• on a comment on Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues over 5 years ago

    So what?  Does that make the issue less of an issue?

  • on a comment on Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues over 5 years ago

    We are not all trolls.  There are some who will use anything to smear Obama.  However, there are others who truly believe that this is a big mistake for Obama.

    To brush every one of us aside and label all as trolls is to marginalize further.

  • on a comment on Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues over 5 years ago

    No, I don't care if he gets elevated to sainthood in his megachurch.  I just don't want to see him during the inauguration.

    And I see by your statement that you're really, really threatened by his immense power-- that you would cower to his perverted views just so you can avoid the cataclysmic fight.

    You're so brave.

  • comment on a post Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues over 5 years ago

    When someone suggested that black people are genetically programmed to have lower IQs than other races, he became a pariah in his community.  (James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix)

    When someone suggested that women are not neurologically equipped to handle complex science and engineering problems compared to men, he got eased out of office.  (Lawrence Summers, ex-president of Harvard and now Obama's economic adviser.)

    When someone proclaimed that homosexuality is a genetic defect, and gay marriage is equivalent to pedophilia and incest, he gets a prominent spot during Obama's inauguration.

    Kewl.

  • on a comment on Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues over 5 years ago

    Wow, so should we now also expect neo-Nazis and other fuck-ups to be part of the celebration of the new leadership of the government of the United States of America?

    In my opinion, there are, like any other value, two kinds of diversity: positive and negative.  To put a pastor with insulting views up as a representative of religious people should be insulting to everyone, not just to gay and lesbian Americans.

    And by insulting views, I mean his explicit and unabashed belief that two people of the same sex getting married is equivalent to pedophilia and incest.

  • on a comment on Shoe Thrower Guy Open Thread over 5 years ago

    Right, so the next time a neo-Nazi in Berlin (or wherever) welcomes Obama with flying berets (or whatever they could sneak into a press conference), we should be thankful that he/she would "put his life at risk in an attempt to communicate the magnitude of our error" (which I'm assuming would be the grave error in electing a black president).

    And while we're at it, let's throw stuff at people we don't like today.  I've decided that I'm throwing my hard drive at my dissertation advisor, for obvious reasons.

    It's not a question of fascism.  It's a question of civilized behavior.  The other side of the coin, of course, would be to do all sorts of non-violent means to show your distaste for the guy.  To impeach him, for starters, is also civilized thing to do.

  • comment on a post Shoe Thrower Guy Open Thread over 5 years ago

    I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but throwing shoes at the man is an insult also to the Presidency of the United States.  Granted, this president is a total fuck-up, but there are a myriad ways to show your distaste for the guy.  Not appropriate at all, and to me certainly not as funny as many view it.

  • comment on a post Stunning diary on redstate rec-list over 5 years ago

    Even if majority of the rank and file Republicans support some kind of reform of the federal drug policy, their cynical leaders will still use it as a wedge issue, and milk it for all its worth.

    And like good Republicans, the rank and file will acquiesce again on this not-too-urgent issue, and follow without much dissent.

  • comment on a post Blagojevich Arrest Press Conference Live Thread over 5 years ago

    Everytime I see the guy, I get, uhm, wet a little.

    (Is that TMI?)

    Seriously, people like him inspire confidence in government.  He should continue to do what he's doing-- I think he's more effective as principled US attorney than a politician who has to compromise-- so NO on the suggestion for senator.

  • 1.  1992 ain't 2008.  I doubt Obama will risk much to move towards repealing the unjust policy.

    2.  Obama's team, from the looks of it, is more skilled in getting things done.  Clinton fumbled and fumbled again in his first 100 days, but I doubt Obama will.

    3.  Putting the issue of gays in the military wasn't a mistake.  It was Clinton's strategy to push it through.  Let's be clear about that.

    4.  National security is a pervading issue in the post-9/11 world; it's not that difficult to cast the argument in these terms, so it wouldn't be about "putting gays in uniform" but "putting compentence in uniform".

    5.  Saving the economy and universal health care are priority one, for sure.  Gay people like me would certainly celebrate with the rest of you heterosexuals once those come to fruition.  But there are other issues that can be dealt with in the interim.  I'm sure a sensible policy to begin to allow openly gay servicemen to serve wouldn't hurt the economy or ruin the (dim) prospects of universal healthcare.

    6.  It's the right thing to do.  Gay Americans should be allowed to serve this country honorably, and without shame.

    7.  Yes, "your move, Mr. Obama" is a reasonable statement.

  • I'm a reasonably aware New Yorker.

    I don't know her.

    I asked my reasonably aware New Yorker friends, and they can't say they know her.

    Apart from her famous family, and her role in the Obama campaign, we can't seem to identify anything she's done specifically, without resorting to an internet search.

    So NO, New York doesn't know her.

  • The obscene fallacy of this meme is that experience and judgment (and all the other great qualities you enumerated) are mutually exclusive.

    There are experienced people with good judgment, as there are "good-judgmented" people with experience.

    I'm sure you could assemble a great list of New Yorkers with ALL good qualifications, experience included.

  • So that's the one qualification you think puts Caroline over the top?

    Please.

  • What qualifies one to be a Senator from New York?  From your list, I'm guessing your answer is next to none.

    Seriously, do you really think that that list qualifies Caroline for the seat?

    Regis Philbin is far more accomplished, not to mention a thousand other New Yorkers.

  • And what is it about Caroline Kennedy that you think is perfect for the job of New York Senator?

    Perhaps you can enlighten us, instead of just calling a healthy skepticism "ridiculous".

Diaries

Advertise Blogads