clearly not conversant in the disingenuous posturing about abortion expected of all anti-choice politicians. If he was, he’d know the official stance that Republicans are supposed to take is that women are victims of abortion and therefore cannot be held responsible for it. Yes, it’s true that women pick up the phone, make the appointment, talk through their decisions with medical professionals, sign paperwork and then either take a pill or let the doctor perform an abortion, but none of this should be taken, in conservative eyes, as evidence that women are the people responsible for the abortion happening. Women are regarded by conservatives as fundamentally incapable of making grown-up decisions. If they choose abortion (and by implication, if they choose sex), it’s because they poor dears were misled.

Yes, the same people that conservatives treat as literally too stupid to understand what making a medical decision entails are then expected to raise children.

One doesn’t want to give Trump too much credit here for his mistake in talking about women like their brains function on a level past that of a 3-year-old. It’s not like he has some kind of respect for women’s intelligence. It’s just that he hasn’t been briefed, likely out of personal disinterest, on the fact that the right’s official stance is no longer that women are murderers. The newer, softer talking point is that women are idiots....

....Update: Trump’s campaign has released a statement embracing the standard Republican talking points on this.

If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions."

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/donald_trump_says_he_wants_to_punish_women_who_have_abortions_making_him_just_like_every_other_pro_life_politician/

March 30, 2016 5:44 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The Republican Party, which has accused "liberal elites" of waging a "war on religion," last week dispatched its leading lights to the rhetorical battlefields in a religious war of its own making.

On March 22, Americans awoke to the news of the horrific terrorist attacks in Brussels, which should have prompted calls for solidarity coupled with rational and effective law enforcement. But for Ted Cruz — who has made religious liberty a central focus of his campaign — it was instead an opportunity to propose an unconstitutional and dangerous program for targeting American Muslims.

The two Republican presidential frontrunners are engaged in a sordid one-upmanship of who can more blatantly scapegoat American Muslims. For Donald Trump and Cruz, it's an essential part of the gladiator politics that have come to define the GOP primary. Trump has said "Islam hates us" and notoriously proposed banning all Muslims from entering the U.S. Cruz has called for all Syrian Muslims to be banned from the entering the U.S., but for Syrian Christians to be allowed in.

So after the Brussels attack last week, Cruz said, "We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized."

Throughout his presidential campaign, Cruz has singled out the most sympathetic of the religious non-profits, an order of Catholic nuns called the Little Sisters of the Poor, as exhibit A in President Obama's alleged war on religion. He has accused Obama as having "the audacity to sue the Little Sisters of the Poor," when in fact the order of nuns sued the administration.

"Whether Hobby Lobby or the Little Sisters of the Poor, people of faith should not be made to bow down at the altar of political correctness," Cruz said.

If "political correctness" sounds familiar, it's because he wields it constantly to portray religious pluralism as the enemy of Christianity. In fact, he invoked it days earlier when calling for a "people of faith," Muslims, to be subjected to increased government surveillance. "In the wake of the Brussels attacks, I called for vigorously guarding against the political correctness that has plagued Europe," he wrote in a New York Daily News op-ed.

This is par for the course for Cruz. Throughout his campaign, he has portrayed the conscience rights of conservative Christian non-profits (and business owners) as being under mortal threat, but he has seemed oblivious to the perils to the constitutional rights of religious minorities, like Muslims he believes should be targeted by law enforcement for their religion and nothing more.

As always for Cruz, religious liberty is for one people only: Christians.

March 31, 2016 9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) continued to attack Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday, arguing that depending on him to fix the country is like calling on an arsonist to save a burning house.

“Donald Trump is looking out for exactly one guy, and that guy’s name is Donald Trump,” Warren told Stephen Colbert during an appearance on “The Late Show.” “He smells that there’s change in the air and what he wants to do is make sure that that change works really, really well for Donald Trump.”

The Massachusetts senator slammed Trump’s business record in an effort to dispel the myth that he is a successful businessman.

“The truth is, he inherited a fortune from his father, he kept it going by cheating and defrauding people, and then he takes his creditors through Chapter 11,” she said. When Colbert pointed out Trump has never broken the law, Warren quickly jumped in to note he has never broken the law “and been caught.”

Warren has also called Trump a “loser” and said his campaign is based on “racism, sexism, xenophobia and hatred.”

By contrast, the Democratic nominating contest, Warren said, has been filled with debates over ideas that will actually affect the lives of Americans. Noting that 70 percent of Americans have to borrow money for college, Warren pointed out that Sanders and Clinton are having a good debate about the cost of higher education.

“Between Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders, they’re talking about should it be free college or should it be debt-free college. God bless that is the right place to have that discussion,” she said.

Warren, who has declined to make an endorsement in the Democratic primary so far, added that Sanders supporters should vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination and vice versa.

March 31, 2016 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

let's play a "what-if" game

in America, several denominations have performed gay "marriages" and churches that hold to biblical principles do nothing more than denounce the practice

there are no mosques that have performed gay "marriages"

if one did, let's be honest

what do you think would happen?

"When Colbert pointed out Trump has never broken the law, Warren quickly jumped in to note he has never broken the law “and been caught"

of course, you could say the same about anyone, including Elizabeth "Princess Tiger Lily" Warren

at least Trump's not being investigated by a task force of 147 FBI agents who work for a former boss, like Hillary is

I think it's obvious they would need special police protection

March 31, 2016 12:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "in America, several denominations have performed gay "marriages" and churches that hold to biblical principles do nothing more than denounce the practice".

Wow! Talk about chutzpah! You really don't care how blatant your lies are, do you? Obviously anti-gay churches have done far, far, far more than just denounce same sex marriages. They've campaigned to ban them, they've sued to prevent them, they've fired people who've entered into them, they've tried to obstruct and block same sex marriage ceremonies, they've gone overseas to advocate for the imprisonment of people entering into same sex marriage or even just advocating for LGBT equality, and the list goes on and on and on.

If bigoted christian churches would just stick to bitching about same sex marriage instead of doing everything in their power to prevent them, discriminate against LGBT people, and pass laws to imprison and execute LGBT people things would be just fine.

Bottom line: Wyatt/bad anonymous will say anything. He doesn’t care if it’s true, if it’s logical, if it makes any sense at all. He only cares if it promotes his bigoted ideology or attacks fair minded people.

March 31, 2016 12:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Christian Pastor Attacks Capitol Hill; Muslims Blamed

Larry Dawson, a pastor from Tennessee, was shot by Capitol Hill police after pulling out a gun in the U.S. Capitol building. He was shot and wounded. It took Fox News about 8 seconds to declare that this just proves the need to start patrolling Muslim neighbourhoods.

Fox News contributor Bo Dietl quickly called for more scrutiny of American Muslims in the wake of Monday’s incident at the Capitol Visitors Centre, but insisted that he was not profiling practitioners of Islam.

“I don’t talk about going into Muslim neighbourhoods and putting an omnipresence there like Stormtroopers,” Dietl said during a phone interview on Fox Business Channel. “What I talk about is having a lot more Muslim police officers — uniform and plainclothes — which can talk to people: ‘What’s going on?’ ‘You see something suspicious, I drive by, you call over [and] let me know.’ You have to have that communication back and forth. That’s the most important thing, is intelligence.”

So now that the shooter has been identified as a Christian minister, I guess we better start patrolling Christian neighbourhoods, right Bo? Right Ted Cruz? Right Fox News? Hello? Is this thing on? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

March 31, 2016 12:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"there are no mosques that have performed gay "marriages"

if one did, let's be honest

what do you think would happen?"

still waiting for an answer

March 31, 2016 1:10 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

American Muslim Lives Apparently Worth Less

Here’s a story I find rather appalling. A man in California who threatened to kill everyone at a mosque and then built a bomb to do it was sentenced to a mere 90 days in jail.

William Celli, a 55-year-old man from California, will spend 90 days in jail after being caught in possession of an explosive device and threatening to kill Muslims. Celli took a plea deal that places him on probation for a further three years and bans him from operating an active Facebook profile.

Celli was arrested on Dec. 20, 2015 after yelling “I’m going to kill you all” outside the Islamic Society of West Contra Costa County in Richmond, California. Police later found and detonated an explosive device at Celli’s residence after receiving tips that he was constructing homemade explosives…

Celli’s sentence is lenient, though, in comparison with that of the Duka brothers. Three brothers from this family of Albanian Muslim immigrants are currently serving life sentences (two of the brothers were sentenced to life sentences plus 30 years) for allegedly planning an attack on Fort Dix. The brothers were sentenced despite being caught on tape multiple times denying any intent to undertake such an attack. They were arrested while illegally buying firearms.

Celli isn’t the first American to get a relatively lenient sentence for threatening Muslims, either. Robert Rankin Doggart, a former candidate for Congress, said he was “plotting the annihilation” of a Muslim community in New York but was let go on a guilty plea.

March 31, 2016 1:11 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"what do you think would happen?".

The same sex couple would live happily ever after.

While it would be the first gay mosque in Paris, there are believed to be 21 other gay mosques sprinkled through the U.S., Canada and South Africa.

American Muslims Supporting Gay Marriage Speak Up

March 31, 2016 1:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

You know you're trying to defend the indefensible when your defence of christian bigotry is "Oh yeah? Well muslims are worse".

Pointing out that you're not as bad as someone else (in some instances) is no defence of your own wrongdoing.

March 31, 2016 1:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

American mosque performs gay marriages

They don't tell people in other muslim countries about it but there is no problem in the States.

March 31, 2016 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"there are no mosques that have performed gay "marriages"

And isn't that exactly what you want for Christian churches?

if one did, let's be honest

what do you think would happen?"

still waiting for an answer


Way ahead of you waiting for your answers.

< crickets continue chirping >

But I will say this, I am happy to live in the USA where we guarantee every citizen the right to practice their own religion. And as Priya Linn has pointed out, gay marriages do occur in American mosques.

Note: "baker" and "florist" are occupations, not religions.

March 31, 2016 1:54 PM  
Anonymous The "liberal media" strikes again said...

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that Clinton used two different email addresses, sometimes interchangeably, as secretary of state. She used only hdr22@clintonemail.com as secretary of state. Also, an earlier version of this article reported that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high. The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50.

From WaPo: How Clinton’s email scandal took root

March 31, 2016 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Lying liars strike again said...

How the hell did such shoddy journalism ever make it into The Washington Post, you ask? I don’t know; that’s something for the Post’s ombudsman to find out. But I can tell you how I — and many others — suspect it went down. The key phrase, turning back to the Post’s correction, is this: “…according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey.”

That “lawmaker,” almost certainly, was a Republican. And if past is prologue, it was a Republican involved with the so-called Benghazi committee, the oh-so-serious investigative entity that House Republicans established in order to destroy Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign get to the bottom of the 2012 attack. It would not be the first time that a politician leaked knowingly false information just for the sake of giving its target a few days of bad press.

Yet that, right there, is the problem: This was utterly predictable. It’s something that happens all the time. And any journalist with an ounce of common sense is always on guard, careful not to become a useful idiot for someone engaged in political machinations. Getting played like this is, to put it lightly, amateurish.

But man-oh-man, did the Post’s initial report get a lot of attention. You gotta figure it earned the Post’s website a whole lot of clicks. That’s often the case with these “too good to check” stories. Meanwhile, the Post can just slap a correction at the bottom of the piece and continue along with its business. And who knows what juicy leak Republican politicians might send its way next?

March 31, 2016 3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sabato's Crystal Ball

The Electoral College: The Only Thing That Matters

It’s a long way to November, but for the moment the GOP is an underdog

March 31, 2016

...The new map, as you will see, does not show a close and competitive general election. The Republicans now find themselves in a deep hole.

Yes, more than seven long months remain until the election, and all kinds of unexpected twists and turns can occur. Sure, we don’t know the shape of the economy or terrorism, or the precise job approval rating of President Obama in the autumn, or the gaffes and scandals that may yet unfold on our way to the ballot box. But goshdarnit, there’s finally a pause in the non-stop primary calendar, and we’re going to take advantage of that!

Our new map is one that will evolve, maybe substantially, after the conventions. Remember that independent and/or third-party candidates could change the calculus. Nonetheless, here is our extra-early, ridiculously premature projection of the Electoral College map in a possible Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump matchup. Yielding completely to boldness, or recklessness, we eliminated Toss-ups, and leaned all states to one or the other nominee. Each state’s electoral history, developing demographics, and current polling data guided our choices.

Election analysts prefer close elections, but there was nothing we could do to make this one close. Clinton’s total is 347 electoral votes, which includes 190 safe, 57 likely, and 100 that lean in her direction. Trump has a total of 191 (142 safe, 48 likely, and 1 leans).

Over the years we’ve put much emphasis on the seven super-swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia. While some will fall to the Democrats less readily than others, it is difficult to see any that Trump is likely to grab. In fact, four normally Republican states (Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Missouri) would be somewhat less secure for the GOP than usual. North Carolina, which normally leans slightly to the GOP, would also be well within Clinton’s grasp in this election after being Mitt Romney’s closest win in 2012.

March 31, 2016 5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/31/man_offers_free_hugs_at_sanders_and_trump_rallies_and_gets_shockingly_different_responses/

March 31, 2016 5:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

With climate change, U.S. states routinely achieving new levels of extreme warmth

In globe’s warmed climate today, U.S. states are setting new records for extreme warmth with regularity while record cold is almost impossible to come by.

The huge disparity between record warmth and cold across the United States is the screaming message portrayed in a slide showing state climate records.

Arndt’s slide shows all state records set for warmth, cold and precipitation extremes since 2010. The amount of red, representing record warmth, is stunning and an irrefutable indicator of climate warming in the United States.

States have set monthly records for warmth 132 times in the past six years, as portrayed by all of the red in the left-hand column.

Blue, which represents record cold, is conspicuously absent. In 3,500 opportunities (considering that there are 50 states and that 70 months have passed), states have logged a record cold month only four times.

The increase in extreme warmth and decrease in extreme cold is precisely what is expected in a warming world.

You may also notice a fair amount of green in Arndt’s slide, which represents state records set for wettest months. An increase in heavy precipitation events is predicted with rising temperatures since warmer air can hold and release more water.

Thanks to human-generated emissions of greenhouse gases, the climate is now well into its own kind of steroid era, in which certain temperature and precipitation extremes routinely surpass old records.

March 31, 2016 5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obviously anti-gay churches have done far, far, far more than just denounce same sex marriages"

true, they've also defended their right to denounce homosexuality and refused to employ or partner with those who don't support the mission of their organizations

"They've campaigned to ban them,"

everyone has a right to their opinion on what a marriage is

even those who are right

"they've fired people who've entered into them"

if they violated the mission of the organization

"they've tried to obstruct and block same sex marriage ceremonies"

you mean like Bernie voters tried to obstruct and block Trump speeches?

"and the list goes on and on and on"

well, not on to the Islamic view

what's the punishment for homosexuality under sharia law?

there are neighborhoods in every major European city where sharia law is imposed

"If bigoted christian churches would just stick to bitching about same sex marriage instead of doing everything in their power to prevent them, discriminate against LGBT people,"

so, in other words, if they just performed gay marriages and filled church staffs with practicing homosexuals, there'd be no problem

something tells me there would be

the homosexual movement is restless and authoritarian and will not rest until an oppressive government physically coerces every citizen to publicly disavow the idea that homosexuality is wrong

"and pass laws to imprison and execute LGBT people"

let us know the last time any American law was proposed to execute homosexuals

"American mosque performs gay marriages

They don't tell people in other muslim countries about it but there is no problem in the States"

there's a reason they don't tell Muslims in other countries

their lives would be endangered

""there are no mosques that have performed gay "marriages"

And isn't that exactly what you want for Christian churches?"

well, yes

but we're discussing what would be done by Christians to achieve that

mostly prayer

Islamics would issue death threats which is why it's not safe to tell them

"Note: "baker" and "florist" are occupations, not religions"

no, they're people with the right to freedom of religion, under the Constitution

March 31, 2016 10:22 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

"the homosexual movement is restless and authoritarian and will not rest until an oppressive government physically coerces every citizen to publicly disavow the idea that homosexuality is wrong"

Spoken like a restless authoritarian Christian dominionist who won't stop until LGBT people can't get married, can't get served at public establishments, can get fired from their jobs just for being gay or trans, and in some cases can't even go safely to use a restroom. Leviticus, it's not just a good book, it's a way of life!

Go ahead Peter the Sprigg, 'splain to us how terrible all that religious persecution is. Why, whatever will you do when there aren't enough wrinlky, homophobic baby boomers left to reconstitute the homophobic "moral majority" that held sway in your long lost youth.? Have you picked out a nursing home yet? Make sure you find a room that doesn't get exposed to too many rainbows!

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 01, 2016 12:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Spoken like a restless authoritarian Christian dominionist who won't stop until LGBT people can't get married, can't get served at public establishments, can get fired from their jobs just for being gay or trans, and in some cases can't even go safely to use a restroom. Leviticus, it's not just a good book, it's a way of life!"

cinco, sometimes you seem like a rational person and then, other times, you post something like this

you're as bipolar as Patty Duke

does a hot dog make you lose control?

just to state the obvious, all the things you characterize here as "authoritarian" are the inability to force others to cater to gays

gays feel aggrieve when others aren't coerced into catering to them

"LGBT people can't get married,"

LGBT "people" can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned

at the same time, marriage is an arrangement involving society at large, it's not something two people just do unilaterally

"can't get served at public establishments,"

again, you think it's oppressive if others aren't forced to serve you

"can get fired from their jobs just for being gay or trans,"

if the organization believes homosexuality isn't compatible with their mission, why should they be coerced into employing homosexuals

no one banning gays from seeking jobs, they just don't think the other side should be forced to hire them if they don't consider them appropriate

"and in some cases can't even go safely to use a restroom"

don't know about that

but there are laws against assault

no one can guarantee that criminals won't commit crimes, obviously

April 01, 2016 8:28 AM  
Anonymous Marriage, GOP style said...

Sex-scandal double standard: Keeping with misogynist tradition, Alabama Gov. Bentley makes sure his alleged mistress suffers more for sexual sin

Gov. Bentley of Alabama shows his sexist side, refusing to resign while his alleged mistress loses her job

The sex scandal going on in the governor’s office in Alabama was already a hypocritical horror show, but this week things got even worse, as Gov. Robert Bentley’s pretense that his religious values are about morality and not just an excuse for male dominance is crumbling.

Bentley got elected to office on a “family values” platform, which is right wing code for being the sex police. In office, he’s more than lived up to his sex policing promises, slashing funding for birth control, fighting to teach kids that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, denouncing same-sex marriage as a “social experiment”, and trying to regulate legal abortion out of existence.

While he was doing this, he was carrying on a sexual relationship with Rebekah Mason, his top aide and most definitely not his wife. Now Mason has resigned her position, saying she wants to “focus my full attention on my precious children and my husband”.

But not Bentley! No, Bentley has dug his heels in and insists he is going nowhere.

“I have no intentions of resigning,” Bentley said. “My intentions are to try to make this state better. My intentions are to try to work through all the difficulties that we’re going through.”

He also took a dismissive view, saying that while he may have made mistakes, “I admit those but we have addressed those.”

Even for a conservative, this is an astounding double standard. She has to lose her job and do the penance lap, while he gets to keep his job and play the victim here. Meanwhile, there is no sign that Bentley intends to lay off his policies aimed at punishing women for having sex in his state or to back a form of sex education that acknowledges that sex for pleasure is a normal, acceptable behavior. The “fun is for me, consequences are for everyone else” mentality on display couldn’t be more stark...

...To be clear, there is absolutely no real intention here of actually treating men and women the same when it come to their notions of sexual sin. Legislative efforts are almost exclusively aimed at depriving women of health care, such as abortion and contraception, in order to punish them for having sex, while no similar efforts are being launched to make sex more fraught for men. (With the exception of gay men, whose right to marry continues to be denounced by conservatives.) But Bentley’s behavior underlines and highlights and puts an exclamation point on the huge sexual double standard here. Maintaining the illusion that religious conservatism is about “morality” and not about using sex as a weapon to keep women in a second class status means men like Bentley need to go. It’s very much a sacrificial lamb situation and not about any sincere interrogation of the deep injustice of their views.

That’s because there is no real reason to hold such anti-sex views, except to oppress women and LGBT people. Birth control, sex ed, legal abortion, and same-sex marriage rights don’t hurt anyone else. On the contrary, all the prevailing evidence suggests that these things make life generally better for everyone, by reducing maternal mortality, helping children be born into better circumstances, improving women’s access to work and education, helping LGBT people with health care and property rights, and oh yeah, making sex, which is an important part of people’s lives (ask Robert Bentley!) easier and safer and less fraught for everyone...

April 01, 2016 8:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"can't get served at public establishments"

let's contrast the mindset of lunatic fringe gay advocates and traditionalists

traditionalists think it's OK for gays to eat at a restaurant if the owners think it's OK

this would be a mutually consensual social arrangement

the lunatics, on the other hand, think gays should be able to force, by governmental intervention, anyone who doesn't want to serve them into doing so

this would be a unilaterally coerced non-consensual social arrangement

in what Orwellian universe would the latter not be oppressive?

April 01, 2016 9:22 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

"Just to state the obvious, all the things you characterize here as "authoritarian" are the inability to force others to cater to gays"

Funny, when government policies are tilted toward your narrow view of Chtistiandom, you didn't have any problem with that authoritarianism:

"at the same time, marriage is an arrangement involving society at large, it's not something two people just do unilaterally"

My church is part of that society at large. One of the things people in my church do is get married. The minister's perform those marriages and the children from those marriages grow up in that church and go to classes on Sunday,and they grow up and go out into the world. Some times the people getting married in my church are gay, and sometimes they have children too. All of these people deserve the same respect and considerations for their marriage from our society as any heterosexual marriage, and the children see that respect and dignity from fellow church members as they grow up. We do, after all, live in a country founded on religious freedom. That's not bipolar, that's just applying the laws consistently. It's OK for you to not like my church, it is not OK to use the government to impose YOUR moral framework on other churches. THAT is authoritarian. Just because it had been done for centuries, doesn't make it excusable.

"again, you think it's oppressive if others aren't forced to serve you"

No, again, it is a matter of applying the laws consistently, not carving out special protections for people who delude themselves into thinking they can justify discriminatory behavior by claiming they have a religious excuse. Human history is full of examples where minorities were abused by the public at large, unfortunately in many cases leading to deaths. In other cases, leading to a permanent poor underclass, for no real good reason. Our anti-discrimination laws have been put into place to try and ameliorate those conditions. These laws have included "race" and "religion" classes from the beginning, and now, in some cases, include sexual orientation and gender identity.

April 01, 2016 10:08 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

If a gay person owned book store, he couldn't discriminate against someone in hiring or servicing them no matter how obnoxious their religion was. Now, in a number of places, there is some reciprocity, and a religious book store owner must treat the gay person in the same fashion. That's just reciprocity, or if you can't handle big words like that, it's just fair. Nothing bipolar about that at all. You were fine with the authoritarianism required to make everyone serve your religion in a protected fashion, so complaining that you now have to do the same thing in return is just sour grapes.


"no one banning gays from seeking jobs, they just don't think the other side should be forced to hire them if they don't consider them appropriate"

No one is banning Christians from seeking jobs either, but if one goes looking for a job at the gay bakery, that bakery owner had better not deny them a job because of their religion, no matter how inappropriate it is, otherwise there will be legal consequences, and all those "Christian" family groups will have their lawyers lined up in a row to sue. Somehow, I've never gotten the inkling that this would be a problem for you.

You are probably tempted to counter the a real Christian isn't going to want to work at a gay bakery, which may be true in a lot of cases. However, life's circumstances at a particular time and place may mean that unemployed baker doesn't have other viable options. Our discrimination laws protect them, increasing their opportunity to find work and stay off food stamps until perhaps, a better option opens up. That's not bipolar either, just common economic sense.

Funny, I can't help but notice, but when things go the way you like them, it's just "normal," but when gays are to be treated in a similar fashion, all of a sudden, it's "authoritarian.". Hyperbole much?

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 01, 2016 10:09 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

"can't get served at public establishments"

let's contrast the mindset of lunatic fringe gay advocates and traditionalists

traditionalists think it's OK for gays to eat at a restaurant if the owners think it's OK

this would be a mutually consensual social arrangement"

Well Anon, you picked the PERFECT example. I feel like I've just been handed a silver platter.

Let's make this example a little more real. Let's say, for example, that this restaurant is in North Carolina. Maybe in a little town called "Greensboro." And just for fun, let's call the restaurant "Woolworth's."

Google "lunch counter sit-ins" Anon. The "traditionalist" model held sway in this country for centuries. It was soundly rejected by most people, for very good reasons. Gay people would really like t avoid the whole fire hoses, burning busses, and police dog scenarios this time around. Most of our country learned lessons from that dark period of our history, unfortunately, some did not. Why is it that it always seems to be the religious people who have the hardest time with treating people fairly?

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 01, 2016 10:28 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

"the lunatics, on the other hand, think gays should be able to force, by governmental intervention, anyone who doesn't want to serve them into doing so

this would be a unilaterally coerced non-consensual social arrangement

in what Orwellian universe would the latter not be oppressive?"

Well, I suppose, that since black people are now allowed to eat at white restaurants all over the country, in "unilaterally coerced non-consensual social arrangement(s)" this "Orwellian universe" is called "reality." Even South Africa gave up on apartheid eventually. It seems that some "progressive" countries had issues getting gold from a country that was essentially using slave labor. This reality must be SO hard for you.

Help! Anon is being oppressed!! Unilaterally even!

I'm trying to get you some help Anon! Hang in there - Orwell is dead now!

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 01, 2016 11:02 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Since we're on the topic of restaurants, I thought I'd pull up a copy of the speech I gave to the 2012 MD Senate Judicial Proceedings committee. Enjoy:

Good afternoon Honorable Senators.

My name is Cynthia _____. I’ve worked in Montgomery County since graduating summa cum laude in Electrical Engineering from one of the nation’s top Engineering schools in 1989. I started my career developing telecom test equipment used around the country. More recently I have worked on equipment for cell phones and tele-presence robots.

I have supported my extended family by paying my nephew’s tuition to a highly ranked Catholic High School (and my alma mater) in Indiana. I support my church by volunteering for the children’s education classes, and I’ve tutored both children and adults in a variety of math courses.

I would first like to call your attention to the “Dining Out Growth Act of 2011” passed by this senate on April 6th of 2011. One of its sponsors claimed the law would give a much-needed boost to the state's restaurant industry, which has suffered during the recent economic downturn.

Thanks to the “Dining Out Growth Act” which went into effect last July, my friends all over the state can bring their dogs out to dine with them at restaurants with outdoor dining facilities. Unfortunately, since the same legislative body failed to pass a gender-identity inclusive anti-discrimination bill, it’s entirely possible that if my friends in Frederick invite me along to dinner with them and their lovely dog Fido, the restaurant owner can refuse to allow me at the restaurant simply because I’m trans. The dog would be quite welcome though.

I find this situation particularly ironic and irksome since I have all my shots, I’m completely housebroken and hypoallergenic. I’m good with kids, never bitten anyone, and I’ve even been neutered. Despite having “Growth Act” in the name, I’ve never seen a dog whip out a wallet or purse to pay the bill, much less calculate a 15 to 20% tip on the tab. Meanwhile, transsexuals like me do that all the time – assuming we can keep our jobs – even though we may not always “lick the plate clean.”

I also find it ridiculous that if an employer won’t hire me because of my Catholic history, citing court cases and multi-million dollar settlements proving that Catholics have been known to emotionally, physically, and sexually abuse children and hide pedophiles on every continent on the planet except Antarctica, I would have recourse to challenge his refusal to hire Catholics in court, based on the fact that our anti-discrimination laws cover religion. If he didn’t want to hire me because of my medical history however, citing a disturbing episode of “Jerry Springer,” I’d be left entirely without legal recourse in many parts of this state.

It is time to remove these glaring inequities in our anti-discrimination laws. If it helps make it more palatable, rename SB 212 the “Growth Act of 2012,” and promote the economic benefits of making it easier for trans people to use public facilities like restaurants, and to keep or acquire housing and employment. This will help insure they remain productive Maryland taxpayers like me.

Thank you for your consideration.

April 01, 2016 11:12 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

You've been around for such a long time now
Oh I wouldn't leave you you know that now.
And why should I be lonely every night
When I can be with you, oh yes you make it right
And I don't listen to the guys who say that you're bad for me and I should turn you away
'Cause they don't know 'bout us
And they've never heard of love
I get a feeling when I look at you
Wherever you go now, I wanna be there too
They say we're crazy but I just don't care
And if they keep on talkin' still they get nowhere
So I don't mind if they don't understand when I look at you when you hold my hand
'Cause they don't know 'bout us
And they've never heard of love
Why should it matter to us if they don't approve?
We should just take our chances while we've got nothing to lose (Lose)

Baby, there's no need for living in the past
Now I've found good lovin' gonna make it last
I tell the others, "Don't bother me", 'cause when they look at you they don't see what I see
No I don't listen to their wasted lines
Got my eyes wide open and I see the signs
'Cause they don't know 'bout us
And they've never heard of love
No I don't listen to their wasted lines
Got my eyes wide open and I see the signs
'Cause they don't know 'bout us
And they've never heard of love

April 01, 2016 1:42 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Cynthia said "You were fine with the authoritarianism required to make everyone serve your religion in a protected fashion, so complaining that you now have to do the same thing in return is just sour grapes.".

Exactly! Bigots like Wyatt/bad anonymous couldn't be more hypocritical. They want the law to force people to serve christians but they don't want to give LGBT people the same rights christians have.

When christians are required to serve LGBT people that's somehow "discrimination" against christians but when LGBT people are forced to serve christians that then magically isn't also discrimination!

One set of rules for christians, a different set of rules for LGBT people.

No special rights for christian hypocrites!

April 01, 2016 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just curious, Priya and Cinco

do you know of any case where an LBGT business owner has refused to serve a Christian and been forced to do so, or penalized for not doing so?

April 01, 2016 2:05 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "do you know of any case where an LBGT business owner has refused to serve a Christian and been forced to do so, or penalized for not doing so?"

So, your excuse is that (you think) no LGBT people are mean enough to want to discriminate against christians so therefore its okay for christians to discriminate against gays.

Pathetic.

LGBT people follow the law and serve christians, christians should have to follow the reciprocal law and serve LGBT people.

No special rights for christians!

April 01, 2016 2:18 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "they're people with the right to freedom of religion, under the Constitution".

Typical Wyatt/bad anonymous fatuous response - acting as though the mere existence of a law that protects christians from discrimination but not gays means that that law is just.

No special rights for christians!

April 01, 2016 2:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

do you know of any case where an LBGT business owner has refused to serve a Christian and been forced to do so, or penalized for not doing so?

Priya "Miss Sunshine" Lynn has answered no

how about you, Cinco?



April 01, 2016 2:54 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Here's one:

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christians.sue.baker.who.refused.cake.with.god.hates.gays.message.on.the.frosting/46599.htm

"Bill Jack, founder of Worldview Christian movement, is reportedly suing Azucar Bakery for not making a Bible-shaped cake with the slogan "God hates gays."

The bakery in Denver, Colorado received the request in March 2014. Shop owner Marjorie Silva told USA Today that she was against the design concept and she suggested to remove the anti-gay wordings and the image of two men holding hands that Jack wanted to incorporate.

"After I read it, I was like 'No way,'" Silva told USA Today. "'We're not doing this. This is just very discriminatory and hateful.'"

"Jack was unhappy about the refusal and filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division against the bakery claiming that the bakery's actions amounted to religious discrimination. Investigations are ongoing and if the bakery is proven to have acted in the wrong, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission will further review their case."


And another... it seems they're trying to run them out of business with lawsuits, or at least just harass them.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-evangelist-asked-a-gay-bakery-to-make-a-traditional-marriage-cake.-now

"He made a tape of himself calling Florida-based bakery “Cut the Cake” and asking them to make a cake decorated with the words, “We do not support gay marriage.” As Feuerstein expected, the bakery – which calls itself LGBT-friendly and advertises same-sex “wedding” services in gay publications – refused and hung up the phone...

Feuerstein posted video of the phone call to YouTube with commentary explaining his position. “Cut the Cake[‘s owner]…refuses to make an anti-gay ‘marriage’ cake, so it obviously violates her principles, and so she doesn’t feel like she should be forced to make the cake,” Feuerstein said in the video. “And yet…there’s all of this hoopla going around because Christian bakeries think that they shouldn’t be forced.”

“Look, this is not about discrimination,” Feuerstein said. “This is about them having the freedom.”

But Cut the Cake’s owner, Sharon Haller, didn’t appreciate being made an example of by Feuerstein. She claims that as soon as Feuerstein’s video was posted, she began receiving dozens of phone calls from his fans and followers placing “fake orders” and telling her and the rest of her bakery staff to “kill ourselves.”

Hmmm... where have I heard that before?

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 01, 2016 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hmmm...I have no idea

I would totally side with these gay bakers in these cases

and it shows how ridiculous it is for government to force people to serve all comers

let people decide who they want to associate with

what a waste of time and resources this all is

live and let live means people can choose who to serve

btw, I suspect these gay bakers would be fine making cakes for straights if there was no messaging

same has also applied to the Christian bakers and pizza parlors

they don't ban gays, they just don't want to participate in celebrating gay marriage

meanwhile, capitalism in general make sure gays have access to goods and services

most businessmen in America will do anything for a buck





April 01, 2016 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...certain conservative religious worldviews, including some conservative Christian worldviews, see the norm for biological sex and gender identity as binary only and completely aligned with each other. Any variation from that, including transitioning genders, is minimally seen as disruptively abnormal, and at worst as an abomination in the eyes of God.

Therefore, it can’t be tolerated in our public educational environments because it’s a threat to their worldview; it exposes their children to transgender students, LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning) issues and other ideas that threaten the continuity of their conservative religious view of the world. Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook, Republican from the 10th District, exemplified this when she stated, “Parents have reached out afraid for their children’s safety [relative to transgender students] and they do not want attention for fear of being called a bigot…” So out of fear and ignorance they enact legislation to protect their worldview.

They also seek to protect their children and others from, according to the bills, the “potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury” they could incur from sharing a locker room or restroom with a transgender student. But let’s be clear that such trauma, if it occurs, isn’t the result of the transgender students. It’s the result of a view of the world rooted in an ideology that is narrow, exclusionary and willing to ignore conflicting evidence. Clinging to such a worldview no doubt can result in emotional and psychological trauma when confronted with the reality outside such a narrow perspective.

Unfortunately, we’re also seeing this in multiple states across the nation. North Carolina’s governor recently signed a bill that a) prevents cities from allowing transgender individuals to use the public restrooms they identify with and b) restricts cities on the nondiscrimination laws they may pass. And the Human Rights Campaign reported that more than 100 active bills targeting LGBTQ individuals are being considered across the U.S.

So how do we combat this? Well, obviously voting the ultraconservatives out of office is a really good way to ensure such legislation is repealed and/or never worked on to begin with. Beyond that, one of the best things to do is to create situations pushing people to break outside of their bubbles – so they get to know someone who has transitioned genders and no longer see them as the “other.” It can be a critical step forward for reducing any nervousness associated with sharing restrooms. Taking away the ignorance often reduces the fear..."

.http://www.salon.com/2016/04/01/sam_brownbacks_kansas_is_still_a_nightmare_the_states_latest_ultra_conservative_war_may_be_its_worst_yet/

Of course some people will always choose to remain willfully ignorant, but I appreciate what Priya Lynn and Cynthia have done here today.

April 01, 2016 4:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Unfortunately, we’re also seeing this in multiple states across the nation. North Carolina’s governor recently signed a bill that a) prevents cities from allowing transgender individuals to use the public restrooms they identify with"

actually, this is a warped view, and typical of gay agenda rhetorical tactics

no one started trying to "prevent cities from allowing transgender individuals to use the public restrooms"

these efforts started because gay advocates pushed a REQUIREMENT that owners allow transgenders to use any restroom they want

there was never any law preventing anyone from ALLOWING "cities from allowing transgender individuals to use the public restrooms"

the big problem is that gay advocates want the government to IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS on everyone

"and b) restricts cities on the nondiscrimination laws they may pass"

but, remember, the coercion was begun by gay advocates to force people to associate with homosexuals

call what you want, it doesn't sound like freedom to me

the gay bakers Cinco mentioned above were right to stand up for their right to associate with whom they please

hopefully, they afford others the same right

"And the Human Rights Campaign reported that more than 100 active bills targeting LGBTQ individuals are being considered across the U.S."

funny how they were never "targeted" before

it's a response to the effort to give LGBTQRESD individuals special rights of protection under the law when the constitution requires equal protection under the law for all people

"I appreciate what Priya Lynn and Cynthia have done here today"

Priya's actually a pretty nasty piece of work, kind of a burlesque version of Donald Trump

surprised you want to be associated

"certain conservative religious worldviews,"

notice the qualification of "certain"

gee, you could say just about anything if you do that

let's try it:

certain liberal worldviews believe armed insurrection is the only way to protect the proletariat

certain environmentalists have tried to assassinate political leaders to save forests

certain homosexuals believe they have a right to have sex with underage boys

see how something technically true can be misleading?

"including some conservative Christian worldviews, see the norm for biological sex and gender identity as binary only and completely aligned with each other"

actually, the norm for biological sex is "binary only"

"Any variation from that, including transitioning genders, is minimally seen as disruptively abnormal,"

oh, that's an overstatement

"and at worst as an abomination in the eyes of God"

true, it is

but so are a lot of other things

April 01, 2016 6:03 PM  
Anonymous More fear, more hatred said...

The 2016 legislative session has been a competition between red states to see who can pass the most hateful anti-LGBT bills under the guise of “religious freedom,’ but Mississippi state Republicans look like they’re going to emerge the winner. Friday, the state house passed the final version of a bill meant to protect and encourage business owners in the state to discriminate against LGBT people, while simultaneously enshrining, in violation of the constitution, the idea that conservative Christianity is the only legitimate religion.

But, because they have to win the war of the Bible-thumpers, Mississippi Republicans went a step further than other states that have passed similar anti-gay bills. This law not only protects discrimination against LGBT people, but against any person who has sex outside of marriage. It also makes it easier for employers and schools to strictly police the way you dress to make sure it’s masculine or feminine enough. If your boss thinks proper ladies wear make-up, he can cite “religious freedom” as a reason to force you to do so, and the law will protect him for it.

The state laid out three religious beliefs that give business owners broad permission to discriminate against people on the basis of:

The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:

(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of
one man and one woman;

(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a
marriage; and

(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

These are, to be clear, the only religious beliefs the state deems worthy of extra-special protection. If you belong to a church that doesn’t preach hate — and there are many faiths, both Christian and otherwise, that accept LGBT people and don’t think premarital sex is a sin — too bad, so sad. The state of Mississippi doesn’t think your religion is a legitimate one. The only faith deemed worthy of this kind of legislation is the kind that teaches that religion’s purpose is in policing other people’s sexual behaviors.

The bill then goes on to offer two levels of protection for bigots who want to discriminate, with religious organizations getting broad rights and private persons and business owners getting somewhat less expansive, but still terrifying rights. Religious organizations are allowed to deny employment, housing, and other services. Private businesses are allowed to deny any marriage-related services (including jewelry selling) to anyone who meets the three criteria. State employees can refuse marriage licenses, as well, and they are offered special protections to “express” the above religious beliefs. Which means that if you work for the state and enjoy haranguing gay coworkers or single women about how they’re going to hell, it will be close to impossible to fire you for it....

More here: http://www.salon.com/2016/04/01/mississippi_vs_everyone_states_pushing_obscene_law_thats_not_only_anti_lgbt_it_could_also_force_women_to_wear_makeup/

April 01, 2016 6:11 PM  
Anonymous Martian Law said...

Haha, good one anon. Gay and trans people did not ask for any change to any bathroom laws, because there were none in the first place. I have often seen women use the men's room when there is a line, it might be embarrassing or they might get teased but it was certainly not against the law. The change is for religious conservatives to pass laws controlling people in ways they did not need to be controlled, to solve a problem that does not exist.

April 01, 2016 6:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Haha, good one anon. Gay and trans people did not ask for any change to any bathroom laws, because there were none in the first place"

actually, that's the point, you jackass

there was no law concerning bathrooms

gays and trans got laws passed in several cities, Charlotte is an example, make it illegally discriminatory to keep biological men out of women's rooms if they say they feel like a woman

so these bills "targeting" QGBLT "individuals" are actually simply a response to the provocation from gay advocates

those advocates have as their goal a system of laws that use governmental coercion to force those who think homosexuality is wrong to publicly recant

I've been in favor of allowing homosexuals to do their own thing but it's becoming increasingly clear the QGBLT wants more than that

as I said, they are restlessly authoritarian

April 01, 2016 8:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/muslim-woman-made-up-story-about-being-slashed-and-called-a-terrorist/ar-BBreC1B?ocid=spartandhp

April 01, 2016 8:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Google "lunch counter sit-ins" Anon. The "traditionalist" model held sway in this country for centuries. It was soundly rejected by most people, for very good reasons. Gay people would really like t avoid the whole fire hoses, burning busses, and police dog scenarios this time around. Most of our country learned lessons from that dark period of our history, unfortunately, some did not."

three problems, cinco:

1. homosexuality is a desire to act in a deviant manner and black is a simple physical characteristic unassociated with behavior

2. allowing people to not bake wedding cakes for gay "weddings" is nowhere remotely similar to fire hoses and police dogs

"I'm trying to get you some help Anon! Hang in there"

when's it getting here?

"Orwell is dead now!"

funny you should bring that up

so's Rock Hudson

see where homosexuality leads?

question:

when will you disavow Priya?


3. there really is no substantially widespread denial of service to gays absent any connection to immoral behavior; all bakeries, caterers, musicians, photographers, etc. happily do business with gays as long as they are not expected to participate in homosexual "weddings"

just a few inconvenient facts for sieve-like brain

April 01, 2016 11:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to try and hold..

April 01, 2016 11:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

is there a party more hypocritical than the Dems?

methinks not...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/01/hypocrisy-thy-name-is-hillary-clinton.html

April 02, 2016 8:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/#511337ce6189

April 02, 2016 10:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-corey-lewandowski-shrinking-role-campaign-221487

April 02, 2016 10:51 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

I don't have time to answer everyone's questions tonight - I have been busy updating my lecture for the college students. One interesting development in Genetics Land is one I'm sure all the folks here will find fascinatin':

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-blurred-lines-human-sex-chromosome.html

Some highlights:

"It turns out that the rigid "line in the sand" over which the human sex chromosomes - the Y and X - go to avoid crossing over is a bit blurrier than previously thought.

To understand the modern X and Y, evolutionary biologists like Wilson Sayres have traced their history back to the dawn of mammals. About 200 million years ago, the X and Y were indistinguishable, but then had a long, drawn out breakup. It's thought that little pieces of the future Y started doing genetic backflips, called inversions, that made it harder to recombine, and the genetic gulf between the sexes first began to widen. In addition to the PAR regions, XTR (X-transposed region) duplicated from the X to the Y in human after the human-chimp split about 6 million years ago, with two genes floating off on this genetic island. The evolutionary outcome is striking; after 200 million years, the male Y is pruned up, having lost nearly 90 percent of the genes on the ancestral sex chromosomes and the ability to exchange information with the X."

April 02, 2016 11:43 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

(Continued from above.)

"…a deficiency in PAR1 recombination has been linked to Klinefelter's syndrome (XXY individuals), and what is especially intriguing to Wilson Sayres is what she deems an "unlucky" break involved in a key male reproductive switch, a testis determination region located nearby."

"This sex-determining region of the Y in the testis determining pathway, is now in humans, right next to the boundary," said Wilson Sayres. "The big implication is that because of the way our Y chromosome is structured, SRY is immediately next to the boundary, and because the boundary is fuzzy, we can get SRY hopping over to an X chromosome." SRY can be shuffled to the X, resulting in an increase in sex-linked disorders, such as a SRY positive XX males, known as de la Chappelle syndrome. "We know that large aspects of gender are really built on societal expectations, but it turns out that also our ideas of what sex is, genetically, may also be a little bit determined by public consensus. Sex has to do with if you are making eggs or sperm in humans. Sex, in fact, can be decoupled from your sex chromosomes. This fuzzy boundary makes it even more messy." Other fuzzy sex-linked boundaries include Turner syndrome (females with only one X), affecting one in 2,500 individuals, and Klinefelter's syndrome, found in one in a 1,000 individuals."

Yet more evidence that it's just not as simple as "XX" = girl and "XY" = boy.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 02, 2016 11:46 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

(2nd try at the first part of the post, which apparently got deleted):

From http://phys.org/news/2016-03-blurred-lines-human-sex-chromosome.html

Blurred lines: Human sex chromosome swapping occurs more often than previously thought

It turns out that the rigid "line in the sand" over which the human sex chromosomes - the Y and X - go to avoid crossing over is a bit blurrier than previously thought.

To understand the modern X and Y, evolutionary biologists like Wilson Sayres have traced their history back to the dawn of mammals. About 200 million years ago, the X and Y were indistinguishable, but then had a long, drawn out breakup. It's thought that little pieces of the future Y started doing genetic backflips, called inversions, that made it harder to recombine, and the genetic gulf between the sexes first began to widen. In addition to the PAR regions, XTR (X-transposed region) duplicated from the X to the Y in human after the human-chimp split about 6 million years ago, with two genes floating off on this genetic island. The evolutionary outcome is striking; after 200 million years, the male Y is pruned up, having lost nearly 90 percent of the genes on the ancestral sex chromosomes and the ability to exchange information with the X.

April 02, 2016 11:51 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“three problems, cinco:

1. homosexuality is a desire to act in a deviant manner and black is a simple physical characteristic unassociated with behavior”

Well, as an asexual, I’m not an expert in sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual. So as someone “with no skin in the game” so to speak, I have to say, from what I’ve seen in my life as an adult, heterosexuals really shouldn’t be patting themselves on the back for their “normal” (i.e. non-“deviant”) behaviors.

There were several instances where I worked at Observation Drive in Germantown where couples were caught having sex – several times in the company parking lot, at least once in a janitorial closest, and rumors of episodes in offices. On all of these occasions, it was heterosexual couples. At the same company, two women confided in me their sexual harassment by heterosexual male co-workers. One even played the sexually explicit voice message she received from the offender. I encouraged her to report it to HR, she did. The guy was gone in a few days. I could not convince my other friend / co-worker to report it to HR because it was her boss. I tried to get HR involved for her myself, but was told that I should stay out of the whole fracas to minimize legal complications. The only time I have walked into a company restroom to find a couple (who fortunately for me, still had their clothes on) it was a heterosexual couple.

There are of course, heterosexual couples that decide to deal with their sexual “mistakes” by having abortions. How often do you hear of a homosexual couple walking into an abortion clinic requesting to murder their offspring? Dr. Phil had an episode with a young woman who had already undergone SEVEN abortions. Surely, there is something that could be considered “deviant” about that.

The other thing I have to say is that when homosexuals go about their thing, it doesn’t end up in the human genome. Scientists have found evidence of three other hominid species within homo sapiens – Neanderthal, Denisovan, and another species that they haven’t even identified yet. At least, homosexuals are sticking to their own species.

Scientifically and religiously, this raises some fascinating questions. Let’s presume for the moment, that some portions of the Book of Genesis are true. This begs numerous questions like, were Adam and Eve Denisovans? Were all those folks who lived hundreds of years actually Neanderthals? Perhaps they were that other, as yet unidentified species? Homo sapiens came along later than all of those – did they interbreed with the original “human” species, adopt some of their creation myths, and then subsequently kill them all off? Our currently shorter life spans could be explained by this. Which of God’s creations did he originally put in the garden? Did our ancestors kill off all of the first of His children? Was this truly our “original sin?” And did we change the story because eating forbidden fruit (the homo sapien drive for more knowledge) sounded a whole lot better than the genocide of innocent, non knowledge-seeking competitors?

But I digress. I’ll get back to my point, even before considering the fact that heterosexuals are quickly over-breeding in a manner is entirely unsustainable for our planet, my previous points above, you, and you’re past behavior here do not make a convincing case that heterosexuals are somehow deserving of a privileged status over homosexuals. I know you like to keep insisting they are deviants, when you are in one of your kinder moods, but they are still 100% people. Before our founding fathers even got to the constitution and all of its amendments, they declared explicitly that “all men are created equal.” That included gay people.

I’m running late for church. Maybe I’ll get to some of your other points later.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 03, 2016 9:51 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "what's the punishment for homosexuality under sharia law?".

The same as it is under christian biblical law - death.

Really, this pretending that christianity is better than Islam is really childish.

April 04, 2016 10:38 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "do you know of any case where an LBGT business owner has refused to serve a Christian and been forced to do so, or penalized for not doing so?

Priya "Miss Sunshine" Lynn has answered no".

As is typical, another lie by Wyatt/bad anonymous.

April 04, 2016 10:40 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "same has also applied to the Christian bakers and pizza parlors

they don't ban gays, they just don't want to participate in celebrating gay marriage

meanwhile, capitalism in general make sure gays have access to goods and services".

More lies by Wyatt/bad anonymous. Many christian businesses refuse to serve gays under any circumstances, regardless of whether or not a wedding is involved. Also, in many small towns there is no alternative to anti-gay businesses that refuse to serve gays and lesbians. As Jim Crow laws showed, if some businesses can deny service to a minority, there will be situations where all businesses refuse to do so.

April 04, 2016 10:44 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "actually, the norm for biological sex is "binary only"
".

Obviously false. Gayness has been found in every animal species in which scientists have looked for it. Same sex sex is a normal, natural, and healthy variant of human sexuality for a portion of the population. There has never been such a thing as "biological sex is "binary only"".

April 04, 2016 10:51 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "homosexuality is a desire to act in a deviant manner and black is a simple physical characteristic unassociated with behavior".

Deviant is not necessarily immoral. Extreme intelligence is deviant, it is not a bad thing. Gayness and skin colour are the same thing in that both are harmless characteristics which are immoral to discriminate against.

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "there really is no substantially widespread denial of service to gays absent any connection to immoral behavior; all bakeries, caterers, musicians, photographers, etc. happily do business with gays as long as they are not expected to participate in homosexual "weddings"".

An obvious lie. Many bigoted christian business owners don't want to serve gays and lesbians under any circumstances, regardless of whether or not a gay wedding is involved. The ironically nameed "religious freedom" laws many states have sought to adopt allow discrimination against gays and lesbians for any reason, not just simply for rejecting gay wedding related goods and services. In many instances there are no alternatives for gay people other than anti-gay businesses that refuse to serve them. Anti-gay people have even suggested that when a grocery store in a small town refuses to serve gays its no problem because gays can just "grow their own vegetables".

April 04, 2016 11:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Planned Parenthood is livid because Hillary called an unborn person "an unborn person"

this is anti-science

science, since Roe v Wade, has concluded decisively that unborn children are alive in every way

furthermore, viability is now possible long before the third trimester

PP is a flat-earth society with malicious intent

they should be defunded immediately

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/print/

April 04, 2016 11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Forbes: Abortion Isn't A Deciding Election Issue

April 04, 2016 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Supreme Court Upholds the Historic Principle of One Person, One Vote

"Las December the same conservative activists who persuaded the Supreme Court to gut the Voting Rights Act challenged the historic principle of “one, person, one vote.” They asked the Court to allow states to draw districts based on eligible or registered voters, as opposed to total population, which had been the standard for more than fifty years. If that happened, millions of people, including children and non-citizens, would have been denied political representation. Districts would have become older, whiter, more conservative and more favorable to Republicans.

Today the Supreme Court rejected that challenge, upholding “one person, one vote” in a unanimous 8-0 decision. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the decision, saying that all people are entitled to equal representation under the law. “It remains beyond doubt that the principle of representational equality figured prominently in the decision to count people, whether or not they qualify as voters,” she wrote. (Justices Thomas and Alito concurred in part.)

Here’s the key part of her argument:

"Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 States and countless local jurisdictions have long followed. As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible to vote. Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates and in receiving constituent services. By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total-population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation.?

This is a major victory for voting rights and a huge crisis averted. If states had been able to use current voting-age population instead of total population as the metric for drawing districts, as I previously reported, a staggering 55 percent of Latinos—those who are under 18 or non-citizens—would not have been counted, as well as 45 percent of Asian Americans and 30 percent of African-Americans.

Yet this is still in many ways a bittersweet victory, given that the 2016 election is the first in fifty years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. We’re seeing the clear impact of that decision this year with 5-hour lines in Arizona, voters turned away from the polls by North Carolina’s voter ID law and 300,000 registered voters who could be disenfranchised in Wisconsin tomorrow.

Imagine if protecting voting rights was the norm, rather than the exception, before the Supreme Court. That’s why the future of the Court is the most important issue facing the country in 2016 and beyond."


http://www.thenation.com/article/the-supreme-court-upholds-the-historic-principle-of-one-person-one-vote/

April 04, 2016 1:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Forbes: Abortion Isn't A Deciding Election Issue"

actually, those who oppose it are more likely to vote

especially without Obama on ballot

what voters really couldn't care less about is global warming

and yet liberals think it's important enough to void free speech:

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/attorneys-general-create-axis-for-global-warming-shakedown/

April 04, 2016 1:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"those who oppose it are more likely to vote

especially without Obama on ballot"

Donald Trump's rock-bottom ratings with women
'Historically, I can’t imagine anyone having worse numbers with women,' says one pollster.

April 04, 2016 2:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this is an irrelevant juxtaposition since Trump has said he wants abortion laws to stay the same

additionally, despite your implication, most women don't support the legalized murder of unborn children

nor does science say unborn children are less than human

April 04, 2016 2:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

more anti-science from the liberal agenda, the end of global warming alarmism is at hand:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/31/twilight-of-the-climate-change-movement/

April 04, 2016 4:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"this is an irrelevant juxtaposition since Trump has said he wants abortion laws to stay the same

additionally, despite your implication, most women don't support the legalized murder of unborn children"


It's called abortion and it is both safe and legal here in America.

Gallup reports: Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years

"STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Americans divide 50% "pro-choice," 44% "pro-life" on abortion
Majority of women, 54%, now pro-choice, vs. 46% of men
Pro-choice ID among Democrats has swelled since 2001...


You're as big a liar as Drumpf, making up whatever "facts" you wish were true.

The fact is that Gallup's last poll on this matter found that indeed "most women," that is 56% of US women do indeed support their right to abortion.

The majority of women will not be voting for Drumpf, who actually does think "you have to ban [abortion]” and "There has to be some form of punishment".

[MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman?
TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.]

Further, in the transcript of that Drumpf interview with Chris Matthews, there was this exchange:

"MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion?

TRUMP: Well, it hasn't -- it hasn't -- different feelings, different people. I would say no."


What a sexist pig!

April 04, 2016 5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's called abortion and it is both safe and legal here in America"

it's an evil act where a stronger person kills a weaker person for the sake of their own pleasure or convenience

whether it's safe depends if you're the strong person or the weak one

legal? so once was whipping, branding and amputating your slave property

thanks for clarifying that your barometer for right and wrong is whatever law is in place

makes the conversation less complex

Anne Frank's lucky you didn't know about her

"Majority of women, 54%,"

wow, a whopping 54%, meaning 46% are opposed in your almost year-old poll

a lot has gone down since

again, those oppose tend to be more motivated to vote

"You're as big a liar as Drumpf, making up whatever "facts" you wish were true"

please..even the individual recognized as the biggest liar in America, Dhroollary Clinton, slipped up and called an unborn child a person

that's scientifically accurate and you and PP want her to lie and deny the humanity of the child

"The majority of women will not be voting for Drumpf, who actually does think "you have to ban [abortion]” and "There has to be some form of punishment""

if you mean Donald trump, most people won't

we consider ourselves civil and chivalrous so we don't want a leader who isn't

it's not because we want unborn children unprotected from being killed while protecting gays' right to force bakers to make them cakes

you can just see the gay pride float with some guy dressed as Marie Antoinette with a sign saying let them eat cake!

"[MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman?
TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.]

Further, in the transcript of that Drumpf interview with Chris Matthews, there was this exchange:

"MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion?

TRUMP: Well, it hasn't -- it hasn't -- different feelings, different people. I would say no.""

fascinating, you're clinging to a weak old story while PP is mad at what Dhroollary Clinton said now

"What a sexist pig!"

the problem isn't that Trump is sexist

it's that he is non-chivalrous

chivalry, the bane of feminists, is what most people, men and women support

April 04, 2016 6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RIP Martin

April 04, 2016 10:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

poor Martin

he'd have fit in so well today

hypocrisy and adultery

April 04, 2016 11:20 PM  
Anonymous TBD said...

"...Politico reports, “both sides are mobilizing in anticipation of a bitter clash over whether the party should embrace a more moderate approach to gay nuptials, in keeping with the a public that is more open to it, or maintain the hard line the party’s base demands.”

Establishmentarians see this as an opportunity to modernize the party, to make it nationally competitive. Same sex marriage isn’t an issue anymore – it’s been decided at the ballot box and by the Supreme Court. Party insiders know this, and they’re working to make the platform more inclusive. “The party’s biggest financiers,” Politio reports, “have been helping to bankroll the American Unity Fund, a group that has launched a well-organized, behind-the-scenes effort to lobby convention delegates who will draw up the platform. It is asking them to adopt language that would accommodate same sex marriage.”..."

April 05, 2016 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Establishmentarians see this as an opportunity to modernize the party, to make it nationally competitive. Same sex marriage isn’t an issue anymore"

“The party’s biggest financiers,” Politio reports, “have been helping to bankroll the American Unity Fund, a group that has launched a well-organized, behind-the-scenes effort to lobby convention delegates who will draw up the platform. It is asking them to adopt language that would accommodate same sex marriage.”..."

these two statements contradict one another

if it isn't an issue, why is there an effort to put into the platform?

truth is, several Southern and heartland states have expressed popular displeasure with homosexual "marriage" and the gay agenda through the Democratic process and have been bullied by big business and Washington

the involvement of establishment Republicans may be a good explanation for their current troubles

the abomination began when Indiana was bullied over their religious freedom law last year

currently, the Obama administration is trying to withhold Federal funds of a number of agencies from North Carolina

if they do so, it's hard to see why residents of North Carolina should pay income tax

April 05, 2016 8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"why is there an effort to put into the platform"

Why do you care about the GOP platform?

You claimed to be a registered Democrat on March 23, 2016 at 10:59 AM

April 05, 2016 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a registered Dem, although that's mainly a vestige of the fact that when I was a youngster I worked in the presidential campaign of a certain Democrat

my political leanings are libertarian

I, like all Americans, am interested in the demise of the collapse of Republican establishment

and the story, as i pointed out, didn't make sense

April 05, 2016 10:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well unfortunately for you, libertarians do not run the GOP. The "story" makes perfect sense as it contrasts "establishment" GOPers with "evangelical" GOPers.

"Establishmentarians see this as an opportunity to modernize the party, to make it nationally competitive. Same sex marriage isn’t an issue anymore""

Establishmentarian GOPers feel the issue of same sex marriage is "settled" now that SCOTUS has ruled it unconstitutional to deny marriage to gay American citizens, however, evangelical GOPers do not.

As the Politico article points out, there is "...a divisive battle over gay marriage on the party’s official national platform.

It’s an issue that drives intense passion, and one that splits the mainstream and evangelical wings of the GOP. With the convention less than four months away, both sides are mobilizing in anticipation of a bitter clash over whether the party should embrace a more moderate approach to gay nuptials, in keeping with a public that is more open to it, or maintain the hard line the party’s base demands...."

April 05, 2016 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, unfortunately for you, Dems have a choice a choice between a corrupt lying hag and a nutty socialist

most historical analysis suggest the GOP will win regardless of the nominee:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/275084-models-predict-gop-white-house-even-with-trump

everyone is well aware that establishment GOP has cozied up to the gay agenda

it's why they're losing

gays are in danger of losing the SCOTUS victory because, as always, they are not magnanimous and continue to push on to new frontiers of authoritarianism, trying to use governmental force to coerce those opposed to homosexuality to participate in gay marriage and recant their views

America is learning something significant about the nature of homosexuality

still, the question remains: if the issue is settled, why does there need to be a position on it?

April 05, 2016 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the problem isn't that Trump is sexist

it's that he is non-chivalrous"


The problem is Donald Trump took 5 different positions on abortion in 3 days

April 05, 2016 11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if there were but one problem with DJ Trump

his adventures in abortion policy were an indication he really hadn't thought much about it

it's more a problem with pro-lifers realizing he isn't credible than feminists

he actually has been a supporter and donor to PP in the past and even favored partial birth killing of children

so women aren't the ones with an issue here

also, most Americans, including women, consider sexism an endearing quality except in matters of employment

there, Trump has a solid record of hiring and promoting women to the highest rungs of his businesses

btw, Dhroolery Clinton has abysmal ratings among women, who see her as a jaded opportunist, inappropriately trying to play the women card while having a poor record

April 05, 2016 11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's amazing

Dhroolery Clinton could be the first woman president

and women detest her:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/04/04/hillary-irony-near-rock-bottom-ratings-among-women

women view her more unfavorably than men do

that takes some doin'

April 05, 2016 11:57 AM  
Anonymous Message to the Drumpfian liar said...

Look who is putting faith in models when predicting election outcomes after years of claiming climate models are bullshit..

The Hill points out "Moody’s latest model, set for release this week, shows that the Democratic nominee would take 332 electoral votes compared to 206 for the Republican nominee."

Alan Lichtman, who has never been wrong, also predicts a Clinton victory.

"Clinton has abysmal ratings among women"

Maybe that's the view down in the dirt where you keep your head, but up here in the sunshine Polls: Trump Clobbered by Hillary Among Women, Nonwhites, Millennials

"...[These voters are] part of what you might call Clinton’s coalition of the unwilling. They are the independent and moderate Republican women who don’t like Clinton – some even despise her – but are so repulsed by Trump that they are already preparing to vote for the Democrat they anticipate will be on the ballot in November if that’s what it takes to keep him out of office. Either that, or sit out the election altogether. This loose coalition is large and growing. More Republican women view Trump more negatively than positively, according to Gallup. And in a hypothetical matchup with Clinton, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found this month that Trump loses the women’s vote by 21 points..."

April 05, 2016 12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



< eye roll >

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/#511337ce6189

April 05, 2016 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"America is learning something significant about the nature of homosexuality"

America is learning a lot more about the nature of hatred of God's human LGBT creations by so-called American christians.

North Carolina church threatens to expel lesbian member if she doesn't divorce her wife

"The First Baptist Church in Bostic, N.C., has sent a letter to an LGBT member telling her that if she does not divorce her wife and renounce homosexuality, she will be kicked out of the church. While "Kelly" married her wife 14 months ago, it was just yesterday, a week after the signing of a statewide bill legalizing discrimination against LGBT people, that the church sent the letter, which Outsports has obtained..."

April 05, 2016 12:37 PM  
Anonymous Successful corporations believe hate is not good for business said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/05/paypal-abandons-plans-to-open-facility-in-charlotte-due-to-lgbt-law/

April 05, 2016 12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Look who is putting faith in models when predicting election outcomes"

faith? that would suggest I'm hoping for a certain outcome

my faith isn't in government, much less elections

still, GOP victory looks liekly

"after years of claiming climate models are bullshit.."

climate "models" have consistently failed

of course, about every two weeks or so, the alarmist industry comes out with a new study proving it will be much worse than they previously

and it is never even near what they originally predicted

it's getting time for you guys to give it up and move on to some other coming five-alarm catastrophe

admit it: you were wrong

"The Hill points out "Moody’s latest model, set for release this week, shows that the Democratic nominee would take 332 electoral votes compared to 206 for the Republican nominee."

Alan Lichtman, who has never been wrong, also predicts a Clinton victory."

every election, there is someone who was NEVER wrong who turns out to be

"Maybe that's the view down in the dirt where you keep your head, but up here in the sunshine Polls: Trump Clobbered by Hillary Among Women, Nonwhites, Millennials"

I never said Trump had higher approval

the remarkable thing is that Hillary's is so abysmal

I also said trump's problems aren't a result of abortion views or sexism

it's his lack of old-fashioned, sexist chivalry

"< eye roll >

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/#511337ce6189"

have you ever listened to NPR?

it's very intellectual and informed but it's rarely relevant

most of us don't care about Marxist insurgencies in remote corners of the globe

do like the soothing way NPR talks though

"America is learning a lot more about the nature of hatred of God's human LGBT creations by so-called American christians.

North Carolina church threatens to expel lesbian member if she doesn't divorce her wife"

unbelievable

if a church believes homosexuality is wrong and a member doesn't, why would either want to associated with the other

are you saying it should be against the law to expel non-believers from churches?

doesn't sound like freedom of religion to me

" the church sent the letter, which Outsports has obtained..."

really? how did they get it?

"Anonymous Successful corporations believe hate is not good for business said...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/05/paypal-abandons-plans-to-open-facility-in-charlotte-due-to-lgbt-law/"

when they start losing business in the South, they'll drop their bullying tactics

paypal is a worthless company anyway

April 05, 2016 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

made a few posts today that didn't stick

oh well, life is too short

did y'all know that liberalism's golden boy will soon be history?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/md-senate-race-very-close-with-stark-racial-divide/2016/04/04/a7a9aeb0-fa7c-11e5-9140-e61d062438bb_story.html

hahahahahahahahahohoha!!

April 05, 2016 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Approximately 30 paragraphs into the WaPo article about the Md primary to replace Senator Barbara Mikulski (D, MD) we learn:

"...Republicans will also choose a nominee in this month’s primary. But the candidates are not as high-profile as Edwards and Van Hollen, and registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in the state more than 2-to-1. That means that the GOP nominee will be considered an underdog in the general election..."

No wonder you are laughing like a moron -- you realize a Democrat is going to win Mikulski's seat.

April 05, 2016 3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, obviously, in the People's Republic of Montgomery County, a democrat will win

the funny part is that Van Hollen is considered a future star nationally for the Dems

and his political career may well be over

started to believe the talking media heads

hahahahahahahohoHAHA!!

btw, Dhroollary let it slip this weekend that unborn children are people

at least science backs her up

April 05, 2016 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in the state more than 2-to-1. That means that the GOP nominee will be considered an underdog in the general election..."

we have a GOP governor

vastly more popular than his predecessor

April 05, 2016 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep, MD has a GOP governor and a Democratic majority in both the House of Delegates (91 Dem - 50 GOP) and the Senate (33 Dem - 14 GOP) .

Those fifty GOP seats in the 141 House of Delegates represent a RECORD for GOPers in MD. Woo hoo!

But we are not partial to GOPers in Maryland. We do not like thugs and bullies (warning: possible sneak preview of planned "day of rage" at the GOPers' convention this summer)

As of January 21, 2016, Maryland lawmakers overrode 5 of Hogan's vetoes. There were more too.

In fact, just about an hour ago, the Baltimore Sun reported Hogan avoids confrontation with Maryland General Assembly over vetoes

"Larry Hogan on Tuesday announced he would let a series of bills he dislikes become law without his signature, avoiding a showdown with the General Assembly over vetoes...."

Very popular indeed!

April 05, 2016 6:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you're a sad individual

let me guess: you're gay and everyone's mean to you

here's Hogan's current approval rating:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/03/28/maryland-gov-larry-hogans-approval-rating-hits-70-percent-n2140163

yeah, 70%

O'Malley was at 41% approval when his chosen idiot successor was soundly defeated by the voters of Maryland

you may remember O'Malley the Democrat embarrassment

he campaigned to balance the budget by taxing the rich

he soon ran out of rich people's money and started raising taxes on the rest of us

before it was over, he was even taxing rain

the self-delusional glutton for punishment then embarrassed Maryland by running for President and loosing to a corrupt, drooling, and lying hag as well as a life-long socialist who honeymooned in Moscow

you know you're a loser when you can't beat that dastardly duo!!

anyway, I saw Hogan at a Labor Day parade in 2014

just a few weeks until the election, he was way down in the polls

I told him hang in there

he winked and say "no worries"

so Dems might not wanna get too comfortable with that 2-to-1 lead

the golden boy will lose in the primary

and the Dem nominee will be trounced in the general

Dems are demoralized

in the primaries, GOP turnout in up 40%

Dem turnout, down 25%

and they have morons like you speaking up for them

that's got to be demoralizing

April 05, 2016 7:43 PM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

that's right!!

when someone has you on their side,

that's just humiliating!!

April 05, 2016 7:46 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...


"truth is, several Southern and heartland states have expressed popular displeasure with homosexual "marriage" and the gay agenda through the Democratic process and have been bullied by big business...

the abomination began when Indiana was bullied over their religious freedom law last year"

Abomination? Bullying? Gee, from your previous posts, this falls clearly under "freedom of association." Funny how the definition changes depending on whether it's working for you or against you.

Doesn't seem so great when corporations with jobs and money can choose to not associate themselves with your kind, instead of all those gays, huh. Gotta wonder why they don't like your dominionist agenda. Relax Anon, there will still be plenty of Chick-fil-As, Christian book stores, straight bakeries and Hobby Lobbies for everyone to work at. Sounds like a great foundation for a new southern economy.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia



April 05, 2016 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...You don’t have to read between the lines to see that Trump is angry. And as he is the first to tell you, he believes that when you get hit, you hit back — hard. So it was unsurprising to find out that his close friend and former campaign adviser Roger Stone, the notorious dirty trickster, has a project to benefit Trump called “StoptheSteal.org.” All the way back in February, he predicted the establishment was going to try to “steal” the election from Trump and announced that he was planning to “reach out to some of my old associates” in order to “pull together some of the best convention operatives in America today.” He said, “We have set up a fund to pay for their travel, to pay for their hotel rooms, to bring them to Cleveland to avoid the steal.”

Last week he put out a call:

"Go to Cleveland. Come to Cleveland. Don’t let the big steal go forward without massive protest. Peaceful, nonviolent protest.

So, as they used to say, don’t wait for orders from headquarters. Ride to the sound of the guns.

I don’t mean to imply violence on that. I mean: Ride to where the action will be.

We have to let the Republican bosses and the kingmakers and the insiders and the lobbyists know that we’re not going to stand for the big steal. So if you are a Trump supporter, make plans now.

Take a bus! Hitchhike! Carpool! Take a train! Fly, if you can afford it.

We need you in Cleveland!"
...

...One might assume Stone’s project is just another wingnut scam designed to liberate some hard-earned money from the true believers. But Stone is no joke when it comes to this sort of operation. He was an integral part of one of the most consequential “protests” in recent history: the so-called Brooks-Brothers “riot” that shut down the counting of votes in Miami, one of the important steps that led to the installation of George W. Bush as president.

Last night after Cruz was declared the winner, this was announced:

Maggie Habermas
@maggieNYT
Newest expected hire for the Trump campaign - former NY Rep. John Sweeney
8:42PM - 5 Apr 2016

Sweeney was once named one of the 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress. But he’s most famous for something else:

During the 2000 election, Sweeney allegedly helped earn his nickname from President Bush, “Congressman Kickass,” by organizing the so-called Brooks Brothers riot that disrupted the Florida elections commissioners. He was said to have led the charge on the third recount in Miami, flying in astroturfing GOP operatives and instructing them to “shut it down!” by raising a clamor and pounding on the election commission’s doors. Sweeney used the words “thugs” to describe the Florida officials involved in the recount.

They’re getting the band back together.

A majority of Wisconsin Republicans told the exit pollsters they thought whoever comes in with the most delegates should win, so Trump has some popular backing for that notion. But that’s a very unlikely outcome. Trump is signaling that he’s not going to go down without a full-fledged bloody battle on the floor of he convention if he comes up short. And in case anyone thinks that Stone isn’t conferring with Trump on his plans for these “days of rage,” listen to the interview Stone gave to John Heileman and Mark Halperin on the subject. You’ll notice that he uses the “Trojan Horse” metaphor too. It could be coincidence — but I doubt it.

April 06, 2016 9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cinco, I think you are confused because you consider government is the guarantor of fairness in all social interaction

I would never support laws forcing corporations to do business in certain states

if there is evidence they are doing so in concert, that might violate anti-trust rules but I wouldn't invoke that

I simply said the combination of big business and establishment politicians was trying to bully state legislatures

do you deny that?

further, these establishment politicians pretended to support religious freedom

hypocrisy is their prerogative but they are paying a price at the ballot box right now

you, on the other hand, believe small businesses should be forced to participate in gay wedding services even if it violates the owners' religious convictions

see the difference?

btw, this strategy won't be feasible for businesses if it is resisted

yesterday, Mississippi joined North Carolina

what if Indiana, Arizona and Georgia had followed the voters democratically expressed desires and refused to be bullied?

and what if the citizens retaliated by boycotting businesses that boycotted their states?

or what if all religious people in America boycotted those companies who are trying to influence legislation that has nothing to do with their businesses?

how much would Super Bowl ads go for if viewership was down 40%?

it's in no one interest to go the boycott route over the right of homosexuals to force business owners by governmental intervention to help them put on gay "weddings"

the tolerance of the gay agenda is causing our society to go mad

look at our remaining four choices for President

less than a year after the SCOTUS gay "marriage" ruling, our society is in shambles



April 06, 2016 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

REDSTATE.COM: Wisconsin Loser Donald Trump Issues Loser Statement On Losing

Here is the magic, you guys. Trump’s statement on his big loss in Wisconsin.

"Donald J. Trump withstood the onslaught of the establishment yet again. Lyin’ Ted Cruz had the Governor of Wisconsin, many conservative talk radio show hosts, and the entire party apparatus behind him. Not only was he propelled by the anti-Trump Super PAC’s spending countless millions of dollars on false advertising against Mr. Trump, but he was coordinating `with his own Super PAC’s (which is illegal) who totally control him. Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet— he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump. We have total confidence that Mr. Trump will go on to win in New York, where he holds a substantial lead in all the polls, and beyond. Mr. Trump is the only candidate who can secure the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination and ultimately defeat Hillary Clinton, or whomever is the Democratic nominee, in order to Make America Great Again.}

So his argument is that this is bs because all of the institutions of conservative and Republican thought that could possibly be against him were, in fact, against him, and none were for him. No talk radio, nobody from the party he claims to want to “unify”, not the voters in the state, not donors, not the very popular Governor or his Lt. Gov., supported Trump. That’s the “only” reason he lost.

Hey Trump, that’s what you call losing. This is what that word means. It means not winning because nobody supported you. Don’t they teach vocabulary at Trump university?

Also, yes, he flat out accused Cruz of illegal activity. No evidence is needed, as we’ve seen countless times from the Trump campaign. Donald is a believer in the big lie and uses the principle relentlessly. It seems to fool plenty enough people most of the time, although not, apparently, in Wisconsin.

Trump is classy you guys. Except when he’s not. Which is all the time. But if you think he’s a sore loser, go check out the special group of rabid, frothy-mouthed lunatic fringe fans he has on Twitter. Not the normals. The special ones. It’s a spectacle.

Donald Trump. Presidential and sh*t.

April 06, 2016 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"yesterday, Mississippi joined North Carolina"

Yep, and now another Southern State has legalized discrimination. Not exactly as it was before the Civil War, but they'll take it.

Mississippi made their choice to legalize hate, and now the rest of us can make our choices too.

For many of us that means choosing to not spend our money in states that choose to legalize hate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/several-states-ban-official-travel-to-mississippi-over-anti-gay-law_us_5704f54ce4b0a506064d9a26

April 06, 2016 10:24 AM  
Anonymous More like this said...

Woman Speaks Truth to Power

April 06, 2016 10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yep, and now another Southern State has legalized discrimination. Not exactly as it was before the Civil War, but they'll take it."

discrimination is legal everywhere, except for certain protected classes

the questions is whether sexual deviance should receive special protection

there's no much of a case that sexual deviance merits, or needs even if it was merited, special protection in our society

right now, the population most in need of special protection from the powerful majority are the unborn

April 06, 2016 11:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Trump is classy you guys. Except when he’s not. Which is all the time. But if you think he’s a sore loser, go check out the special group of rabid, frothy-mouthed lunatic fringe fans he has on Twitter. Not the normals. The special ones. It’s a spectacle."

haven't seen anyone here support Trump so don't know where this comment is directed

again, however you make him a victim by simply twisting things

Hillary and Bernie have just as many fringe followers

here's an interesting scenario, which is increasingly plausible:

Bernie wins more delegates than Hillary but she wins because of the superdelegates

Bernie's supporters have shown some violent tendencies so don't be surprised to see riots at the Dem convention

remember the 1968 convention when the establishment installed Humphrey over McCarthy and riots broke out

the parallels are eerie

Graham Nash wrote about the 1968 convention

"in a land that stands for justice, how can such a thing be fair?"

April 06, 2016 11:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary "not sure" Bernie is a Democrat:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-has-had-enough-of-bernie-sanders-221495

hahahahahahahohohohoHAHAHAHAHAheeheeheeheehahaHOTALLYHOHO!!!

April 06, 2016 11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sanders' supporters have not shown any such violent tendencies. This is a lie started by Der Drumpfster.

Der Drumpfster is the one urging his supporters to violence and offering to pay their legal bills.

There's only one person on Vigilance who spreads Drumpf's bullshit lies.

Look in the mirror.


April 06, 2016 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sanders' supporters have not shown any such violent tendencies"

oh, but we have all seen video of his supporters trying to disrupt rallies and incite riots

they're young college kids

just like the Sandinistas

Bernie praised their authoritarian rule when he attended their sixth anniversary celebration and said:

“In the long run, I am certain that you will win, and that your heroic revolution will be maintained and strengthened.”

of course he favored Russian statist violence as well when he honeymooned in the USSR

socialists are never violent, until they don't get their way

and liberals rarely in fair debates so they always have authoritarian tendencies

if bernie has more earned delegates than clinton and loses, don't expect him to go gently into that dark night

my comments about Trump have been factual

of course, objectivity always seems biased to liberals because, let's face it, the facts are

April 06, 2016 12:12 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“Cinco, I think you are confused because you consider government is the guarantor of fairness in all social interaction”

Nope. You are confused. I don’t consider the government to be the guarantor of anything, except perhaps, the ability to spend more than it takes in. Legally though, in this country, it is the only entity with right to codify commercial transactions between the public, and public companies.

The church does not (yet) have the authority to legislate or interfere with commercial transactions, and I prefer to keep it that way as long as possible. I sometimes like to think we still have separation of church and state. I know, I’m a radical.

Historically, churches have a very badly mixed record on fairness in social interactions, and there is no reason to believe putting them back in charge of them will see any improvement. One might think that the Christian church would be better at this given some of what it says in their bible, like Mark 12:30-31:

30: and you shall love the lord your god with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' 31:"The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

And I know you are familiar with Leviticus19:18:

"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”

Yet anyone who is familiar with American history knows it was religious conservatives that were actively opposing equality in commercial transactions between the black public and white businesses in the 1960s. I know you’re going to bring up the difference between “black skin” and “gay behavior,” but really that is irrelevant, no matter how hard to you try to make it not be so. The same nerve cells in the religious conservative “brain” that opposed black people eating pie at white lunch counters and black men marrying white women are the ones opposing gay people eating wedding cakes and marrying each other. The similarities between now and then are striking, and I’m certainly not the first or only person to notice this:

April 06, 2016 12:57 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

From: “When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia”
By Ian Millhiser:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/

Just as importantly, allowing religious employers to exempt themselves from the law would be fundamentally unfair to the employees who are supposed to benefit from those laws. “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”

Lee, in other words, stands for the proposition that people of faith do not exist in a vacuum. Their businesses compete with other companies who are entitled to engage in this competition upon a level playing field. Their personnel decisions impact their employees, and their decision to refuse to do business with someone — especially for reasons such as race or sexual orientation — can fundamentally demean that individual and deny them their own right to participate equally in society.

This is why people like Theodore Bilbo should not be allowed to refuse to do business with African Americans, and it is why anti-gay business owners should not be given a special right to discriminate against LGBT consumers. And this is also something that the United States has understood for a very long time. Bob Jones and Lee are not new cases. A whole generation of Americans spent their entire professional careers enjoying the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious liberty is an important value and it rightfully belongs in our Constitution, but it we do not allow it to be used to destroy the rights of others.

The argument Gov. Brewer resolved Wednesday night with her veto stamp is no different than the argument Lyndon Johnson resolved when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Invidious discrimination is wrong. And it doesn’t matter why someone wants to discriminate.”

April 06, 2016 12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cinco, I'll make it simple for you

the SCOTUS has ruled that the government should use the least intrusive possible way to promote its goal if it conflicts with religious liberty

in this case, if the government feels it's important for gays to have access to wedding-related services and can't get them, the government can set up its own shops, like many places do with liquor stores

but, of course, that's not necessary because gays have access to all these services and the reason they want these laws is not to have access to these services but to force people who oppose homosexuality to work on gay weddings

and that is an invidious desire to deprive others of their constitutional rights

understand now?

April 06, 2016 1:21 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“I simply said the combination of big business and establishment politicians was trying to bully state legislatures

do you deny that?”

Well I wasn’t in the room or listening to the phone calls between the legislators and big business / establishment politicians. Did some of them threaten to take away their lunch money? Pull up their underwear, or otherwise physically threaten them? I suspect their conversations amounted to “protests” rather than “bullying.” It may just be a matter of semantics. What do you call it when the One Million Moms arm of the American Family Association tries to get Ellen DeGeneres fired for doing the job she was hired for?

“Since April, JC Penney’s has not aired Ellen DeGeneres in one of their commercials until now. A new JCP ad features Ellen and three elves. JCP has made their choice to offend a huge majority of their customers again. Christians must now vote with their wallets. We have contacted JC Penney’s several times in the past with our concerns, and they will not listen. They have decided to ignore our complaints so we will avoid them at all costs.”

Whether you call it “bullying” or “protesting,” I believe the Indiana legislators were subjected to the same thing. This country has a long history of protesting things we don’t like, especially in the context of business, taxes, and customer treatment. It goes all the back to a little shindig called the “Boston Tea Party.” It’s a pretty American thing to do.

“further, these establishment politicians pretended to support religious freedom
hypocrisy is their prerogative but they are paying a price at the ballot box right now”

You can support religious freedom AND gay marriage AND equality in American commerce all at the same time. You are convinced that “religious freedom” has to include the right to marginalize people you don’t like and shun and deny them from participating in the American economic system. Gay companies have to service religious people even if they don’t like them – it’s written into the anti-discrimination laws. Religious people haven’t had a problem with this because gay people have followed the law, and not given religious people cause to complain.

Even in the case of the anti-gay bigot trying to buy a hate-covered cake from an LGBT friendly bakery mentioned above, the baker offered to sell him the completed cake, the icing, and the tools needed to put the message on himself. He refused.

The “Christian” bakery on the other hand, refused to sell the couple a cake at all. If the Christians had sold them the cake, and two brides that the couple could have put on top themselves, they probably would have never made the news.

April 06, 2016 1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Legally though, in this country, it is the only entity with right to codify commercial transactions between the public, and public companies"

and they should

but the choice of who to transact with is not something that should be codified

it's a personal decision, on both sides of the transactions

"The church does not (yet) have the authority to legislate or interfere with commercial transactions, and I prefer to keep it that way as long as possible."
I didn't suggest that and I'm sure you know that.

btw, you are aware that over-regulation of commercial activity is prophesied as an activity of the anti-Christ, right?

"A whole generation of Americans spent their entire professional careers enjoying the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

actually, it was supposed to be a temporary means to an end, not a way of life

"Religious liberty is an important value and it rightfully belongs in our Constitution, but it we do not allow it to be used to destroy the rights of others."

you the one who want to impose on others

"The argument Gov. Brewer resolved Wednesday night with her veto stamp is no different than the argument Lyndon Johnson resolved when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

she was bullied into rejecting the desires of her constituents

"I know you’re going to bring up the difference between “black skin” and “gay behavior,” but really that is irrelevant, no matter how hard to you try to make it not be so."

takes no effort

the difference is obvious to all

the only ones who feign not to get it are those with a political agenda

April 06, 2016 1:37 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“you, on the other hand, believe small businesses should be forced to participate in gay wedding services even if it violates the owners' religious convictions

see the difference?”

Yes Anon, I see the difference. You have stretched the use of the phrase “forced to participate” to absolutely ridiculous levels.

When a dude goes into a gun store, buys a gun, and then goes and kills someone with it, was the gun store owner “forced to participate” in the murder? Should the gun store owner be prosecuted for participating in a murder? We do have laws for accessory to murder, you know.

Let’s suppose the gun store owner doesn’t know, but for some reason SUSPECTS that the shooter might do something illegal with the gun, even though the buyer has already passed a background check, and is not a criminal.

What is the owner supposed to do? Violate the guy's 2nd amendment rights? Should he risk a lawsuit and being forced by the government to sell him a gun? Whose rights prevail here? Should the store owner be free to not sell guns to black people? Muslims? Gays? Get ready for MAJOR legal battles if those start up. I wonder which side the NRA will be on. (Not really, just kidding.)

The gay couple buying a cake didn’t ask the bakery to do anything that they didn’t already do every day, namely, bake them a cake. That is, after all what bakeries are in the business of doing. They didn’t go to a Christian book store for a cake, they went to a BAKERY for a cake. God forbid, that they ask people who make cakes every day to make them a cake!

Yes it was for their big, happy, gay wedding. No, the bakers were not “forced to participate” in the wedding – all they had to do was make the cake, and possibly deliver it to the reception before the party started. That’s the same thing they do for every other wedding cake they make – the couple did not ask them to do anything different.from what they normally do. They were not forced to sit through the wedding, meet more gay people, listen to their vows, or even say “hi” to their minister. They did not actually “participate” in the wedding in any way. But had they asked nicely, perhaps they would have been invited to sit in, in which case, they could have claimed that they had “participated” by being a witness in a pew with the marriage had occurred. That did not happen.

The bakers decided to balk not because of WHAT they were asked to do, but because of WHO the customers were. They then decided to claim that making cakes (their day job) interfered with their “religious liberties” as an excuse to marginalize gay people. They are still free to worship their God whoever they like. None of their religious liberties were ever infringed upon. They probably still go to the same church, and still have all the same church friends. I haven’t heard that they were denied communion or any other sacraments. If that happens, I’m sure you’ll let us know.

April 06, 2016 1:58 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A whole slew of Republicans accidentally admit that they've passed voter ID laws and cut voting opportunities in order to reduce the number of Democrat supporters who vote.

One even admits that talk of "voter fraud" is really just a marketing ploy for attempts to suppress Democrat votes.

April 06, 2016 2:29 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“or what if all religious people in America boycotted those companies who are trying to influence legislation that has nothing to do with their businesses?”

Religious people are boycotting companies all the time. One Million Moms has made a full time job of it. People are sending them money on a daily basis to do it. You can see what they claim as their latest successes here: http://onemillionmoms.com/successes They show a dozen media and corporate entities that they have bullied to change their behavior via boycotts and protests. The Family Research Council is trying to influence legislatures all the time. You can look on their site and find Peter Sprigg’s address to states as far apart as Hawaii and Vermont. We live in a country that was founded on the separation of Church and State, yet religious folks are CONSTANTLY trying to manipulate legislatures into passing laws that favor their behavior over that of other people and also use economic pressures to marginalize people they find offensive.

Religious people are also trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade in every way possible, even though not everyone who might need an abortion is religious. Apparently, religion trumps medical privacy, and a law decided by the Supreme Court decades ago.

Religious activists got bent out of shape because Starbucks didn’t put snowflakes and reindeer on their red coffee cups. Apparently it was another salvo in the “War on Christmas.”

Religious people will yell, whine, boycott, and protest ad nauseam. Harold Camping made a hundred million dollar media empire claiming all this acceptance of gays was a sure sign on the second coming. Religious gay bashing has been a good business if you do it right.

Boycott all you like Anon. It’s the American way. Just don’t expect me to stop standing up for my rights and the rights of people like me.

April 06, 2016 2:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Cynthia said "The bakers decided to balk not because of WHAT they were asked to do, but because of WHO the customers were. They then decided to claim that making cakes (their day job) interfered with their “religious liberties” as an excuse to marginalize gay people. They are still free to worship their God whoever they like. None of their religious liberties were ever infringed upon. They probably still go to the same church, and still have all the same church friends. I haven’t heard that they were denied communion or any other sacraments. If that happens, I’m sure you’ll let us know.".

Exactly. The anti-gay business owners have not been restricted to only being able to enter into a same sex marriage, nor are they forced to have sex they find objectionable. Their objection is that it is sinful for others to do so. As such any "interference" with their "religious" freedom is trivial or insubstantial in that it does not threaten actual religious beliefs or conduct.

April 06, 2016 2:34 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“how much would Super Bowl ads go for if viewership was down 40%?”

Who the #$%^ cares what a Super Bowl ad goes for???? I’m going to put this in VERY simple, short sound bites because that seems to be the only thing your little brain can handle.

1: I have never given a single #$%^ about sports, not one. Not even half of one. Ask me I will give you any #$%^s about sports, and I will say “No. No #$%^s for you.”

2: Football has clearly been implicated in frequent serious brain damage, and should be banned. There are plenty of other sports that are safer and are suitable replacements.

3: The only reason it hasn’t been banned is that there are millionaires and billionaires that don’t want to lose their lucrative income stream, even if it means their best players inevitably end up with jell-o brains. Clearly, they believe human carnage is acceptable as long as you make enough money off of it.

4: Our country, military, religions, business, and straight and gay people will all survive just fine, even if there is never one more Super Bowl.

5: There are people who call themselves “religious” trying to make it all but impossible for me to keep a job or even live my life in stealth. My battle is with them. I don’t have time to waste watching sports or caring about 1%er problems.

April 06, 2016 2:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

”but the choice of who to transact with is not something that should be codified

it's a personal decision, on both sides of the transactions”


That was exactly the belief of all those white business owners who did not want to serve blacks until the Civil Rights Act became law. They preferred hosting parties for certain black folks around hanging trees.

”you are aware that over-regulation of commercial activity is prophesied as an activity of the anti-Christ, right?”

Oh sheesh, how did I miss that one?

I must say I do feel fortunate that I somehow managed to avoid Jonestown, Heaven’s Gate, Branch Davidians and Warren Jeffs, etc.

"she was bullied into rejecting the desires of her constituents”

Yeah, poor Governor Jan Brewer. She’s just a woman and therefore can not be held responsible for rejecting her constituents, She was bullied into it.

April 06, 2016 3:12 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "discrimination is legal everywhere, except for certain protected classes the questions is whether sexual deviance should receive special protection there's no much of a case that sexual deviance merits, or needs even if it was merited, special protection in our society"

LGBT people are statistically more likely to be fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes, have higher rates of sucide due to societal oppression, earn less, are more likely to be victims of crime and so on. Obviously if any group deserves to be a protected class it is LGBT people. And as the hypocrite you are, you demand special protection for christians who are already highly privileged but want to deny the same right to LGBT people.

No special rights for christians.

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "haven't seen anyone here support Trump so don't know where this comment is directed". While you're obviously conflicted about Trump, that hasn't stopped you from staunchly defending his bigotry and ignorance. To say you "don't support" Trump is obviously a lie.

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "in this case, if the government feels it's important for gays to have access to wedding-related services and can't get them, the government can set up its own shops, like many places do with liquor stores".

A non-solution. The government can't set up shop in every location where gays live and might be denied services. History has proven that when businesses have a right to deny services to minorities it will in many circumstances cause undue hardship to those minorities. You can't rationally demand that law force people to serve chrisitans but not LGBT people. If any group in society would have no problem finding people willing to sell them goods and services in absence of discrimination protection it is obviously christians who make up over 70% of the American public. Like the hypocrite you are we don't hear you arguing that christians be removed from discrimination protection because they'd have no trouble finding someone who'd do business with them.

April 06, 2016 3:16 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad aonymous said "but, of course, that's not necessary because gays have access to all these services and the reason they want these laws is not to have access to these services but to force people who oppose homosexuality to work on gay weddings".

Obviously in small towns there is a problem when the only people offering a good or service are anti-gay. And like the deceptive person you and the other bigots are you disingenously pretend this is only about providing cakes and flowers to gay weddings when in reality you and the laws being passed support denying any and all services to LGBT people. And of course we never hear you arguing that because christians make up over 70% of the U.S. population there is no reason to protect them with anti-discrimination laws as they are far less likely to be victims than LGBT people.

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "and that is an invidious desire to deprive others of their constitutional rights".

If its unjust to prevent people from discriminating against who they want then the constitution is unjust in that it prevents people who want to discriminate against the religious or blacks from doing so. You can't have it both ways. You can pretend the mere existance of a law that protects christians but not gays means its just but it most certainly is not.

April 06, 2016 3:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Cynthia said "Legally though, in this country, it is the only entity with right to codify commercial transactions between the public, and public companies"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "and they should but the choice of who to transact with is not something that should be codified it's a personal decision, on both sides of the transactions".

Unless of course that person is a christian and then Wyatt/bad anonymous hypocritcally demads that the government take away that personal decision and force everyone to serve christians. Once again, christians who make up more than 70% of the American population are far less likely to be discriminated against than LGBT people. It is LGBT people who need the protection of anti-discrimination laws, not christians.

Cynthia said "Religious liberty is an important value and it rightfully belongs in our Constitution, but it we do not allow it to be used to destroy the rights of others."

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "you the one who want to impose on others".

I don't see you demanding that the law be changed so people can disriminate against christians so by your own logic you want to impose it on others every bit as much as you accuse Cynthia of doing. Hypocrite.

April 06, 2016 3:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Cynthia said "The argument Gov. Brewer resolved Wednesday night with her veto stamp is no different than the argument Lyndon Johnson resolved when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "she was bullied into rejecting the desires of her constituents".

Wrong. She enacted the desires of her constituents. The vast majority of people in her state support laws protecting LGBT people from discrimination. Unfortunately it is so much conmmon sense that the majority also falsely think LGBT people are protected from discrimination by law.

April 06, 2016 3:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home