Cynical Nation

What makes you think that Bloomberg would be better than Spitzer? I see absolutely nothing to suggest that.

I never suggested Bloomberg would be better. Why did you think that?

I just think he has a better chance of being elected governor of New York than president of the United States. If I still lived in New York, I'd probably vote for Spitzer if it came down to it, but since I don't live there anymore, I don't have to care. :-)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/26/cia.family.jewels.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

More examples of our trustworthy intelligence community, the one that JMK believes should operate unfettered by oversight or review.

Imagine what these creeps could have done with the Patriot Act behind them!

What's with this extolling Eliot Spitzer.

I had some hope for his promise to "change the culture of Albany."

In every case, so far, he's failed miserably.

He's challenged Shelly Silver and LOST in every confrontation to date.

Silver even got to pick the Controller, and he did from a list Spitzer didn't approve and he replaced Alan Hevesi with political hack Tom DiNapoli, from there it's been "business as usual" for Silver & Bruno.

Bloomberg would probably have a very good chance of unseating Spitzer, if his losing streak vs Silver continues unabated.

For my part, I wouldn't say I "extol" Spitzer. I just suspect that I'd prefer him to Mike Bloomberg should push come to shove. Believe me, that's pretty faint praise in my book.

OK, extoll was too positive, but to me, a race between thos two, would probably be a toss up. I don't really see that much difference between them and, if anything, the one thing Bloomberg might bring to the table is political independence.

Spitzer, in the end, couldn't afford an all out war with Silver, Bloomberg, not being part of any political machine, might have a better chance of breaking the political machine's control over Albany.

Like you though, I'd probably dislike the bulk of his policies, but then again, I dislike most of those of Silver, Bruno and Spitzer now.

"More examples of our trustworthy intelligence community, the one that JMK believes should operate unfettered by oversight or review." (BH)


Yes, that LBJ was a real rogue, wasn't he? Nixon too!

The mid-1960s was when the COINTELPRO was at its height and it was over the previous decade (1954 - 1964) when many of those early LSD experiments were done.

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The CIA released hundreds of pages of internal reports Tuesday detailing assassination plots against foreign leaders such as Cuba's Fidel Castro and the secret testing of mind-and-behavior altering drugs like LSD on unwitting U.S. citizens.

"The documents also provide information on wiretapping of U.S. journalists, spying on civil rights and anti-Vietnam war protesters, opening mail between the United States and the Soviet Union and China, and break-ins at the homes of ex-CIA employees and others.

"The 693 pages, mostly drawn from the memories of active officers of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1973, were turned over at that time to three different investigative panels -- President Gerald Ford's Rockefeller Commission, the Senate's Church committee and the House's Pike committee..."

"...They first spilled into public view on December 22, 1974, with an article by Seymour Hersh in The New York Times on the CIA's spying against antiwar and other dissidents inside this country. The agency assembled files on some 10,000 people."

As that article asserts, Ford's Rockefeller and Church Commissions investigated these documents long before they were recently made public, "The 693 pages, mostly drawn from the memories of active officers of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1973, were turned over at that time to three different investigative panels -- President Gerald Ford's Rockefeller Commission, the Senate's Church committee and the House's Pike committee."

I was entering HS in 1969 - 1970 and in my view, they should've kept files on far more than the 10,000 these documents claim they did.

You remind me of a neighbor of mine, not a bad guy, but he can be an insufferable jerk who, in 1996 came up to me and said, "Now I know why YOU like this guy (Bill Clinton...and I didn't like him "soooo much")) so much. He just violated the Posse Comitatus Act."

I said something like, "I'm surprised you even know the name (Posse Comitatus) of that obscure law, it's a really dumb statute."

"It was written to keep our military from acting within our own borders, to make the possibility of a military coup that much less likely," he said indignantly.

"That's bullsh*t," I replied, "we've had the military quell riots in NYC in 1863 an quash a police riot in that same city back in 1857 (NYC had two police forces back then), besides, Clinton's use of the Army's Arabic translators in Oklahoma City was a great use of our military, in my view. For starters, it allowed that crime to be investigated more fully, in a lot less time."

"So you have no problem with the military operating within the borders of the United States," he said, as more of a demand, than a question.

No, not at all. Look at the riots of the late 1960s. The problem I saw was that many of the National Guard units used, came from those areas and could sympathize perhaps a little too much, with the people in the areas where they were sent. Me, I'd have sent, say, Texas and Georgia National Guard troops to places like Newark and Detroit, so that none of the troops would hesitate to do what they were directed to do, out of any misplaced loyalty. It's not about a "show of force," to get rioters to stop, but a quick strike, to eliminate those who are instigating the violence and organizing the street groups. You want to quell a disturbance, not merely encourage calm."

That neighbor hardly ever spoke to me again UNTIL some time in October of 2001, the first time I saw him after 9/11, and THEN he was wondering why the Air Force's fighter jets hadn't been scrambled sooner!

I said, "I thought you didn't believe the military should be acting within America's borders."

I guess that's how many people are...until sh*t hits home, they're really not all that engaged on any real level.

JMK,
What does Bloomberg have to do with LBJ?

WHAT are you talking about BW?

I replied to BH's post (an article about so-called "CIA abuses" in the 60's & 70s) with what I'd consider a fair, detailed and civil (as always) retort.

I think you're question should be directed at BH, as "What does that article have to do with the NY Governor's race?"

You probably missed that post of his....or perhaps you're ignoring BH now?

I believe I'm one of the few here who doesn't ignore him...and you know what, I'm probably going to have to reconsider that.

More of that "conservative genius" at work!

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Against Student Free Speech

Thomas said that if parents didn't like their kids being punished for speaking their mind, they could take it up with the school board, homeschool, or "simply move".

With this ruling, the court moves to a more restrictive first amendment interpretation than we've seen before. It comes as a surprise to many on the right, especially religious groups who are concerned that the slippery slope of first amendment restrictions may begin to include things like anti-abortion and anti-gay messages.

It is somewhat surprising to see conservatives expanding the government's role in regulating what is and is not free speech, given that the traditional conservative ideology eschews more government control over anything and everything.

The new conservatism seems to be in itself what the left has been derided for in the past two decades: more government, less citizen freedom and participation, and a decrease in fiscal responsibility.

>With this ruling, the court moves to a more restrictive first amendment interpretation than we've seen before.

Oh really, Bailey? Did you go to a high school where the administration allowed you to hold aloft "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" signs for the television cameras? Is this kind of fascist, principalian crackdown new to the Bush Administration?

Somehow I doubt it. I also note that you choose not to to mention that the Roberts Court came down on the side of the First Amendment in the one case that was actually in doubt (SCOTUS was unanimous on the principal's right to tear down the sign.)

Actually, the ruling protects political speech (ie. "I Love Jesus" OR "Jesus isn't God"), but gave, or more aptly maintained, the school's right to restrict "pro-drug" and "pro-violence" messages, like "bong hits for Jesus," which was considered a "pro-drug message" by the Court.

Oddly enough, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court have recently ruled that words like "Marriage," "natural family" and "family values" are "hate-speech," and as such can be banned in the workplace.

That inane ruling is currently being challenged by the Conservative Pro-Family Law Center.

"The Pro-Family Law Center has challenged Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and United States District Court rulings finding the terms "marriage," "natural family," and "family values" to be hate-speech. The case involves the threat of termination of employment by the City of Oakland against two of its employees who used such words on an employee bulletin board."

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/6/prweb531074.htm

Let's hope that the current Roberts Court can clean up that mess, as well.

Oh, I see. So it's OK with you that schools can dictate what students say and do (when they make fun of Jeeezus) but when an employer tries to control wingnut religious employees from abusing a company provided free message board with materials hostile to other employees, well, you feel the courts should intervene, right?

LOL! More hypocrisy from the "right".

Stop quoting idiot sources that lie about the real situation and decision. There is no "hate speech" low in California -- it had nothing to do with anything. This case was purely about an employer stopping religious nuts from antagonizing the filthy homosexuals.

Oakland, CA, March 7, 2007 - In an important ruling for government employers facing pressure by anti-gay organizations trying to promote their views in the workplace, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld a federal judge’s decision that the City of Oakland acted legally when it ordered the removal of a flyer posted by City employees espousing “natural family” values that could be considered hostile to gay and lesbian workers.

Law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP represented the City of Oakland, along with its former City Manager, and its head of economic development, who were both named defendants in the lawsuit, Good News Employee Association v. Hicks.

The suit stems from attempts by two City workers to form a “Good News” employee group in 2003 that advanced anti-gay, pro-“family values” views in the City workplace. As part of their campaign, the workers distributed flyers in City offices urging fellow employees to “preserve the integrity of the workplace with respect to the natural family, marriage and family values.” An openly lesbian city staffer felt threatened and harassed by the flyers and related actions taken by the two workers to voice their anti-gay sentiments.

Concerned about the inflammatory message behind the “Good News” campaign, Oakland City officials ordered the removal of the flyer articulating the group’s views. The Good News workers then filed suit, asserting that the City had violated their federal and state First Amendment rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. The workers also challenged Oakland’s broad anti-discrimination ordinance, claiming that the protections granted by the ordinance to gay and lesbian city workers are unconstitutional. In all, the workers pleaded ten different causes of action against the City and the two defendant officials, Robert Bobb and Joyce Hicks.

In the federal district court, Morrison & Foerster succeeded in dismissing nine of the plaintiffs’ ten counts, leaving only the First Amendment claim. The federal court upheld the constitutionality of Oakland’s anti-discrimination policy and granted complete summary judgment for the City, holding that the “Good News” flyer was not protected speech in the workplace.

In this week’s Ninth Circuit ruling, the three-judge panel said public agencies can indeed “curtail” certain kinds of speech in the workplace based on “legitimate administrative interests.” Any interference with an employee’s freedom of speech was outweighed by city officials' need to maintain “the efficient operation of their office,” the court said.

“The Ninth Circuit’s ruling has immense impact given the concerted effort of anti-gay activists to impose their discriminatory views in public workplaces around the country,” said Morrison & Foerster litigation partner Angela Padilla, who argued the case on behalf of the City of Oakland and Mr. Bobb and Ms. Hicks.

“Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the right of the government when acting as employer to restrict discriminatory speech that disrupts the workplace.” Ms. Padilla noted that the City took no adverse action against the Good News workers, who were invited to resubmit a new flyer “subject to certain editorial constraints.”

“As the Ninth Circuit found, in taking down the flyer, City officials properly struck the proper balance between the free speech rights of the Good News members and the rights of gay and lesbian city workers to be free from harassment in the workplace,” she said.

Bailey, what case are you talking about? I hadn't even heard of it. (BTW, I think I found a video of you on the web.)

It IS and ALWAYS WAS OK for schools and employers to restrict speech that advocated violence and/or illegal drug use, just as they can restrict slanderous and threatening speech as well.

I don't believe anyone can have a reasonable objection to any of that.

And words like "traditional Marriage," "natural family" and "family values" are NOT offensive to homosexuals, or at least there is no rational basis for any offense.

While all gay people have come from "traditional Marriages" or Unions, so that CANNOT be "offensive" to them, the same can't be said of heterosexuals.

With homosexuals comprising about 5% of the population, and many heterosexuals never coming in contact with gays, YES, pro-gay messages CAN be "offensive," especially to devoutly religious people, but even to some non-religious people as well.

I support "gay rights" to this extent, No one should be attacked or denied employment solely on the basis of their being gay and they probably should be allowed to have Civil Unions that accord them the legal rights that Marriage does, without requiring ANY religious organizations to recognize gay MARRIAGE, BUT homosexuals should NOT, in my view, be allowed to adopt children, homosexuality shouldn't be taught as a "natural extension of human sexuality," any more than other deviancies (necrophilia and bestiality, etc.) are, AND there should be no "special "rights" nor considerations for homosexuals in employment, etc., in my view.

"BUT homosexuals should NOT, in my view, be allowed to adopt children, homosexuality shouldn't be taught as a "natural extension of human sexuality" any more than other deviancies"

Hey JMK,
What makes you think that you are a superior form of human being as compared to homosexuals and why should you have more rights simply based on the fact that you are heterosexual?

Homosexuals should have identical rights (including the right to marry) to anyone else. That is a basic and obvious principle.

I believe the 1st Amendment bars the government from legislating "gay Marriage," as that could be used tpo force Churches o recognize homosexuality and homosexual Marriages. In Europe, some Churches have been sued for not recognizing and performing gay Marriages.

The "freedom of relgion" clause in our Constitution would seem to bar that here, but I don't want o see that door opened in the least.

Moreover, I don't see how Churches preaching that "homosexuality is a sin," or that it's "abhorent or immoral behavior," harms homosexuals.

I really don't.

If it could be proven that such teachings do that, then that might be something to consider, but again, even then, it seems that "freedom of religion" would trump that concern.

As for gay opposing adoption, that is MY personal belief.

The question is, why do you feel I don't have a right to that viewpoint?

It is one that is backed by many studies that show that children raised in same-sex households have more emotional problems and adjustment issues growing up.

In that regard, I'm merely putting the interests of the child ahead of two adults.

I don't believe that those who practice necrophilia or bestiality should be discriminated against in employment, nor subject to assault for their predilictions either, BUT I wouldn't want those people adopting children either.

"I don't believe that those who practice necrophilia or bestiality should be discriminated against in employment, nor subject to assault for their predilictions either, BUT I wouldn't want those people adopting children either."

The fact that you equate necrophilia and bestiality to homosexuality says a lot. But you are not the only one. The roots of bigotry against homosexuals go hundreds of years back in time and it will take time for people to accept homosexuality for what it really is. A normal variation of human sexuality, different than, but equally acceptable to, heterosexuality.

That's a statement of pure NON-DISCRIMINATION, nothing else.

ALL those deviancies are compulsions, homosexuals often ask, "Would anyone CHOOSE to be homosexual," he same could be said of those who engage in bestiality (a/k/a "Puppy-Pounders") - "Would anyone CHOOSE to be a Puppy-Pounder?"

First, I'd assert that homosexuality is most certainly NOT "a normal variation of human sexuality, different than, but equally acceptable to, heterosexuality."

I base my view on the fact that while hegterosexuality is self-sustaining, in that allows for the propogation of the species, homosexuality does not.

You seem to be basing your view on presumption.

I think my overall view is the most humane - no one who practices any deviancy should be discriminated or attacked, but those who practice them probably shouldn't be allowed to adopt children and certainly Churches shouldn't be forced to recognize or acept those behaviors, if they go against traditional Church teachings.

I think you'd agree that no religion should be forced to cease preaching that "homosexuality = sin" nor accept and have to perform "gay Marriages."

That's simply a "religious freedom" issue.

That's a statement of pure NON-DISCRIMINATION, nothing else.

ALL those deviancies are compulsions, homosexuals often ask, "Would anyone CHOOSE to be homosexual," he same could be said of those who engage in bestiality (a/k/a "Puppy-Pounders") - "Would anyone CHOOSE to be a Puppy-Pounder?"

First, I'd assert that homosexuality is most certainly NOT "a normal variation of human sexuality, different than, but equally acceptable to, heterosexuality."

I base my view on the fact that while hegterosexuality is self-sustaining, in that allows for the propogation of the species, homosexuality does not.

You seem to be basing your view on presumption.

I think my overall view is the most humane - no one who practices any deviancy should be discriminated or attacked, but those who practice them probably shouldn't be allowed to adopt children and certainly Churches shouldn't be forced to recognize or acept those behaviors, if they go against traditional Church teachings.

I think you'd agree that no religion should be forced to cease preaching that "homosexuality = sin" nor accept and have to perform "gay Marriages."

That's simply a "religious freedom" issue.

That's a statement of pure NON-DISCRIMINATION, nothing else.

ALL those deviancies are compulsions, homosexuals often ask, "Would anyone CHOOSE to be homosexual," he same could be said of those who engage in bestiality (a/k/a "Puppy-Pounders") - "Would anyone CHOOSE to be a Puppy-Pounder?"

First, I'd assert that homosexuality is most certainly NOT "a normal variation of human sexuality, different than, but equally acceptable to, heterosexuality."

I base my view on the fact that while hegterosexuality is self-sustaining, in that allows for the propogation of the species, homosexuality does not.

You seem to be basing your view on presumption.

I think my overall view is the most humane - no one who practices any deviancy should be discriminated or attacked, but those who practice them probably shouldn't be allowed to adopt children and certainly Churches shouldn't be forced to recognize or acept those behaviors, if they go against traditional Church teachings.

I think you'd agree that no religion should be forced to cease preaching that "homosexuality = sin" nor accept and have to perform "gay Marriages."

That's simply a "religious freedom" issue, isn't it?

"I base my view on the fact that while hegterosexuality is self-sustaining, in that allows for the propogation of the species, homosexuality does not."

Are you telling me that people should have sex only when they plan to "reproduce"? or "propagate the species" as you say?

"Are you telling me that people should have sex only when they plan to "reproduce"? or "propagate the species" as you say?" (BW)


Nope, merely noting the undeniable fact that if the world were 100% homosexual there'd be no procreaion at all, same as if the world were comprised of 100% "poodle-pounders."

That's proof that none of those sexual deviancies mentioned are "self-sustaining," which I believe is an argument against any of them being called "as normal as heterosexuality."

They're called "deviancies," precisely because they're not "normal," and they're not normal merely because they deviate from the accepted norm.

I believe that the reason that some 2/3s of Americans oppose "gay Marriage" is because of the reasons I gave that FEW (if any) Americans want to see religions infringed upon by the government. Most Americans appear to oppose the idea of government trying to force organized religions into ceasing their teachings that "homosexuality = sin," etc., nor do they seem to want to open the door for gays to sue, say the Catholic Church, to attempt to force that staid institution into both accepting and performing homosexual Marriages.

Is Roman Catholicism's, Islam's and Orthodox Judaism's refusing to accept and perform "gay Marriages" a "denial of anyone's basic civil rights?"

Of course not!

No one has the "right" to be accepted by a group or religion, etc., that sees specific behaviors as "sins."

The child adoption viewpoint is a personal view based on numerous studies that seem to indicate that children reared in same-sex households have more emotional problems and adjustment issues as they grow up.

Still, I don't think you're giving me enough credit for my tolerant views believing that no one should be attacked or fired from a job merely because they're gay, nor engage in any other sexual deviancy.

You seem to gloss over that.

JMK,
Your views are not "tolerant". You think that some people are better and deserve more than others, based on their sexual orientation. I would say that, in reality, your views are "deviant".

Could you please explain your disagreements with me a little more clealy BW?

As I said, I support basic "civil rights" (the right not to be attacked, fired, denied housing, etc. because of ANY deviancy) for everyone. In fact, I've said that gays should probably "be allowed to have Civil Unions that accord them the same legal rights that Marriage does, without requiring ANY religious organizations to recognize gay MARRIAGE..."

As I said, I think that's a fairly tolerant position, so far as that goes.

You've apparently taken issue with me over two separate non-civil rights issues. In the first, you seem to disagree with my view that no one who practices any sexual deviancy should be allowed to adopt children.

As I said, I base that view, specific to homosexuals, on a number of studies that I've read that show that children from same-sex households have more emotional problems and adjustmen issues.

In that regard, I'm considering "the best interests of the children" ahead of the mere whimsical desires of two adults.

I think that's very fair.

Secondarily, you seem to disagree with my opposing "gay Marriage," (despite supporting "civil unions"), again based on my conviction that the 1st Amendment's protection of religious Liberty is sacrosanct.

Your disagreement is unclear. Do you disagree with the 1st Amendment's protecting any religion's right to preach that "homosexuality = sin," and it barring the government from forcing religions to recognize and perform same-sex Marriages?

If you do, then you'll have to frame an argument against the 1st Amendment, I'd think.

Personally, I don't know a soul who's ever espoused the views that religious orgzanizations should (1) cease and desist teaching that homosexual and other practices are "sinful" and (2) that they should recognize and perform "gay Marriages," as it's wrong to treat gay "believers" different than heterosexual ones.

Again, it would seem that the 1st Amendment's protections guarantee any religion the right to both those things.

I'm not religious at all, but I do respect all religions enough to favor their unfettered teachings and their being able to choose to refuse to perform same-sex Marriages, as well as "Marriages" between, say a sheep and a human.

Since I'm not sure on what grounds you disagree with me on those two issues, I'm just asking that you clarify your position on those two points.

JMK,
Here is what I think:

1. Homeosexuality is not deviancy. It is a normal variation of sexuality. Defining it as "deviance" reflects bigotry (sorry).

2. You dont need to belong to any church to get married. There are non-religious marriages recognized by all states.

I understand that you believe that you are tolerant. But in reality you are not. You believe that gay people should have less rights than heterosexual people. And that is wrong.

P.S. There are studies showing that children of divorced parents have more emotional problems and adjustment issues. Are you advocating also that divorced heterosexual mothers or fathers should not be allowed to raise their children?

You're altogether wrong on the Marriage issue.

That's why 2/3s of Americans oppose "gay Marriage," primarily because they fear precisely what happened in Europe - gays sued to try and force the Roman Catholic to Church to recognize and perform gay Marriages and cease their teaching that "homosexual behavior is sinful and morally wrong."

Gay Marriage here might open up the same kinds of misguided challenges here.

ANY sexuality that deviates from the accepted norm (heterosexuality) and that includes homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality and necrophilia, among other behaviors are, by definition, "deviancies."

Pedophilia, is a deviancy, but it's also a crime as children can't legally consent.

Bestiality is protected under law in many places, Seattle, WA being one of the more noteworthy lately.

And there's no such concept as "MORE" or "LESS" civil rights.

The ONLY actual Civil Rights are the "right not to be attacked for what you are, the right not to be fired or denied housing for waht you are. We also have a right to peaceful assembly, to violent self-defense, etc., etc.

Hmmmmm, now that I consider it, I DO support the military barring gays....based on their claim that it "harms troop morale," but I believe that's really not a basic "civil rights issue."

No one can argue that gays warrant any special protections, like the ones that have been accorded to blacks and some other minorities. In fact, I acknowledge that I oppose all those "special protections or considerations," as "special privileges." I believe in the concept of "Equal rights for ALL, but special privilege (consideration) for NONE."

You're on the wrong side of this issue, as not only do 2/3s of Americans oppose "gay Marriage," fearing an end run assualt on religious freedom, well over 50% still oppose the very civil unions I support because they consider homosexuality abhorent.

Religious people, and over 80% of Americans are at least "somewhat religious," and there are now over 60 million evangelical and fundamentalist Christians in the country, have every right to believe that "homosexuality = sin." I suppose that comes part and parcel with "religious freedom."

That belief certainly doesn't make those religious folks "bad people" in my eyes.

And finally, divorce is a personal crisis or tragedy NOT a deviant behavior, BW.

Now I do believe that drug abuse, rampant promiscuity and a history of domestic violence (all deviant behaviors) are all viable reasons to deny custodial rights to parents who engage in those behaviors, as all those things could also negatively impact a child.

JMK,
Ann Coulter would be proud of you and your opinions :)

That's not an affirmative argument for your position Blue. Perhaps you can't think of one at the moment.

It's a challenge any time we're asked to examine our own views, isn't it?

Moreover, you're being somewhat disingenuous here.

You initially imply that you strongly oppose gays being able to sue Churches to recognize and perform same-sex Marriages and cease teaching that "homosexuality = sin," despite the fact that that's precisely what happened when Europe legalized gay Marriage and that's why "gay Marriage" has virtually no chance here, while civil unions, have at least a slim hope.

You also imply that you respect the religious freedom of those who espouse that "homosexuality is sinful," etc., without recognizing their right NOT to be legally challenged by gays who feel strongly that those teachings harm them and that those Churches and Faiths should recognize and welcome them.

I seriously, carefully and civilly answered your poor analogy (divorce to homosexuality) with the very reasonable response, "And finally, divorce is a personal crisis or tragedy NOT a deviant behavior, BW.

"Now I do believe that drug abuse, rampant promiscuity and a history of domestic violence (all deviant behaviors) are all viable reasons to deny custodial rights to parents who engage in those behaviors, as all those things could also negatively impact a child."

If you object to the fact that drug abuse and domestic violence are crimes AND "deviant behaviors," I must assert that SOME deviant behaviors ARE criminal. Rampant promiscuity is NOT illegal, BUT it IS deviant, and in my view, it would be grounds for denying custodial rights.

JMK,
Let me clarify so you can understand exactly what I mean.

Your view that homosexuality if some sort of "deviance" like necrophilia or bestiality is clear-cut bigotry. You may not realized it, but unfortunately it is. Of course, you are not alone on that.

That's mere opinion BW, and an erroneous one, in my view.

Homosexuality, drug abuse, promiscuity, domestic violence, bestialty and necrophila are ALL "deviancies," as they all DEVIATE from the accepted norm.

You claim that "homosexuality is accepted," BUT that's simply untrue given that slightly over two-thirds of the nation appears to oppose gay Marriage.

Those who claim "homosexuality is a sin," based on religious reasons and those, like myself, who oppose gay Marriage because of what happened in Europe - misguided lawsuits filed against the RC Church, etc., are not bigots in any real sense.

Religious freedom protects the views of the religious community and opposing it based on the example of Europe overt anti-religious bigotry by homosexuals (the filing of those misguided lawsuits, etc) are acting out a profound respect for one of the major principles this country was founded on - religious Liberty.

Three things, JMK:

1. The 9th Circuit Court *CORRECTLY* defended the right of an employer to control employee behavior, right? The ONLY ISSUE to the employer is whether or not the Good News religious nuts were UPSETTING their filthy homosexual employees, and thus INTERFERING with the mission of the employer, which is to get work done, not to make sure some smarmy Christers get to bait the homos.

Do you agree that an employer can dictate ANY AND ALL employee behavior concerning WORK, including speech that antagonizes filthy homosexuals?

I say they do.

2. We agree that the churches cannot be forced to marry filthy homosexuals, but that the government cannot restrict their right to civil unions, and that they can also make up their own dumb church and get married there under the auspices of The Church of Filthy Homosexuals.

3. So few homosexual reproduct, oh, I meant "filthy homosexuals" of course, anyway, so few filthy homosexuals reproduce, that the truth is that HETEROSEXUALS are producing the filthy homosexuals. This is true of many other animal species. Homosexuality is in our DNA. It is not propagated by homosexuals, or there would be any homsexual. I'm just going to have to leave "filthy" out to save space here.

For instance, one of my cousins was a homosexual. He was an artist in San Francisco. Nobody else in my family is homosexual. His parents certainly weren't. He never procreated and died of AIDS.

Come to grips with the reality that God wants there to be filthy homosexuals. He put it in our heterosexual DNA, and it pops out in about 5% of our children, the same ratio as left handedness.

Doesn't this ruin your argument that homos don't have rights because they can't procreate? I mean, God didn't intend for them to procreate. God DID intend for them to be filthy homosexuals. God put it in our DNA to produce them.

Why are you against God?

"Do you agree that an employer can dictate ANY AND ALL employee behavior concerning WORK, including speech that antagonizes filthy homosexuals?

"I say they do." (BH)


WoW! A Barely "double-header!"

First, that's NOT what the 9th Circuit decided and second, you'd be wrong to agree that schools/employers, etc. have a right to restrict freedom of speech.

Threatening, slanderous, inciteful and pro-drug speech can be restricted because those kinds of speech all advocate unlawful activities. That's why there are laws against slander, making threats, inciting violence, etc.

Oddly enough, you may well be correct that homosexuality is genetic in origin. I have little doubt that so too are bestiality, necrophilia and pedophilia...in fact, so is rampant promiscuity!

That doesn't make any of those things any less deviant...as they all deviate from the "accpted norm."

I am glad you agree that civil unions are possible/acceptable, though "gay Marriage" is not, as the latter is merely a ruse to seek to force organized religions from (1) preaching that homosexuality = "sin" and (2) to force those organizations ot both accept homosexuality and recognize and perform "gay Marriages."

The 1st Amendment DOES indeed bar any Church from being charged with "discrimination" or being forced to recognize and perform homosexual weddings - "religious freedom" and all that.

Oh yes JMK, stop listening to Rush and READ THE DECISION. Stop only going to wingnut sites and reading their crazy interpretations.

The 9th Circuit Court said that employers have a right to restrict "free speech" when said speech will disrupt business. That is all they said. Not a word about marraige being a hate crime. All that silly crap was made up by wingnuts.

So just answer the question, do you agree that an employer can restrict free speech in order to conduct business, or MUST they allow wild-eyed Christers to bait and enrage the filthy homosexuals and disrupt business?

The 1st Amendment forces government to "back off" restricting ANY kind of religious speech, under any circumstances.

Freedom of religion would appear to dictate that even a preacher who railed against the "sin of homosexuality" in a work environment peopled with many homosexuals, couldn't be restricted without abridging our nation's cherished "religious freedom."

Much as I wouldn't like that workplace intrusion, I think it's a small price to pay for "religious freedom" and the 1st Amendment.

Oh, and yes, the CASE was solely based on whether or not the terms "MARRIAGE" and "Natural Family" were indeed "hate speech."

This is rare, but in this case, I'll let someone else's words make the case here;

Speech Police, Riding High In Oakland

By George F. Will
Sunday, June 24, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201704_pf.html

" "Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values. That sentence is inflammatory, perhaps even a hate crime.

"At least it is in Oakland, Calif. That city's government says those words, italicized here, constitute something akin to hate speech and can be proscribed from the government's open e-mail system and employee bulletin board.

"When the McCain-Feingold law empowered government to regulate the quantity, content and timing of political campaign speech about government, it was predictable that the right of free speech would increasingly be sacrificed to various social objectives that free speech supposedly impedes. And it was predictable that speech suppression would become an instrument of cultural combat, used to settle ideological scores and advance political agendas by silencing adversaries.

"That has happened in Oakland. And, predictably, the ineffable U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ratified this abridgement of First Amendment protections. Fortunately, overturning the 9th Circuit is steady work for the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Some African American Christian women working for Oakland's government organized the Good News Employee Association (GNEA), which they announced with a flier describing their group as "a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family Values."

The flier was distributed after other employees' groups, including those advocating gay rights, had advertised their political views and activities on the city's e-mail system and bulletin board. When the GNEA asked for equal opportunity to communicate by that system and that board, it was denied. Furthermore, the flier they posted was taken down and destroyed by city officials, who declared it "homophobic" and disruptive.

"The city government said the flier was "determined" to promote harassment based on sexual orientation. The city warned that the flier and communications like it could result in disciplinary action "up to and including termination."

"Effectively, the city has proscribed any speech that even one person might say questioned the gay rights agenda and therefore created what that person felt was a "hostile" environment. This, even though gay rights advocates used the city's communication system to advertise "Happy Coming Out Day." Yet the terms "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" are considered intolerably inflammatory.

"The treatment of the GNEA illustrates one technique by which America's growing ranks of self-appointed speech police expand their reach: They wait until groups they disagree with, such as the GNEA, are provoked to respond to them in public debates, then they persecute them for annoying those to whom they are responding. In Oakland, this dialectic of censorship proceeded on a reasonable premise joined to a preposterous theory.

"The premise is that city officials are entitled to maintain workplace order and decorum. The theory is that government supervisors have such unbridled power of prior restraint on speech in the name of protecting order and decorum that they can nullify the First Amendment by declaring that even the mild text of the GNEA flier is inherently disruptive.

"The flier supposedly violated the city regulation prohibiting "discrimination and/or harassment based on sexual orientation." The only cited disruption was one lesbian's complaint that the flier made her feel "targeted" and "excluded." So anyone has the power to be a censor just by saying someone's speech has hurt his or her feelings.
Unless the speech is "progressive." If the GNEA claimed it felt "excluded" by advocacy of the gay rights agenda, would that advocacy have been suppressed? Of course not -- although the GNEA's members could plausibly argue that the city's speech police have created a "hostile" environment against them.

"A district court affirmed the city's right to impose speech regulations that are patently not content-neutral. It said the GNEA's speech interest -- the flier -- is "vanishingly small." The GNEA, in its brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, responds that some of the high court's seminal First Amendment rulings have concerned small matters, such the wearing of a T-shirt, standing on a soapbox, holding a picket sign and "other simple forms of expression."

"Congress is currently trying to enact yet another "hate crime" law that would authorize enhanced punishments for crimes motivated by, among other things, sexual orientation. A coalition of African American clergy, the High Impact Leadership Coalition, opposes this, fearing it might be used "to muzzle the church." The clergy argue that in our "litigation-prone society" the legislation would result in lawsuits having "a chilling effect" on speech and religious liberty. As the Oakland case demonstrates, that, too, is predictable."

georgewill@washpost.com

Wow, I'm a dumbass, because what I post WAS NOT the decision of the 9th Circuit, but another dumbass wingnut!

I wonder what would happen if, say, someone's religion was, say, ISLAM, and they went around IN THE WORKPLACE rightfully quoting the KORAN as it states that non-Muslims can and should be murdered ... hmmm, I guess THAT'S OK! After all, the 1st Amendment means that religion cannot be restricted ANYWHERE OR ANYPLACE, so if Jews need to burn sacrifices in the school cafeterias, we just have to supply them with fatted calves and let them do it!

Yup, if some jackass makes up a religion that says you must SCREAM OBSCENITIES AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS every day at lunch, then that must be tolerated!

I'm dumbass, signing out!

The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of ANY accepted religion (Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, etc.) from ANY governmental intervention, Barely....that's precisely how the 1st Amendment is written.

Please don't mischaracterize George Will's brilliant piece.

He carefully laid out the entire disgraceful decision by the 9th Circuit court.

There's not a single mis-statement in that column, not even a comma out of place.

Thankfully the Roberts court will hear this case. Their decision will be the ONLY one that matters.

I don't believe the Roberts court will allow to stand a fetid decision that makes a group of poor, church-going black women, guilty of "hate speech," merely for espousing such pro-American sentiments as "Marriage," "natural family" and "family values.

Hur hur, I'm lying like before -- the 9th Circuit Court NEVER express ANY of those opinions in their decision ... heh, I guess George Will is a lying sack of shit!

I HAVE the 9th Circuit Decision and George Will's column is....absoultely CORRECT, as written.

Perhaps you're looking at another decision form the 9th Circuit....wouldn't be the first time.

Remember posting an article that showed that H-1B Visas went from 50,000 in 1993 to 1 Million in 2000, after two consecutive limit increases....remember posting an article critical of RICO that acknowledged that it allowed for CONFISCATION only after CONVICTION???

Like I said, it wouldn't be the first time.

Duh hur, hyuk, hur hur, hyuk, dum de dum dum dumbass!

Why me keeps on lying? Baileys owned me on all 'counts! I jes hafta keeps on a-lyin' cause I looks so stupids!

Hyuk! If u r a dumbazz like me, jes twist da words aroun' like Rush Hannity O'Reilly and make stuffs up even if noboody did nevah say it! It so cool an' nobody ebber notice!

I surely don'ts hab dat 9th circut opinon, or Iba woulda posted it, but I reely knows whab it say: it say I be a dumbaszzzz!

I'm NOT going to post that court's 8,000 word opinion.

Besides, I looked it up....so can you.

Moreover, as I said George Will has it EXACTLY right!

Will backed up his commentary with actual quotes from that decision, you haven't even looked at that decision.

Look, perhaps you were thinking of another decision, like I said, it wouldn't be the first time you confused the facts.

H-1B Visas DID indeed explode from around 50,000 in 1993 to about 1 Million in 2000.

RICO DOES NOT allow the "confiscation of assets based only on suspicion," - assets can ONLY be CONFISCATED upon CONVICTION and ONLY "ill-gotten assets" can be frozen by the COURTS and ONLY upon INDICTMENT.

Cell Phones and emails DO NOT currently enjoy the same privacy protections that landline telephones do. That issue is currently be wrangled over in the courts.

I take issue with some eggregiously wrong statements you've made and it seems you've based your viewpoint, such as it is, on such misunderstandings of the facts.

You've consistently taken my civil and quite caring responses as "challenges" and become more and more emotional with each response....I don't know why.

Just look at the record between us - you made a wrong statement about H-1Bs, then about RICO, then about "privacy rights being absolute," and then about "a lasting Peace in the Mideast," and on every one of those, I merely took issue with what was wrong with your statements and produced documents, and in some places (on H-1Bs & RICO) showed how the docs YOU posted also backed up what I said.

This isn't an "argument."

This isn't a "debate."

It's really not even a "discussion," as you have never been able to defend the erroneous statements you've made.

It's really been a matter of you making a lot of reckless and erroneous statements and me correcting the falsehoods in each case. It's been tedious on my part, with you being so obstinant and unappreciative, and it's been an exercise in tolerance, as well...as it's "tolerance" that allows people like me, to put up with people like yourself.

I'm only here to help Barely....and I believe I have helped you, whether you've liked it, or wanted that help, or not.

“Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what his exit strategy is.”
~ George W. Bush, Houston Chronicle, 1999-04-09

“What I think the President ought to do is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots. The President of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price.”
~ George W. Bush, Financial Times 2000-02-02

“All public policy should revolve around the principle that individuals are responsible for what they say and do.”
~ George W. Bush 1994

“No cause justifies the killing of innocent life.”
~ George W. Bush
A man who starved and dismembered a million Afghans in his fevered charge to kill bin Laden, and who tricked two nations into the Iraq war in a personal vendetta against one man.

“It really depends upon how our nation conducts its foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, they’ll respect us.”
~ George W. Bush, during the Wake Forest debate.

“Baseball is unique. It’s a game of individual achievement for a cause greater than all. Kind of like politics.”
~ George W. Bush

“I’m a uniter.”
~ George W. Bush
Is this the same George W. Bush who thumbed his nose at the U.N. and systematically alienated every one of America’s former allies?

“The coalition that was in place isn’t as strong as it used to be, It’s going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him [Saddam].”
~ George W. Bush, 2000-10-11, second presidential debate
Is this the same George W. Bush who thumbed his nose at the U.N. and systematically alienated every one of America’s former allies?

“We should be able to punish corporate leaders who are convicted of abusing their powers. By banning them from ever serving again as officers or directors of a publicly held corporation.”
~ George W. Bush
Bush’s crew contain stock fraud con artists including himself, Dick Cheney, Larry Thompson and Thomas White.

“The more money they have in their more pockets — in their pockets, the more likely it is that somebody will find work.”
~ George W. Bush
Source: Federal Document Clearing House, George W. Bush Delivers Remarks to the GOP Resort from the Greenbriar Resort, 2003-02-09
Republicans believe starvation in the best way to motivate people to find jobs.

“If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us; if we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that’s why we’ve got to be humble… I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be.”
~ George W. Bush
from the Presidential Debate, 2000-10-12

“We should be able to punish corporate leaders who are convicted of abusing their powers. By banning them from ever serving again as officers or directors of a publicly held corporation.”
~ George W. Bush
Bush Jr has been arrested 3 times for different offences, and only got off with $800,000 oil shares trading charge when the investigator, appointed by his father said there was insufficient evidence to proceed.