I am very sad today. Sad that majority rule can take away minority rights. Sad that the State Supreme court has said that some gays are more equal than others. Sad that the world is so full of hate and fear that they try to legislate love.
I don't expect you all to agree with me. And, I'll try not to call names if you don't. But, keep in mind that it was once illegal for folks of different races to marry, just as it was once legal to have 'separate but equal' schools for our children. Some folks don't agree that this is a civil rights issue, they still believe that homosexuality is a choice. With all of the hate directed towards gays in this country, who would willingly make such a choice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
227 comments:
1 – 200 of 227 Newer› Newest»For chrissakes, ferret. When you can prove that homosexuality is not harmful behavior that spreads a fatal disease and leaves men with shortened lifespans and that it isn't just another industry, maybe you'll convince people that it's right.
wv: tensiona
I have a cousin that's gay and he has AIDS. It costs over 2500.00 a month for his meds to keep him alive. He caught it S.F. back in the 80's. That's a lot of money for a pharmaceutical company to gather, don't you think?
And for lesbians, there is probably scientific evidence that women benefit from male semen and the physical presence of men. Not to mention the enjoyment factor they provide. I can't imagine that anything can come close to a nice, juicy man dick. No pun intended, of course.
I had an uncle who was a heterosexual married man and, coincidentally, a pastor. He contracted HIV in the very early 80s via exposure to contaminated blood while working in a hospice environment while in the seminary. Like many who contracted the virus at that time, it took some time to show up. In the meantime, he and his wife had children, three of them. Fast forward about 7 years. With full blown AIDS, a (partially) supportive Missouri congregation (can you believe that?) and a wife and children surprisingly (I don't believe in miracles) untouched by the virus, he died of pneumonia. The myth that AIDS is a gay disease should have died long ago, as it's been some years since my uncle died, and even at that time, it was clear that AIDS doesn't discriminate. Sadly, people still do. I'm sure Gina will chime in to suggest that my uncle led a double life. She wouldn't be the first. Much has been made lately of the 'christian taliban' we face in our own country. Xenophobic hubris would suggest that such talk is hyperbole, that it can't happen here. How many groups of human beings will we allow these false prophets to oppress before we wake up?
Patient zero was a gay man out of NY.
He entered it into the system. What am I supposed to do? Tell my cousin that "sure, be gay, I don't mind that you've contracted and that you're dying from a horrible disease at all. Please, be my guest, kill yourself...I don't care. And that goes for the rest of you who want to engage in lethal behavior,too".
The Big Pharmas are laughing all the way to the bank.
And just for the record, I'm against alcoholism, too...and the fact that some of them get into cars drunk and kill other people. You get my drift, TS?
Before we get off topic, this is about a civil right - marriage. Not the religious sacrament, but the civil right that folks HAVE to go to city hall to have sanctioned. The government should not discriminate against people for ANY reason that is inherent in their being. They aren't allowed to discriminate against you for being a Catholic, Gina, and that is something you DEFINITELY CHOSE.
For someone who sounds like she'd rut with anything with a dick, I'm not surprised you cannot understand how there are women who don't slobber at the chance to get porked. If homosexuality WERE a choice, I'm sure you would inspire a lot of straight men to rethink their decision.
We depend on the courts to defend the rights of the minority. This isn't an issue of politics or morality - it's about the LAW!!!
Just like the Republicans before them, christians are digging their own graves.
Idiot? I'm looking at it pragmatically. It's dangerous and it costs money. My cousin isn't paying for his meds--we all are.
He can be a homosexual, that much I'll grant him. Just like an alcoholic is an alcoholic or a compulsive murderer kills.
It doesn't mean I should endorse it, does it?
I get it , Ferret, you're a man-hating lesbian...I've long suspected seeing how you can't see the humor in my nice, juicy dick reference. And, quite the contrary, I would definitely not have sex with any little dick liberals...that is if they even still have something resembling a penis.I imagine about all they can muster to present is a pasta noodle.not liking bones or anything stiff like that. Which suits baby-killing liberal women just fine seeing how they think sex is an evil act resulting in unwanted tissue.
This was not a tremendous surprise in that the courts were merely verifying if the amendment to the State Constitution was proper and legal, not moral or ethical. I'm sure an amendment is forthcoming though exactly how soon I have no idea. Amendments to the Federal Constitution are extremely rare (prohibition only) but I'm not aware of the state constitution's history.
Gina's comments are the funniest thing I've read all day...I haven't laughed this hard in AGES! Thank you, Gina, you really are a funny, funny girl. I almost thought you were serious for a while there. Well done!
She met my expectations.
Ted - I agree, that was the issue before the court. Whether it was an amendment or a revision was the case put before them. What bothers me is how the court could say that taking what they said one year ago were Constitutionally protected rights away from people is not a revision of the Constitution!
All right, smarty pants. Why don't you explain how homosexuality is normal behavior and what are the benefits as opposed to the disadvantages?
Comparing gay marriage to homosexual marriage is like comparing apples to oranges. No one is physically harmed by interracial marriage...and there can be a positive outcome. Just ask another cousin of mine and her two children.
Sorry. Let me correct my statement. Comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is like comparing apples to oranges.
Naturally I've met your expectations, TS. You've known all of my positions for a long time. Dick.
Why don't you just admit that you're a lesbian, ferret. Show your bias.
I have living, throbbing proof that Jean is not a Lesbian. Sorry, Jean, I had to say it.
Gina, say something funny again....PLEASE!!!!
Yes, JM, it does come off as odd. That's why I suppose the 18,000 already married are still to be recognized because the constitution originally did not *specifically* address same/opposite sex so at the time that's how they ruled. But with this amendment, now it does.
But, bottom line, it's unfair. And considering the allowance of same sex marriages has absolutely no effect or repercussions on those who oppose it, it's not even logical. Very odd.
So, ferret. You're telling us that a gay man infected with AIDS that knowingly engages in unprotected sex is not harming another person? And that we can't make a similar comparison between a person that does that and one that drinks a bottle of whiskey gets in a car and kills someone or a guy who takes a gun and blows someone's head off?
What would you do if the unsuspecting person was you? Say: "that's ok, it's your civil right. No problem. I was planning on croaking one day, anyway. Might as well die from this AIDS disease that you willingly and knowingly gave me without my consent." That's exactly what you'd say, huh? Tell that to my cousin and his parents.
What does B.O. have to say about gay marriage? Just curious.
I've been reading it, it's a very interesting decision. In sum, while the word "marriage" had significance in The Marriage Cases, Prop 8 limits that term to a man and a woman, but all other rights associated with the term "marriage" that were recognized for gays in The Marriage Cases are still valid.
Right because the amendment is not retroactive
Time to get the legislature to amend the Constitution to prevent any restrictions on these sorts of rights from ever being enacted by initiative again. From the decision:
"Although we reject petitioners’ contention that the enactment of Proposition 8 was improper because that measure was adopted through the initiative process (as a constitutional amendment) rather than as a constitutional revision, in order to dispel any misunderstanding or confusion we wish to make it clear that we are not suggesting it is impossible or improper for a constitution to contain limitations on change designed to address the concerns voiced by petitioners in this case. Like the federal Constitution, many state constitutions do not provide for the people’s exercise of the initiative power at all, and in those states, of course, no such constitutional change can be proposed directly by the people. Further, some state constitutions that embrace the initiative power do not permit it to be used to propose and adopt constitutional amendments, limiting its use to the proposal and adoption of statutory enactments; in those states, too, no such constitutional change can be proposed directly by the people. And of the 17 other state constitutions (in addition to California’s) that permit constitutional amendments to be proposed through the initiative process, two expressly prohibit resort to the initiative process to modify designated provisions of the constitution, including many or all of the rights set forth in the state constitution’s bill of rights. (See Mass. Const., amend. art. XLVIII, pt. II, § 2; Miss. Const., art. 15, § 273, subd. (5).) Thus, we have no doubt that an express restriction could be fashioned that would limit the use of the initiative power in the manner proposed by petitioners — but the California Constitution presently contains no limits of this nature."
DSG - what I don't understand is how you can give people within the same class different rights? What happened to equal protection? Can this go back to the courts, or are we going to have to go through the initiative process again? Every time somebody gets their panties in a bunch, we're going to vote on civil rights???
Leaving the 18,000 marriage intact seems to me to open up a discrimination case for the rest of the group...but that's just my heart-felt opinion, not a legal one...obviously!
Ted, that's not quite it. It's clear that the Supreme Court concluded that Prop 8 dealt only with the use of the word "marriage", and that, of the various rights that The Marriage Cases recognized that were being denied to gays under Prop 22, only the use of the term "marriage" was affected by Prop 8, leaving all the other rights recognized by The Marriage Cases intact. The court also specifically found that Prop 8 had no retroactive effect, which meant that the marriages granted after The Marriage Cases were still valid.
FH, what the court said was that there was no limit on what the amendment could do substantively because the constitution did not limit initiatives from dealing with those issues, and that revisions were another sort of animal altogether. (The portion of the opinion that dealt with the revision vs. amendment issue was very, very long.) But it was clear that the court said that Prop 8 was only about the word, and nothing else.
DSG - If I'm reading that right, than I propose an initiative to amend the constitution prohibiting the amendment of the constitution by the initiative process!!!
Ann n. No, I'm not "one of those people". And if any one is oozing hatred, it's you and your filthy tone against me simply because I disagree with you. My posistion is not based God, it's based on science.
I suspect this ruling was upheld because the government doesn't want a civil war. The people spoke the first time and liberal courts overruled it by legislating from the bench. They tried again, and failed. This is a government by the people, not by a few. Get that through your bigoted, anti-Christian lunk heads. There is no such thing as a fair government any more. You look at a picture of a aborted baby and tell me it's fair. You guys wont do it. It's all about money, maintaining power and who has it. You got your compromise and it's called civil unions. You guys ought to focus on solving homosexuality rather than trying to shove your idea of normalcy down the throats of people who refuse to accept your version. Conservatives have every right to live in a society of partially their making, not the complete making of a select few. Keep pushing us and there will be revolt.
Why, oh, why don't we know B.O.'S position on gay marriage?
Gina, thanks for witnessing.
Gina - are you being purposely ignorant? Those things are easily discovered with just a little bit of work. Either you already know and are trying to make a point, or you are being lazy. So, make your point or do your own fucking research!
And, Ann is not being a bigot. She is speaking for experience, and her heart. I understand how you would not be able to relate having little of the former and none of the latter. While you're looking up the President's position on gay marriage, you might want to look up the meaning of 'compassion'.
Gina, PLEASE make another "juicy man dick" joke. That last one had me and my friends rolling on the floor! (fully clothed and in a non-homosexual way, of course).
Semen for all the ladies!! It's on me! It's beneficial! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! You're developing quite a fan club here in Los Angeles!
Keep writing....PLEASE...this shit is priceless.
dsg, this is by no means an arguement, simply for my edification and educamation.
You said "ted that's not quite right". What wasn't quite right? I didn't see how your post differentiated anything I wrote so obviously I'm missing something.
Please to enlighten?
Thanks
I'll have to wait until tomorrow to read the decision, but I'm not surprised. The California popular initiative process is terrible.
Now that we know we can tinker with this part of the state constitution, another initiative, properly timed and publicized (and with a cool name) will reverse Prop. 8. Great. We would have been well off if Prop. 8 had failed and the supreme court's interpretation of the constitution had endured.
Things will change. The woman in charge of childcare at my little kid's school got married to her partner in 2004, and the kids were happy for her. My son went into the voting booth with me this past November so he could enjoy watching me vote for Obama and against Prop. 8. He, and many others like him, will be voting soon.
Ted, when you said "because it was not retroactive," I thought that it was in reference to my statement, "while the word 'marriage' had significance in The Marriage Cases, Prop 8 limits that term to a man and a woman, but all other rights associated with the term "marriage" that were recognized for gays in The Marriage Cases are still valid." The fact that Prop 8 was not retroactive was pertinent only with regard to the marriages of gays that took place prior to the November election, in that those person are entitled to use the term "marriage" and possess all of the rights and responsibilities attendant with that term. The Court's interpretation of the effect of Prop 8 going forward was only to restrict the use of the term "marriage" to man-woman unions (except for the 18,000 same sex couples); by limiting it in that way, the Court reaffirmed that, going forward, any same-sex couples who enter into a domestic partnership, while they may not use the word "marriage," are entitled to all other rights and responsibilities otherwise attendant under state law with the word "marriage." In the end, Prop 8 is only about the word "marriage," and all of the other rights recognized under state law in The Marriage Cases shall continue to be enjoyed equally under state law by both married couples and domestic partnerships. The one thing that is made very clear by this case, reaffirming The Marriage Cases, is that domestic partnerships are the equivalent of marriages under state law. Prior to The Marriage Cases, that equality was not certain.
Personally, I don't think that 51% of voters should be able to change the state constitution. It is incredibly disappointing that this measure passed in the first place, but it does point out some really disturbing things about our initiative process.
Also, my hairdresser in southern california (a bastion on conservatism) is a fairly liberal black woman, and yet she voted in favor of prop 8! I find it really disappointing that the people who turned out to vote for our 1st black president would also vote to take rights away from another minority group - discrimination that they have felt in the past.
A sin is a sin is a sin. If homosexuality is a sin, it's no greater than coveting your neighbor's wife (which is actually one of the 10 commandments, whereas homosexual acts are not mentioned at all in the top 10). It is a sin to take a life, to be disrespectful to your parents, etc...why don't we legislate those things as well?
Just because people don't like to think about what two gay men do to one another in the privacy of their bedroom is no reason to deny them rights. The government doesn't have the right to censor people because they are "uncomfortable" with their comments (note that I said government and not private bloggers).
Love of money is also a sin. If it weren't for homosexual men, the Catholic Church would not have lasted as long and prospered as it has. There are some who may not like to admit it, but talk to any rational, thinking non-lay person and you'll hear it. Homosexuality occurs in non-human animals as well. It's not a choice.
/rant
Debra Saunders and I seem to be of sort of the same mindset...and she gets paid for what she writes. You thank me, ferret, you're getting this priceless shit for free.
What are you, Nikastro? This is the first time you've been on this blog? I'm full of priceless shit...And I disturb it for a living, don't I ferret?
Suza...it's a fairly well-known fact that religious blacks are against homosexuality. I imagine that a good percentage of B.O.'S votes came from them. I'll give him this much credit, He's trying to represent us equally. We're not making it very easy for him.
Asking about B.O.'S position was a rhetorical question.
I think Barack Obama's position on same-sex marriage has been made quite clear. That is, while some people personally believe in marriage equality and desire for the law to support that, and others personally believe that marriage should be the exclusive domain of opposite-sex couples and felt the need to codify such exclusivity into the law, Barack Obama, recognizing his place as a citizen among many, personally believes that marriage should be exclusively enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, but understands the difference between his personal beliefs and what should be codified into the law of the land. For this reason, Barack Obama stated his personal belief (we expect the truth from our leaders, after all, and this is his belief), and underscored the backwards nature of legislation the likes of Proposition 8. That the supporters of Prop 8 point to Barack Obama to support their case only reveals them as the simple-minded folk they are and will likely continue to be. As for Barack Obama, I take issue with his stance as it pertains to the larger issue of civil rights and equality-- things I feel (could) make this nation something apart from others, but I have much respect for the kind of leader who would so publicly share his own contradictions and further still, would place the collective above his own biases. The mistake many made in voting yes on Prop 8 is in crossing the line between personal fancy and civic responsibility to fellow state- and countrypersons. This is the very definition of selfishness. In today's California, we need only to remember the images of Dr. King, flanked by people both black and white, cautiously but bravely continuing on while those on the sidelines threw obstacles and threats, obscenities and bricks. Today is tomorrow's history, and we all choose the characters we play in the historic photos future generations will peruse for clues. Cling to your family, your god, your personal belief if that's what makes you feel good about fucking your neighbors over. You're still, and will be remembered as, a bigot.
I went and saw the comedy duo, Frangela, a couple of weeks ago and they said something that was at once funny and true. They said that it was okay to hate people for their race, their religion, their sexuality, whatever! Go ahead and hate, hate, hate! But remember, that is what your house is for. When you're out on the street, it's not about you it's about society. Close your front door and hate away, feel free. But, when you leave the confines of those walls, you best step up!!!
Thanks, dsg. Yeah I was just saying the 18,000 existing marriages weren't affected because the amendment wasn't retroactive.
I'm sure everyone has some bias in them based on experience or their atmosphere but in order for society to evolve youi still have to do the right thing
So, when 52% of the voter's want to define marriage as being as it has always been defined, they're fucking their neighbor's over? Who's fucking whom, here? This is about a vocal minority trying to impose their will upon those that refused to be imposed upon.
And you wanna talk about getting fucked over about civil rights, you take a look at those abortion pictures and then we'll talk civil rights of people and violation of those rights. Until then, you've got no leg to stand on when it comes to claiming some sort of moral justice about civil liberties.
You childless types will all be dead and gone in one generation, so I think this sort of thing should be left up to the people that have the job of carrying on.
That's why they give us tax credits, you know.
You know what I wonder? If homosexuality could be fixed by science, would people do it in vitro?
Or would their mother's abort them?
Or would they leave them alone?
Nature has a way of fixing the gene pool, doesn't She? Gotta laugh.
Gina, this question was asked countless times on the SFGate boards, and never once was an answer not rooted in religious dogma or irrational fear given. So, I'll offer you the opportunity to clear it all up for us. Gays, as it stands now, are deprived of something. Now, this thing is obviously a very big deal to them. It's also clear that it's a very big deal to Prop 8 supporters, as they fought tooth and nail to 'preserve' their own marriages by denying their neighbors the very same experience. So, since both groups agree that marriage is an important aspect of their lives, we can agree that gays are missing out. Consider the alternative: all those with 'traditional' marriages, considered such either because they are 'blessed' by god, or are a 'sacrament' of their particular church (the churches don't seem to mind sharing, although I predict more exclusive claims to bubble to the surface soon, thanks to Prop 8's precedent)-- these people would remain married, and continue enjoying all the privileges that come with it, the intangible feeling that they and their partner have deemed each other 'special' among them. Additionally, gay people would experience the same pleasures, rights and responsibilities. Nothing was to be taken away from anyone, unless you're the sort of person who thinks that if someone else experiences joy, that leaves you wanting in some way (which you indeed are, not that it's anyone's blame but your own). In the end, one can only conclude that those who voted yes on Prop 8 belong to this damaged class of people who can only find joy in exclusivity. So again, the question... in what way does the marriage of another couple affect your own marriage? How could it, possibly, with so many marriages taking place every day between couples unknown to you-- couples of a different age, location, religion, point of view, desire or not to reproduce, some sharing everything, others signing pre-nup contracts-- explain to me how the marriage of two people of the same gender, not *disgusts* you, not *rankles* your religious point of view, not represents something you wouldn't engage in yourself, but actually has any bearing whatsoever on your marriage to the point where it could cheapen it, threaten it, or even give a fraction of a rat's ass about your own, miserable little matrimonial experience? You can't even fathom this Gina, because you only love yourself and those whose votes you could use to create the illusion of a world operating as you would have it. Nothing was to be taken from you, and you responded by taking from others. You selfish, narcissistic Bitch. You're so self-absorbed you couldn't even fathom how a person might personally not wish to go through the experience of abortion, or have their partner go through that either, and recognizing the gravity of that emotional choice, exclude oneself from the decision when others approach it. It's about respect. It's about not seeing yourself as superior. It's about love, ultimately, and I have little surprise that you, Gina, a person who would give away their very soul after all, would not be able to grasp these simple concepts about coexisting with other (or I should say just with) human beings. Quit changing the subject for once, step up and actually state your point of view on same-sex marriage, untainted by abortion, prayer, the Easter Bunny, Bugs Bunny or any of the other bullshit you've been manipulated into substituting for genuine thought. How, exactly, would same-sex marriage affect your own marriage, and now that 18000 same-sex marriages exist in California, with many others in other states, just what do you plan to do about reconstructing your own, damaged, worthless, shattered marriage? It appears that you're right royally fucked at this point, so much so that even the joy of exclusivity must be a letdown.
I find it highly amusing, actually. Since most people who think homosexuality is a sin and wrong are religious and are therefore opposed to abortion (according to Gina), then would they have abortions if they found out their children were gay in utero?
Or would they just torture them for the rest of their lives and make them feel like inadequate pieces of shit who in turn take out their frustrations by commiting matricide?
Interesting question - what would Gina do? I think she'd vote for torturing the kid - after all, it seems to have been what her mother did to her. That's a bummer, but hard to feel that it wasn't deserved in some way.
Honor thy mother and thy father.
Why would anyone look at Gina's link? Also, doesn't homosexuality help prevent unwanted pregnancies? (The gay and lesbian parents I know sure got there intentionally.) If Gina's "principles" were based on anything other than religious fervor (of some sort) she would embrace homosexuality as an anti-abortion life-style.
oh, there was a link? I must have missed that one.
So you had the stomach to look, ferret? And you still believe that abortion is a right of women? That she has the right to deprive another person of their life? You want that power endowed to you? I don't. Might rights stopped when the fundamental right of another began. My right was to be able to have sex.
I really would like an honest answer from you?
You have to agree that the pictures are hideous--the hideous truth of abortion. I can't in good conscience as a woman given that sort of warped power over another human being, think it's right and not speak out against it. And that makes me ignorant and intolerant and wrong?
And like I said, the gravity of the issue abortion must be addressed before I'll even consider the rights of homosexuals to redefine and demand their civil rights.
Speaking of that, you guys can call me every name in the book, but that doesn't alter the fact that the idea of marriage is supposed to be about to different people joining together and leaving themselves open to the possibilty of creating something new. When the union of homosexuals can do that, perhaps people see things in a different light. Until then, the Emperor Wears No Clothes.
It smacks of the religious mindset that something as simple and involuntary as getting born should represent the zenith of existence. Go figure. And it's something that every person here has experienced, too. It's not even exclusive. Bummer. Let's remedy that by finding some rights we can take away and enjoy exclusively. I feel so utterly empty, I might as well pray.
Well, Suza, what did you abort your baby for?
And no, I'd never abort any child of mine. Even if they were gay. But unlike some mother's, I wouldn't encourage and endorse a lifestyle that was a dead-end. I'd wanna find a cure. I think that it could be done. I think that's what we should be focusing on. Finding out why some people come out homosexual and then fixing it. I don't think the solution is to try to pretend it's normal. Maybe if we would all quit kidding ourselves about it, we might make some sort of progress. It's a radical idea, I know. But it could happen if we wanted it too.
You, TS, I'm convinced has uterine envy.
It's not an attractive trait, by the way.
have uterine envy. Excuse me.
wv:cation. Please proceed with.
I see nothing abnormal, but then I'm not comparing reality to a religious comic book pamphlet handed down by generations of backwards haters.
Suza, there's no need...
Well, neither am I. And that's what's got you confused and bent out of shape, huh?
If you must know, gina, I have my period. Oh, the wasted life!
I'd be happy to fix that for you, TS.
Where shall we meet? At the grassy knoll?
TS - no worries, I'm not going into it again...Gina is projecting - as usual.
"honesty and sincerity will make you vulnerable
it doesn't matter - be honest and sincere"
whomever said above that someone is in for a big shock when they meet what they think is their God is absolutely right.
"judge not lest ye also be judged."
'Cause you know how much I want to feel you growing inside of me...
How's that big, fancy catholic wedding you're planning coming along, Suz?
Got your vintage white wedding dress all squared away and fitting properly?
One more thing. For people that don't believe in God, you guys are sure convinced that there is one...and he's gonna punish me. You know how I answer that? Bring it on...I'd love to have a word or two with God. I've got a few questions for him, too.
I think the real religious ones here are you infants that have a problem with authority figures and still can't figure out how to become adults.
Gina - my beliefs about abortion are personal to me. My facts are these: a medical procedure is a private matter between the patient and their doctor. Basically, what another decides to do is NONE OF MY BUSINESS!!!
You say you are defending the rights of the unborn, but you are willing to withhold rights from the living... You want to cure homosexuality - I'd like to cure ignorance. One of these is a malady in need of a cure, and it's the one you are currently afflicted with. You are entitled to your beliefs, but you are not entitled to make them my facts!
You do understand the issue of viability, right? Until it is able to live outside of the womb, a fetus is basically a parasite...how do you like them apples?!?!?
And, the idea of marriage is the joining together of two. That's it! By your definition people who are not planning on having any children should not be allowed to marry. Old people who are obviously beyond childbearing age - sorry, no getting married for you! Oh, you're infertile? Tough shit, back of the bus! Do you have any idea how stupid you sound???
Here's a perspective...Gina, you might recognize yourself in this, but I doubt it.
http://tinyurl.com/ox7s8y
Ripping the head and limbs off of an innocent, defenseless baby is just a medical procedure to you and is none of your business? You can look at those pictures and not feel a thing? Talk about a black hole where a heart should be. It is unfathomable to me that you could be so unfeeling for something so small and helpless. Your talk about compassion is just a crock of shit. What a load of bull.
I take back what I said about you being a good mother. If your heart is that lacking in compassion and mercy you have no right being a mother. You have the sensibilities of a beast. No, even worse. Even animals protect their young. You are one cold bitch. My hat's off to you. Are you sure you're female? And yet there are men that find women like you attractive! That just blows my mind. I must be stupid! I'm am so wasting my time on drooling troglodytes.
Marriage is about the joining of two complementary subjects. It's true not only for people but about other things also. Men and women are naturally complementary--that's why, for the most part--they can produce something entirely new by joining together. It's also true with things like metals in jewelry and foods in cooking.
Here's the standard definition:
1: relating to or constituting one of a pair of contrasting colors that produce a neutral color when combined in suitable proportions 2: serving to fill out or complete 3: mutually supplying each other's lack 4: being complements of each other 5: characterized by the capacity for precise pairing of purine and pyrimidine bases between strands
of DNA and sometimes RNA such that the structure of one strand
determines the other
It's kinda like this, ferret. Men have what women don't have and visa- versa...and the two together can produce spectacular results.
Love in and of itself is a spectacular result, Gina. Anything more is gravy...
If I gave two fucks about what you think of me, your words may have hurt. But, considering what I think of you, I take some comfort in them.
The law favors the rich and powerful. Do they really care about civil rights? They care because discrimination causes dissension among the lower classes, distracting them from the real oppression. For that reason and that reason only the law permits this sort of direct discrimination against an entire class of people.
That is my view. I think the topic post from Ms. F. atop this thread is very moving, very sincere. As always the real story here is the human story. Some people really are suffering because the law permits a simple majority to oppress them.
I regret that this discussion has disolved into www.ginashambles.com. Hartal and his friends seem to be settling down. Gina, you really need to do the same or take your abortion obsession somewhere else. You are driving people away from this blog.
I'm waiting for Lefty to make a comment that isn't sanctimonious twatwafflery. Why don't you tell us what screen name you use to post on the Splash Lefty?
YC - I'm not sure that was called for. What was wrong with Lefty's post...I thought it was brillant! (And not just because he agrees with me, though that definitely helps!!!)
What name do you use to post on the Splash, Y?
Oops! I forgot this:
;-D
FH, every single comment Lefty has posted here is a put down of the usual targets. He's an anonymous assassin, fuck him. Never thought I'd stand up for Gina, but she contributes more to this blog than Lefty. I do concur though about about her obsession with abortion.
You know what name I use, so does everyone else, I assume.
Those posts directly above this one, YC, from you, offer nothing but senseless attack. Yet you claim to be complaining about senseless posts. I really do not like that sort of blogging. I generally post here early in a thread and then stop, to avoid such encounters. I will try that approach again, I guess, if I post at all.
You also drive people away, YC.
Lefty, please repost a single comment of yours that doesn't begin with a put down of another commenter, not what they said, just your tiresome opinion of their personality. Then you end your insipid comments with an off-topic platitude from Chairman Mao.
Your a a concern troll Lefty. You are oh so concerned about how everybody else in the world seems to have some passion, while you feel nothing.
YC - it seems like you had nothing to say on the topic, and chose only to show up when Lefty posted. And, then just to slam him. Regardless of your opinion of him, it would appear that in this instance, you are the one acting in a troll-ish manner. I know you're going to get mad at me, and may not come back, but I have to tell it like it is...
I adore you, but I think if you honestly review your posts, you'll see what I see - and unwarranted attack on another poster who at least was attempting to comment on the topic, which wasn't a choice you made, much to my chagrin.
What I find fascinating is that the challenge to Prop 8 that has been filed in federal court is being handled by two heavy-hitting political attorneys, David Boies, Al Gore's attorney in Bush v. Gore, and Ted Olson, Dubya's Solicitor General. This may fit into Lefty's worldview, but I think it actually means that the opposition to same-sex marriage is small enough at this point to be treated the way opposition to civil rights was treated in the Fifties.
wv: spipsy
FH, I'm all talked out on the subject. I shot all my bullets at Prop 8 before the election, where I thought it might do some good. I did post a comment that disappeared.
"In the celestial courtroom, Noah Webster is arguing the case for Prop 8 against Daniel Webster."
FH, if I don't come back it's not because I'm mad at you. If you review Lefty's post(all of them, every single one of them has a disapproving tone), it's a much more sinister attack on one of your regular commenters. If you review all of the comments made by me, you'll at least find some variety, an occasional joke or two.
yogi, you're fos. I just went back and looked at some of Lefty's posts and they virtually all start out with his exaggerated left-wing opinion on the topic. And you know what I think of your sense of humor.
You know, I wonder if Lefty even knows that you're sonofabastard. If not, I hope he sees this.
Lefty said..."Hartal and his friends seem to be settling down."
FH, you apparently don't realize why this is so appalling. WTF does Hartal or any of his friends need to settle down in order to accomodate an obsolete boomer on this blog? Is that what Brushfires of Freedom is about?
Post one Xootsuit, post a comment from Lefty that doesn't include both a platitude and a put down of another commenter. I'll cop to being Sonofabastard any fucking day of the week Xootie. Do you realize how many screen names were generated just to counter SOAB(Poster Child, Skindeep, Rosa Z, Sharpsuit). Hell they're even gossiping about him on the fantasy baseball blog.
I generated the name sharpsuit and made it clear that it was me posting from a second computer while I had another fixed. (The IT people advised me to keep everything separate until they fixed the issue.) I haven't used that screen name since. The idea that I created the name because of you is classic yogibastard self-involvement. Get a life.
OK Xootsuit, you're not completely obsessed by me. Now who was it that registered the name YogiBarrister on BoF? Who was it that exitedly rushed over to the Splash to tell them about a comment I made on Mick LaSalle's blog?
I'm sorry if I broke your heart Xoot, I'm just not that into you
Sometimes I think this group would have heckled Rodney King.... :)
When will the constitutionality of eharmony be challenged? We don't allow incest for good reason. We should not be allowing people to marry their opposite sex clone.
Is this xootsuit/lefty telling me to settle down? Or applauding for settling down? You have to be kidding me.
Sorry too busy with work.
Didn't see the pictures but as I understand it abortions in the second trimester are rare; many underage girls have them, and that suggests that there are other important ways to reduce them. Some of the people aborting late may be victims of incest. I have seen a lot of ultrasounds, and they don't change my opinion that the zygote/fertilized egg/early fetus is a pre-person. Moreover, I don't think observation alone can tell us whether abortion is murder. The image resolves nothing.
Interesting that the talk is about how Sotomayor creates problems for the Republicans who are trying to woo back Latino voters. The talk should be about how Obama has put his progressive followers in a bind as they can't easily challenge the first Latina nominee even though she is moderate on abortion rights and generally pro business. Race and gender are making triangulation work.
I don't think Sotomayor will help overrule Roe. That's really all the pro-choice people need right now, isn't it? Her background in IP law is very interesting. Should come in handy in the next 3 decades or so. And she will be progressive on civil rights. In fact, she is a perfect antidote to John Roberts, in a way. (The recent NYorker profile of him by J. Toobin was good.)
And, of course, she saved baseball. [thumbs up]
She'll get confirmed. And she'll be good. I think.
EJ Dionne:
A careful analysis of her record by Business Week, for example, concluded that she is a "moderate on business issues" and would fit the court's current alignment on such questions.
She also upheld a ban on federal funds going to family planning groups that provided abortions overseas. Sotomayor wrote that "the Supreme
Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."
Dan Gilgoff, on his excellent "God and Country" blog, points out that Sotomayor also ruled in favor of a group of Connecticut antiabortion
protesters who asserted that police "used excessive force against them at a demonstration." He concludes that her "thin record on abortion is
most likely a relief" to pro-life groups. In picking her, Obama sent another signal that he is serious about seeking common ground on abortion.
You should all see the riff-raff commentary on Sotomayor's nomination at SFGate.com. Handwaving extraordinaire.
One of my neighbors, retired guy, only person I know who listens to Rush L. (et al.), made a special trip down the sidewalk yesterday to tell me how radical liberal Sotomayor is. (Did you know that she once said publicly that "justice is not blind"? Yeah. Pinko.) Amazing.
Her background on general tort issues that concern big business is moderate. (Punitive damages, for example.) G.H.W. Bush never would've appointed her a federal trial judge otherwise. That's not the end of the world. There are much more important "business" issues, IMO. Standing to sue is huge. I would be astonished if she got behind the slam-the-court-house door approach of Roberts, Scalia, Scalito, and Unc. How would she have voted on Leegin? (My practice sometimes includes antitrust litigation.) My guess is she would've gone with Breyer.
So I don't see her moderateness, or her prosecutorial background, as problems. Her plusses are many.
I suppose when O says, "have hope", maybe he means it.
And, I made it clear that I no longer wished to discuss abortion. Who brought it up again? That's right, butthole dsg!
wv:frolicar
Gina - it only took 10 comments for you to introduce abortion into a conversation about marriage equality. I think we can all agree, one thing homosexuality does not do is add to the amount of abortions performed!
You are obsessed with abortion, it is the only arrow in your quiver, and it is why you are the resident bore of the blog. Do you think your fantacism has changed even a single mind on this blog? Find a new tune...for all of our sakes.
FH, it's true that Gina only knows one note, but you've got to admit she plays it loudly and often, if not always in key.
wv-uplist: To note your adversary's every fault while leaving the positive side of his ledger, blank.
I'm not a lawyer or even pretending to be one. On the standing to sue issue, she threw out of court an important lawsuit by investors claiming to have been bilked in dot.com bust (FH may remember that there was no question of massive fraud especially around issues of revenue recognition rules as applied to software companies); and she seems overly skeptical of class action lawsuits. A middle ground on this issue is ceding ground.
So xootsuit should give us some analysis to back up his claim that she is good enough on standing to sue issues.
From the Business Week piece:
11 years later she rejected a petition by millions of investors that alleged rigging of initial public offerings in the dot-com boom.
In class actions, Sotomayor has occupied a strict middle ground, her record reflecting sympathy neither for those in favor of such issues, nor skepticism of them.
On damages:
Thomas H. Dupree Jr., an appellate lawyer with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, said he expects Sotomayor to "recognize the need to rein in arbitrary and excessive punitive damage awards."
*
There's no analysis of her IP relevant rulings in the article. Here's betting that Lawrence Lessing would not be impressed.
She does not seem to be the Justice that Obama's supporters wanted. But we are not likely to hear much opposition as progressives don't want to fight the first Latina nominee for the SCt.
Gina Gavone would not be the creation of YC who often loudly disowns his own monstrous creation? It sounds to crazy even to contemplate, but xootsuit's defense of lefty seems to be a form of (multiple)self-defense.
That Businessweek article was very lightweight. Do some deeper research. Easy now. See, e.g.,
http://tinyurl.com/psxa7u
This is the conclusion at the bottom of this guy's focused analysis on one issue:
"Overall, her decisions on class action issues do not suggest a pro-plaintiff or pro-defense bias. Rather, they seem to reflect a willingness to consider each case on its own merits and to either admit when she has made a mistake or at least be guided by changing circumstances rather than any ridged adherence to a predetermined philosophy or idealogy."
Listen you old bag. I am passionate about the pro-life issue. Call it what you want, but at least I FEEL something for others...and it's not fake, either.
I have a lot of other interests that I could talk about, but the only one that relates to this political blog is abortion. You really want to discuss sex or science or genetics or breeding, or art techniques or fashion or home decorating or sewing or gardening or the best way to clean house or raise children? I thought not.
And just for your information, someone as narrow in perspective and with so little of life experience about life as you bores me to tears.
I honestly think you're not who you claim to be.
And FH, I'm outta here too. These trolls suck big time.
no one said...
Gina Gavone would not be the creation of YC who often loudly disowns his own monstrous creation? It sounds to crazy even to contemplate, but xootsuit's defense of lefty seems to be a form of (multiple)self-defense.
Hartal, no I'm not Gina(who has several aliases of her own. Lucy Loo is the first one I noticed). I'm also not a certain poet from Bryn Mawr who posts on the Splash, in fact I don't like hugging unless it's sexual in nature.
ON THE OTHER THREAD.
wv: minflesh
xootsuit, you don't seem to have noticed whose blog you recommended:
"Paul Karlsgodt is a partner in the Denver office of Baker & Hostetler LLP. His practice emphasizes class action defense. He has represented major insurers and other companies in nationwide and statewide consumer class action lawsuits and related litigation across the United States."
So Sotomayor is acceptable to him. What does that say? Also he spelled "ideology" as "idealogy". When is the last time you did that? Eighth grade?
I don't pretend to play a lawyer.
Well well well. The BF boys, tag team bullies, hartal and YC have managed to drive posters away from this blog and shut the discourse down. Well done, asswipes.
To fill the dead air for the time being, a hit from the past:
* * * *
April 6, 2009 1:10 AM
hartal said...
One last note before I leave this sump to you rats. Whoever it was who suggested last night that I do not know the meaning of incommensurable had better hope that I never have the opportunity to confront you face to face. I went back to my files and found the January 20, 2009 leaf from my word of the day calendar, and, guess what, the word that day was incommensurable. So you see, I do know the definition of that word. I believe I employed efficacious diction in that sentence, despite the minor misque. Incommensurable certainly sounds like the series of phonemes I intended to write. My powerful subconcious creativity merely made a metaphoric pun appropriate to the moment.
And for those dolts like qua who have not caught on yet, the true trademark of my work is the ad hominem attack. If a post bearing my name does not insult another poster directly, that post is counterfeit.
word verification: hugic
That really is me, is it not?
* * * *
I love the misspelled "misque." Whoever wrote that is pretty clever. Too bad this blog is stuck with the trolls hartal/no one and YC/who cares. Too bad.
Quappy, despite the screen name, Hartal didn't write that. It was posted by either a demon from Hell or an obsessive Hartal fan. I don't know which is worse. Now slither back to your sweet Satan.
Quappy- too smart to be Gina, too stupid to be Xootsuit.
ah ha. The troll abides.
Quappy, can you repost a single comment that isn't directed at Hartal or myself? If you can't, then it means we are your sole reason to exist.
Tiny bubbles
In the wine
Makes me feel happy
Makes me feel fine
"we"? oh trollish one. where's your hubby this evening, yc? avoiding your bf ways? all by yourself tonight? too bad.
I stand corrected. Quappy isn't too smart to be Gina. Well at least the demon child is on topic with the clumsy gay slur.
You've gotta giiiiiive a little
Taaaaake a little
Let your poor heart breaak a little
That's the story of...
That's the glory of love
TedSpe - here's something you might enjoy. Hartal posted the link, I believe on my birthday. I think it is HIGH-larious!!!
http://fuckyoupenguin.blogspot.com/2009/05/worlds-ugliest-dog-contest-unveiled.html
All, right. YC is a man, isn't it? I thought he had a big, hot one for that LaSalle clone Amandapants? Asked someone to marry him. Called himself an old man if I remember correctly. Damn this slow computer.
Or it is apants and we just can't tell the difference?
I think I could fall in love with you qua. You're funny.
You're some conservative, Teddy. Thanks for all the support.
wv:prilias. I've never claimed to be brilliant in everything.
Thanks, JM, I'll check it out when I get home. Itzen verboten on wrok PC
;)
Gina Gavone said...
All, right. YC is a man, isn't it? I thought he had a big, hot one for that LaSalle clone Amandapants? Asked someone to marry him. Called himself an old man if I remember correctly.
>
You don't remember correctly Gina. I did have a dream about AP once. I was at a Safeway looking at the shampoo, when she came down the aisle talking loudly to herself. As for having a big, hot one for her, that's true, but then I've got that for most women between the age of 21 and 60. That's the great thing about guys Gina, we don't care about all of your personality flaws, or if you're stupid, we'll have sex with you anyway, as if you didn't know that already.
Ap is sooooo homely. I mean, that look is ok on a guy like LaSalle, but on her--I don't know. I suppose that's why some of you are gay, huh?
And, I'm not that stupid. You asked someone to marry you on LaSalle's blog. It was sometime over two years in January around the Oscar's. Someone could look it up. I can't, my computer is too slow and I'm tying up my father's phone line as it is.
Who was it? I'll never rest until I have it all figured out.
wv: sticicat. Heh. That's a funny wv.
How's Michael doing? I think he just abused me on SFGate, but I'm not sure it was him. :)
Anyway, I hope things are going ok...
TS - he's hanging in there. He sure hasn't lost any of his feistiness on the Splash, that's for sure!
And Gavone's refusal to pay any real attention to the arguments of those in favor of choice is exposed for what it is--the mindset of violent irrational righteousness. Sotomayor refusing to let the full force of the law fall on these vigilantes no longer seems moderate or tolerable.
And what did Tiller do? Here's an example. A mother found out in her eighth month that she was carrying twins who were conjoined and that one would die immediately upon birth while the other could possibly be saved for a very short, tremendously painful life of one organ transplant after another. Dr. Tiller carried out the third trimester abortion; and now he has been killed. And we have silence on this list after Gavone amused herself for days with her irresponsible, hate-filled antics.
I haven't had a chance to read Sotomayor's opinion in that case, so I can't really comment on the rationale for her decision, but the question of the applicability of the RICO statute to various activities was something I once researched a long time ago. My recollection is that the question was quite controversial. I recall that one of the principal authors of the statute, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, was adamant that it was not intended to apply to anyone other than Mafia-type gangsters. My reading of the statute was that it was more ambiguous than he believed, but I wouldn't necessarily condemn anyone who reached a different conclusion from mine.
As for Tiller's murder, I haven't yet said anything because I've had a hard time finding words appropriate to a tragedy of this scope. I don't think we can blame Gina herself for his death, but I do think it is a shorter journey than she might acknowledge from her opinions to the actions of the murderer. If Gina were broadcasting her views to a larger audience, and making assertions against people like Tiller in the same way she has done with various people here, I might think otherwise.
Gina, learn to read. I said you couldn't be blamed.
Gina, but if you had a bigger soapbox and any likeability at all, you'd be out there talking to crowds of like-minded folks comparing those of us who are pro-choice with Nazis and intimating that we didn't deserve to live.
Think what you like, Gina, no one can persuade you of anything.
I gave an example of the tragedy that the picture Gavone sent cannot capture. Again she makes no effort to understand the people Gavone and her allies condemn as murderers and Nazis.
*
http://tiny.cc/y5zaH
Again: images are only one kind of evidence, and they can be highly misleading at that. Do remember that almost all abortions happen within the first trimester
*
It would seem that the law and relevant statutes underdetermined two of the rulings that Sotomayor made in regards to abortion rights; and in those two cases she chose not to do what she could have done to defend abortion rights.
dsgonzale6 is of course correct that no judgement should be made without careful review of her decisions, and I do hope that the Senate does this. She was appointed by GHWB. Perhaps she thought that she was being politically safe by choosing what may have appeared as a moderate path in regards to abortion rights, but that path does not seem moderate to me.
Of course Gavone is not responsible in any relevant legal sense for the murder of Dr. Tiller, but in her characteristically unoriginal, simplistic and tendentious way she is disseminating the propaganda of a domestic terrorist movement.
Gavone attacks dsgonzale6 in ad hominem terms on the supposition that he encouraged a girlfriend to have an abortion presumably against her own wishes, but this is pure supposition.
So since Gavone has already told us that she was once pro-choice, why don't we suppose that she now regrets an abortion a boyfriend once intimated that he wanted her to have and that in lieu of self-criticism for a choice that she now regrets having made, she wants to deprive all women of control over their reproduction.
That would seem to be the characteristics of the mindset of Gavone's kind of activist--an inability to engage in self-criticism and to take responsibility for one's own action, joined with the externalization of the resultant self-hatred on all other women in the guise of act of solidarity against uncommitted men.
Gavone evidently thinks all women will be as weak as she was once in regards to her own wants and desires in the face of male disapproval and must thus not have the freedom to do what men what women to do against their own desires.
Of course this is a completely narcissistic understanding of why women want abortion--it's her experience-- but there is no reason to expect anything else from Gavone. She is trapped in the citadel of her ignorance and stupidity.
Of course she will deny that she ever had an abortion, but why should we believe her? I don't. After all, she tells us that she was once took a pro-choice position.
It's also been clear for some time that the motivations behind Gavone's rants are opaque to herself. We saw that in her false accusation that I was saying the equivalent of racist things against Christians.
Very insightful, hartal.
And how.
The 4th paragraph throws me a little but interesting theory
oh, he's a brilliant genius, isn't he? Got me pegged, for sure. I wonder just how much time he devoted to analyzing me-just to get it all wrong.
And GWTW is about the antebellum south, too.
Keep kissing their ass, Hartal, maybe they'll accept you as one of them--'cause they count in the grand scheme of things.
For men that seem to dislike me so much, you sure can't seem to let the one issue go that keeps me talking.
Analyze that, pissface.
Attacks on me don't alter the fact that you're all guilty of the same crimes whether you've been a participator of an abortion or not. You guys still all wear the blood of slaughtered innocent children on your hands. That will never be erased by stoning me. The truth is the truth whether you want hear it or not.
wv: actomis. Latin for person trying to teach ruthless barbabrians the finer points of civility.
So you are calling people here murderers of innocent children and Nazis in the immediate aftermath of Dr. Tiller's murder, and you then complain of being stoned. What a stupid drama queen you are! And what the hell is a "participator of an abortion"?
*
That nostalgia for the antebellum South can be found in "Gone With the Wind" does not mean that it is about the antebellum South; the antebellum South has a spectral presence in the movie. The South remains haunted by its past in the movie. You don't even understand at a rudimentary level the cultural production that you most treasure. How do you live with yourself?
*
I also don't believe you have kids or at the least custody of them.
One more thought for the night...and Hartal, this is why most of the people on this blog don't count for too much. Here's one definition of cultivate:
5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations.
See, for all their book-learning and delusions of grandeur and ideas of elitism, it's all for naught. It will be the children of the prolific pro-lifers that will define the future.
wv: pyroacto. I love it.
You make your usual logical error. You assume that only parents educate the next generation. They may develop ideas in discussion with people other than their parents--for example fellow citizens. So it's difficult to know whether the childless people here count for nothing in the cultivation of ideas.
*
The point is that I would be surprised if a Court allowed anyone's children to be your business if in fact you have children. My guess is that you use this blog to work through your own self-persecution. Here you are, past your child-bearing years. You regret allowing yourself to be talked into an abortion many years ago. In fact you feel guilty about it. You are persecuted by it even though in real life you pretend to be a passionately pro-choice woman. So we have to watch you (superego) call yourself (ego) a murderer as you depend on us to defend your own past actions against your superego. Your posts here are a cry for help and for the psychotherapy that you can't afford.
At any rate, all we know is that you have no intellectual seriousness at all in dealing with pro-choice arguments. And in the face of intellectual inadequacy, all you can do is shout at your opponents "murderer" and "pervert".
Gavone, I do hope that you understand that the only thing that will keep you in this argument with me is the destruction of rigorous, civic-minded public education. So don't give up. You may yet prove more convincing to our fellow Americans many of whom actually do believe that their metaphysical supposition that God breathes sacred personhood into the zygote is a valid basis for the making of laws and the destruction of privacy and rights. Some even believe that their belief gives them the right and obligation to vigilante murder to a man twice acquitted of any crime.
Then again, the anonyminity of the internet can also bring on the pure id. Arguement for arguement's sake based on some type of personal anger brought about by nothing more than being tweaked the wrong way at some point in time.
Both are possible
That's you, Ted Spe. But don't forget that id can never but appear in disguise. Well that is if you are a Freudian. And I doubt that you content yourself with a talking cure.
Pure id *can* appear without diguise. Granted, it often needs imbellishment but it can appear nevertheless. However, as I stated, the anonymity of the internet can lure one to speak/write with pure id.
And forgive me but I don't understand your statement "I doubt that you content yourself with a talking cure."
What does that mean?
My supposition that the cures of which you avail yourself have a different chemical composition than the ones recommended by Freud.
I am pretty sure that Freud thought that the pure id or id only does appear in disguise. Hence the interpretation of dreams and the distinction between manifest and latent meanings. I would not be so sure that you get to see the nature of your id in the anonymous blog entries that you leave behind.
"I am pretty sure that Freud thought that the pure id or id only does appear in disguise."
**
I'm glad you're pretty sure. Considering when Freud lived, that means that the pure id had to be done in the backdoors of unsavory areas. And Freud also worked with chemicals within his office to come up with this theory.
But you're missing my point entirely. Freud's theories were pre-anonymity.
**
"Hence the interpretation of dreams and the distinction between manifest and latent meanings. I would not be so sure that you get to see the nature of your id in the anonymous blog entries that you leave behind."
**
Shallow arguement but lovely use of words. That's *exactly* where you *do* see it this day and age.
The bottom line is, there is a duality in all of us. The lower elements of the soul are so easily bellowed by being able to write on these here blogs.
What one could never do at work or at a PTA meeting, delivered from the guilt, no longer exposed to disgrace and penitence, simply go...
full YAHOO!!!.
Yes, this is also the superego.
But the internet also lulls people to weakly supress the super ego.
In truth, it causes some to forgo even the temptation to look in the mirror, despite the lure.
In fear of the contrivance of over reacting to same.
So, what is the inherent need?
Is being an asshole, a bitch, a jerkoff a need? An adiction?
Or simply an opportunity?
This is my whole point.
But even in your anonymous postings, your id or repressed desires or traumas are not any more immediately visible than they are in dreams. The blog entries and dreams still have to be interpreted and latent meanings sussed out. The use of less decorous language than you would use in a public or professional forum or your expression of private frustration or private intellectual or ethnic resentments is not the expression of the pure id. I think Freud means something else by this, and something a bit harder to decipher than what a quick perusal of your automatic writing as an anonymous blogger with apparently a few screen names would reveal.
"I think Freud means something else by this, and something a bit harder to decipher than what a quick perusal of your automatic writing as an anonymous blogger with apparently a few screen names would reveal.
June 2, 2009 11"
**
Ahh. Indeed. But see what a simple and yet telling prelonged sentence reveals.
"with apparently a few screen names would reveal"
Uh huh. Pot.Kettle. Black.
You, sir, are paranoid.
I have never written, nor could I imagine writing, as anyone but TedSpe. Not on any blog. On all blogs that I write, I am TedSpe.
Frankly, I don't see the point and I'm too lazy as writing as anyone else but TedSpe! It's so simple
You post as "hartal" and as "no one". And God knows what as else.
Have I ever, ever posted as anyone but TedSpe? You might think so. But sorry. Never.
The mere fact you feel this is necessary or perhaps amusing proves you are not comfortable in your own skin.
But again proves my Freudian point.
I won't go on. Since you know how to take the time and look things up on the internet that you didn't know before, I will give you as much time as you need
I actually took the time to raise the white flag to call a truce with you but you decided to argue.
I have never and never will be anything but TedSpe.
And that being a fact, considering your obvious preclamation to post with different names...
I don't even see what you're accusing me of.
Nevertheless,...nevermind.
I tried.
I really did.
I waved a white flag, I tossed it to you and you whiped your ass with it and threw it back.
I actually complimented you on a couple of your posts.
And your reaction was to argue with me.
So, read more Freud. And read more about Jung.
But don't succumb to your id, as you are obviously doing.
I'm not the fucking idiot you seem to think I am.
And I don't think you're an idiot.
But you really, really are a fucking asshole.
Now...is that super-ego? Or pure id?
OK you're Ted Spe and only Ted Spe. It seems that qua/quasi hijacked your style of attack against me. Remember how bonkers you went about the CEO debate. You don't remember the slew of dehumanized terms you used against me? Or your little baseball bat fantasy?
You think things are alright between you and me because you have decided to wave a white flag. I don't.
Things also aren't going to be alright between me and the one who accuses me of being a murderer and a pervert.
You see, you two crossed a line, and I have self-respect.
"a man twice acquitted of any crime"
Sounds like a religious experience.
anyways, hartal reverts to trollish form. hate all, hartal?
qua, I truly feel sad when any human mind has been reduced to the uncomprehending, resentful and peanut sized state that yours is in. The mind can soar. Try to get out of your small little hole; nourish your mind with the stimulating things that dsgonzale6 and I write and hope that you will one day be able to soar, too. I'm an optimist. That means I also think that one day Gavone will be able to engage in a rational discussion and that xootsuit won't compulsively and rashly write an insulting reply on issues that he only pretends to understand (see his recommendation of the blog entry on class action lawsuits above).
On Dr. Tiller's clinic:
http://tiny.cc/dDRzW
Said with all the courage you can muster, you pathetic weasel. Are you the same person who got the Austrian banking system mixed up with the Austrian theory of business cycles in some failed attempt to discredit me? Didn't you notice that your opinion is not universally shared? Or are you just jealous? It reveals how deep is the hole out of which you have to work yourself that you find my posts the foolish and banal ones on this list. You had so much to choose from, beginning your own trivial and resentful mutterings. But at least the internet has allowed you to do more than lacerate yourself at bus-stops as mothers cover the ears of their children and people move far away from the odor, you pathetic loser.
Tedspe and Qua--I love you both. I knew real, rational men existed...thank you.
I think Hartal is projecting. He's so off base. All he can come up with are scenarios that seem to fit his life...what a screwball.
I can no longer waste an ounce of my time on this thing that sorta resembles a human--I wish he'd crawl back into the third-world slums where he slimed his way out of. All I can think of is that he's like some crazed, mad character in a Bollywood 'movie'..
I truly am sorry that I upset you so much, hartal. Truly! But also true is this -- you don't "soar." You bore. You split hairs, trying to win artificial arguments of your own devising that most people simply have no interest in. You are the narcissist you revile. Go back to school. Being a house husband clearly is bad for your self esteem.
See -- I can tell you what I think of you without flinging the sort of overheated sewage you muck around. You lose.
sorta human; "crawl" back into the slum; implied fantasy of repatriation of a colored citizen; gratuitous use of the n word.
And ardently pro-life.
Just remember the picture of three generations of the Gavones.
Right most people have no interest in abortion, or being bilked out of their savings in financial fraud and their standing to sue or the nature of their unconscious or super-ego. Go to an isolated bus stop and don't scare the children.
Oh by the way off to work, believe it or not.
What's your part time job, hartal?
I was actually enjoying the discussion of the psychology of anonymity and personal attacks on the Web. Personally, I prefer to identify myself, I think it's more honest, and I think it helps with understanding my arguments.
I also find that I'm happiest when I can get along with people and have people get along with me, and when I can be helpful to people and have people be helpful to me. None of us is perfect, myself very much included, and so I behave contrary to what I think are my best impulses from time to time, especially in the heat of some arguments, but I try not to indulge my baser self.
Some have called me Panglossian, but I actually think that I am just trying to overcome my natural tendency to be suspicious and mistrustful. In any event, that's where I'm coming from these days.
Speaking of id and superego in Freud's time, perhaps we should re-read Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
cocaine, cocaine (Freud, Hyde)
The problem I have with hartal is that he won't treat a poster decently unless the poster plays along by hartal's rules. Those rules generally are petty and constricting. He ridicules anyone who ignores them. He's an asshole, pure and simple.
I have known failed academics. (Cheap apartment buildings in Berkeley are full of them.) Some of them never get over the failuure, never move on. They need to feel like they're at the head of the seminar table, lording it over the acolytes. "Soaring."
hartal seeks to capture that feeling by trying to dominate discussion on this blog. I dislike that. And even more do I dislike the foul smelling poisonous posts hartal puts up when someone asks him to back off.
Nobody's perfect.
I can't remember... is the superego the one with the backwards 'S' on his chest?
I think he drives a taxi...and I dislike him for many of the same reasons as qua. Mostly though, for his basic inconsiderateness of other people's time. Like anyone is interested in his boring opinion based on god knows what. I mean, come on. He feels qualified to give and informed opinion about GWTW, yet has never read the book? Please. What an ass.
Either that or is in prison with full internet access. His job is cleaning prison toilets, I presume.
And I dislike him for many of the same reasons as qua. Mostly though, for his basic inconsiderateness of other people's time. Like anyone is interested in his boring, pretentious opinion based on god knows what. I mean, come on. He feels qualified to give an informed opinion about GWTW, yet has never read the book? Please. What an ass.
And, I do apologize dsg. I did get out of hand. I think hartal and his bilious attacks are at the root of the problem.
wv: kocktinsi. I kid you not.
Sorry. Poor editing.
I think he drives a taxi...either that or is in prison with full internet access. His job is cleaning prison toilets, I presume.
And I dislike him for many of the same reasons as qua. Mostly though, for his basic inconsiderateness of other people's time. Like anyone is interested in his boring, pretentious opinion based on god knows what. I mean, come on. He feels qualified to give an informed opinion about GWTW, yet has never read the book? Please. What an ass.
And, I do apologize dsg. I did get out of hand. I think hartal and his bilious attacks are at the root of the problem.
wv: kocktinsi. I kid you not.
June 3, 2009 11:13 AM
Apology accepted, Gina, and I'm sorry I lost my temper, too.
dsgonzale6, you had written in response to being called a fat cold blooded murderer: "Gina, but if you had a bigger soapbox and any likeability at all, you'd be out there talking to crowds of like-minded folks comparing those of us who are pro-choice with Nazis and intimating that we didn't deserve to live."
And now you're apologizing for writing something that mild? What kind of happy drugs are you on for your foot pain?
So what is the Gavone saying--that she hates me because she can't stop herself from giving multiple readings to everything I write? But instead of asking herself why my writing has come to consume her time, including the few moments in the say that she is sober, she just hates on me and invents worthy professions for me, such as taxi car driver and janitor.
Why hasn't qua/quasi had anything to say yet? Just petty insults and nothing more. A waste of the mind. Get help.
Oxycontin and Percoset, but I've only had one Percoset in the last ten days (last night, to be exact). Your comment made me laugh, though.
Gina, while I accepted your apology, and I also apologized for my own harsh words, might I suggest that hartal is blameless for what you did? Aren't we all captains of our own souls?
Of course Gavone has no sense of responsibility; that is why she would never have been given custody were she dissolving a child-bearing marriage.
But the important point is that Gavone shows that racial hatred is compatible with humor--we often think of racial hatred as too serious for humor. But that is not true.
Gavone has a joyous experience in imagining me doing the arduous, underpaid or backbreaking work disproportionately reserved for racial minorities and mocking my attempt to transcend what she takes to be a minority's proper station by acting as a confident interlocutor. The idea here is that former slum dwelling minority with a menial job acting as a interlocutor in her polis is just funny, but that only shows that the function of humor is often the humiliation of people locked into an unequal position whose upward striving is considered obviously futile, yet still to be mocked.
And what's up with Gavone? She seems to have stalked LaSalle for a long time, and she imagines herself some great wit. Is she trying to take the place of LaSalle's wife who seems to be a comical playright? S
I apologize to everone for losing my temper. Simple as that.
"I'm forever blowing bubbles, pretty bubbles everywhere"
BTW. dsg wrote:
"Speaking of id and superego in Freud's time, perhaps we should re-read Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde."
**
Funny, dsg, that's exactly where and why I began to study the same. I could go on for hours. Especially about how reading books and watching movies created a huge curiosity and influenced me to read and learn on so many subjects.
I'm just afraid, on this blog, I would be continually told what an idiot I am. And be forced to try to prove that I have valid thoughts...it's becoming really tiring.
Well, anyway...
Thanks for bringing up Stevenson.
And you see, that's really the problem. TedS knows he's not stupic or shallow. Yet he posts here expecting to be treated with respect and instead he gets hartal's response.
hartal has taken over this blog like a weed. Most everybody can ignore him, but he'll crop up constantly.
He's put you in a tight spot, moderator. If he had any decency, he'd bow out. But he's a weed. Good luck.
Well, I guess I could have google spell-checked "stupic." I apologize.
Well, thanks quasi Nietzsche, but truth be told, I was medically diagnosed with being stupic.
Fortunately, there was medication.
Which I take on a consistant basis.
Oh, and BTW quasi Nietzsche, that was a flippant response from me.
But that's me. I admit, I *do* have my assholiness.
But seriously, thank you. Appreciated.
And dsg...at first, I was enjoying the squabble as well.
And then it got....hartalian
okay that was mean.
Sorry
quasi Nietzsche is worried that as long as I am here xootsuit will try to stay away as he can't stop himself from making rash, foolish and belittling criticisms of me, e.g. telling me not to worry about Sotomayor on right to sue issues on the basis of the blog written by a class action defense lawyer, telling me that the appt of Solis has lless importance compared to the NRLB appointees, and that a certain novel was often not taught with too little attention to its historical context and political implications. xootsuit is used to having his intellectual way by belittling others, but I am not easily intimidated, and xootsuit often comes across as a blowhard in discussion with me. So on behalf of xootsuit quasi Nietzsche wants me gone.
Of course why should anyone care what quasi Nietzsche thinks since all he has posted is resentful criticism of me. Get a life.
"I *do* have my assholiness." Well yes that's true, Ted Spe. Remember how you tried to join the attack on me over the CEO pay issue or the analysis of the banks. You accused me of gross incompetence, masked by frequent use of the internet to cover my ignorance. Do remember that I was not engaging you. You came after me; and in doing so you used a slew of dehumanizing terms and then fantasized about using a baseball bat on my head. And you revealed yourself as understanding nothing about the issues that you decided to attack me on.
And now you apologize to the list. I could care less. You do indeed have assholines and loserness too.
Ted, to be honest, I was turned on to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Stephen King's discussion of it in Danse Macabre, which I read in law school. Up to that point, I hadn't read the story; the only horror works I'd studied in college had been Poe's, which always made me a bit queasy. But because I appreciated King as a storyteller, I tried Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and enjoyed it a lot as both a story and a metaphor. King's recommedations also led me to read Clive Barker and H.P. Lovecraft, both of whom I enjoyed greatly.
dsg, yeah to be honest, I like DANSE MACABRE more than King's fictions. I read that when I was around 18 or 19. Still have it in my library. Dust cover and all
:)
You're making my point for me, hartal. All you want to do is pick fights.
By the way, when you stray far from your field of former expertise (something related to economics, I guess), you really are a pompous provincial.
Nobody's perfect. That means nobody.
It's probably just me, but I think I'd rather read a blog love affair than endless bickering. Can't one of you guys stir up a little heat?
Hartal never refuted the assertion that he's a prison rat with unlimited internet access. It would make sense--he seems so starved for attention--even if it's negative.
And his constant anger against whitey and perceived persecution could be explained by having been sent to prison by most likely a white male. His extreme hatred towards me could also be explained by the fact that my father-in-law is a WASPY Yalie judge--just the type that would send his ass to prison. He also justifies the right for illegals to somehow deserve the same rights as people here legally...which to me says that he can justify crime with some twisted sense of logic.
For some reason, Hartal also has this need to prove something and to attempt to be on the same intellectual level as the scholarly types on this blog. His potshots at me are always about my lack of 'book' learning. He uses knowledge as a way to make himself feel superior-- and all his 'knowledge' is stuff he finds on the internet. He spends a lot of time on the computer. Who can do that?
And sorry, dear, no blog love from me tonight--I'm not in the mood.
Is that your former father in law you are invoking to give yourself credibility? That's a pretty pathetic move; my guess is that one of the reasons your husband left you is to be accepted back into the family that disowned him for marrying a gavone, though god know what kind of judge your ex father in law is. He's from Yale! Woopty-doo. I could care less.
And what a stupid rant from someone who has been calling good people on this list murderers just to make herself feel morally superior and repeating the talking points of domestic terrorist movement and shouting the nativist message that illegal workers are, above all else, criminals [how did grandma become legal, Gavone?] while making several other racially offensive remarks disguised as humor.
The real question is who does not think Gavone is a pathetic loser willing to say the most offensive things to get the attention that bypasses her as she desperately walks the streets in boots from the 70s.
I think it's a draw.
You have to be kidding me, Too Sense. But then again I already explained why Gavone could prove convincing to our fellow Americans--all it takes is a little more destruction of our public school system.
I think hartal's the clear winner.
Dammit! I wish we could edit our posts. That should say 'whiner'.
Dammit again! Make that 'weiner'!
Cripes almighty! Let's start over! I think gina *and* hartal are both clearly whining weiners.
At any rate, do remember that xootsuit rushed to commend Sotomayor to us. Greenwald talks about her ruling against his very sympathetic client and then cites NYT's Charlie Savage on concerns about her views on abortion WP's Eviatar on her overly moderate record. I reiterate that the main issue here is not how the Republicans may lose the Latino vote in their handling of her nomination; the real question is whether Obama's progressive base is muzzling itself out of race and gender concerns.
This from the man that thinks Che Guevara was some sort of saint.
Jealous much about my background? What part of the name Kaiser don't you understand? If I needed to prop myself up with anyone's family credentials, I have plenty of my own to brag about--far more than one judge.
Oh, now I get it. Now everyone here are good people? I'll bet they just looove you. I expect them to dislike me. A month or two ago you were at dsg's throat hurling your puke at him. What happened there? A secret love meeting?
Another point--you still haven't denied being in prison, Hartal.
Where are you? Pelican Bay?
You're such ass, TS.
You know what you need? A real woman--not that cold blow-up doll you call angel face.
An idiot screams; at any rate, the Greenwald piece in Salon has a fantastic link to Sotomayor questioning a govt attorney over the extraordinary rendition of Arar. She shines so bright in the clip that many of us progressives may shut up. Even Greenwald is hopeful, but I think that is because civil liberties is his focus. And I hope that her whole record is carefully scrutinized. She is clearly of the highest intellectual caliber so the confirmation hearings could be a real intellectual fireworks show.
Why do you think he ever left?
Why? Same reason WT left. Same reason the other regulars have left you arguing with yourself.
Yes, yes, I drive people from the list and no one reads what I write. It's boring and uninformed. And I can understand why someone would want to hide after trying to tell us that Sotomayor is good enough on standing to sue issues on the basis of a blog of class action defense lawyer. She may well be good enough but who would take seriously the blog that xootsuit recommended? I mean wouldn't you be embarrassed if you were acting as an expert and then did something like that? Who knows where WT is? He threatened to leave the list because of me and then returned and then left again after we actually had a productive exchange. I hope that he is rethinking the von Mises economics website where FDR is characterized as a fascist and the New Deal as the cause of the Great Depression.
I'm sure he is.
You know, qua, you really are an intellectual zero--all you post is one short, often incoherent snide comment after another. Are you happy with yourself in this state? Don't you want more from life? Did someone tell you that you would never be more than this? Are you in pain?
Man. If you drive me away, too, who you gonna call?
I can't figure out your real problem. It seems serious. But one symptom is startling. You have no sense of humor. None. Zilch.
Very strange.
How would we know whether you had been driven away? What is it that you see yourself as contributing? Whoever told you otherwise, he was wrong: You can be something, qua. There may be no evidence of that, but some things we take on faith.
Post a Comment