Let's celebrate San Francisco, California liberalism

[PLAYER57832]

Whats the Republican Beacon state? Nebraska? Oklahoma? All of them?

Texas

[muy_thaiguy]

Whats the Republican Beacon state? Nebraska? Oklahoma? All of them?

Texas

Considering other than a few Democrats throughtout the State and local governments, I would have thought you would have chosen Wyoming.

[PLAYER57832]

Why is the US Constitution relevant to this at this point? The law being passed has nothing to do with the Federal Government. Shouldn't state laws be resolved first at the state level before becoming a matter for the Supreme Court?

I don't know anything about California's Constitution. Do you have a link to it?

Mostly a "trivia point", but California's constitution is very unlike the US constitution. It is not the framework for laws, it IS the laws (or most of them, anyway). Its possible there is a conflict with state statutes, but knowing would take weeding through a LOT of laws.

[PLAYER57832]

Whats the Republican Beacon state? Nebraska? Oklahoma? All of them?

Texas

Considering other than a few Democrats throughtout the State and local governments, I would have thought you would have chosen Wyoming.

Texas came to mind first, that's all.

[Woodruff]

Why is the US Constitution relevant to this at this point? The law being passed has nothing to do with the Federal Government. Shouldn't state laws be resolved first at the state level before becoming a matter for the Supreme Court?

I don't know anything about California's Constitution. Do you have a link to it?

Mostly a "trivia point", but California's constitution is very unlike the US constitution. It is not the framework for laws, it IS the laws (or most of them, anyway). Its possible there is a conflict with state statutes, but knowing would take weeding through a LOT of laws.

If that's true, then does California have a state Supreme Court? Seems like that wouldn't be particularly necessary in that case.

[muy_thaiguy]

Whats the Republican Beacon state? Nebraska? Oklahoma? All of them?

Texas

Considering other than a few Democrats throughtout the State and local governments, I would have thought you would have chosen Wyoming.

Texas came to mind first, that's all.

Outside of TCU, Texas sucks.

[PLAYER57832]

With California having voted down both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, I don't really believe we should consider California to be any kind of a "liberal beacon"...they're obviously nothing of the sort.

So you don't consider California to be your liberal beacon? What state do you hold as your liberal beacon?

That you believe I am such a strong liberal so as to have a liberal beacon leads me to believe you don't have the common sense that God gave a goose.

I just wonder who is a liberal beacon for you as California is "obviously nothing of the sort."

California has ALWAYS been a strong mix of very conservative people along side quite liberal folks and a whole bunch of folks who won't fit into any single category. Anybody who has either been there or just paid attention to news would know that. I mean, sure, they had the "60's" Haight-A bit, but they also elected Reagan as governor.

They have Berkeley, but also USC.

[ViperOverLord]

With California having voted down both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, I don't really believe we should consider California to be any kind of a "liberal beacon"...they're obviously nothing of the sort.

So you don't consider California to be your liberal beacon? What state do you hold as your liberal beacon?

That you believe I am such a strong liberal so as to have a liberal beacon leads me to believe you don't have the common sense that God gave a goose.

I just wonder who is a liberal beacon for you as California is "obviously nothing of the sort."

California has ALWAYS been a strong mix of very conservative people along side quite liberal folks and a whole bunch of folks who won't fit into any single category. Anybody who has either been there or just paid attention to news would know that. I mean, sure, they had the "60's" Haight-A bit, but they also elected Reagan as governor.

They have Berkeley, but also USC.

--California is a significant mix, but there is no doubt that it is overall a blue state.

--Reagan's election was about four decades ago. A hell of a lot has changed in that time.

--USC is not the antithesis to Berkeley. It's not even considered to be a conservative school.

--I agree that there are very liberal roots in SF that date back to the 60's

[bradleybadly]

Are you kidding me? Yes, take the responsibility from the parents and children and let the government pass laws banning the free market! I honestly don't know how Michael Savage lives there. Or any rational human being for that matter.

This is liberalism on full display. Yes, extra grams of fat in ones diet is a bad thing. High cholesterol is a bad thing. Yet S.F. liberals have no problem celebrating men sodomizing each other and calling it a civil right. The health risks associated with contracting AIDS or some other venereal disease are far more lethal than packing on some extra pounds. At least with the McDonald's Happy Meal you get a toy that's not intended to go in anyone's ass.

[ViperOverLord]

Are you kidding me? Yes, take the responsibility from the parents and children and let the government pass laws banning the free market! I honestly don't know how Michael Savage lives there. Or any rational human being for that matter.

This is liberalism on full display. Yes, extra grams of fat in ones diet is a bad thing. High cholesterol is a bad thing. Yet S.F. liberals have no problem celebrating men sodomizing each other and calling it a civil right. The health risks associated with contracting AIDS or some other venereal disease are far more lethal than packing on some extra pounds. At least with the McDonald's Happy Meal you get a toy that's not intended to go in anyone's ass.

LOL - Good point. Of course I think their counter argument may be that that a higher standard of care could be justified on the basis that they are looking out for the welfare of children.

[PLAYER57832]

--Reagan's election was about four decades ago. A hell of a lot has changed in that time.

True, the state has gotten a LOT more conservative since then.

but here is the thing: The difference between most California Conservatives and this "new" wave of conservatives is tolerance. On the whole, most California conservatives are happy to live THEIR lives and let others live the way they want. The growing Christian right is the big exception. More of them have decided that tolerance and compromise mean weakness, not strength. Pretty sad, that.

California is "blue" in the voting sense because of tolerance, not because the people are any less conservative than elsewhere. And, more and more they are getting equally intolerant.

[PLAYER57832]

Are you kidding me? Yes, take the responsibility from the parents and children and let the government pass laws banning the free market! I honestly don't know how Michael Savage lives there. Or any rational human being for that matter.

This is liberalism on full display.

Not really, its extremism on display. The left has them, too.

Yes, extra grams of fat in ones diet is a bad thing. High cholesterol is a bad thing. Yet S.F. liberals have no problem celebrating men sodomizing each other and calling it a civil right. The health risks associated with contracting AIDS or some other venereal disease are far more lethal than packing on some extra pounds.

Unless you are yourself engaging in sodomous activity, the pounds ARE a far greater risk.. and absolutely cost us more tax dollars, etc.

That said .... I will be taking my son to McDonalds tonight for his birthday. All things in moderation. I think this law is well-intended, but I am not in favor of it. Then again, I don't live in SF, so my opinion doesn't really matter.

At least with the McDonald's Happy Meal you get a toy that's not intended to go in anyone's ass.

"Brilliant" show of knowledge about homosexuality. IF you consider Archie Bunker's attitudes brilliant, that is.

[spurgistan]

Are you kidding me? Yes, take the responsibility from the parents and children and let the government pass laws banning the free market! I honestly don't know how Michael Savage lives there. Or any rational human being for that matter.

This is liberalism on full display. Yes, extra grams of fat in ones diet is a bad thing. High cholesterol is a bad thing. Yet S.F. liberals have no problem celebrating men sodomizing each other and calling it a civil right. The health risks associated with contracting AIDS or some other venereal disease are far more lethal than packing on some extra pounds. At least with the McDonald's Happy Meal you get a toy that's not intended to go in anyone's ass.

Right, only gays get AIDS. Tell me, what's it like in 1983? I'm legitimately curious.

[jbrettlip]

Are you kidding me? Yes, take the responsibility from the parents and children and let the government pass laws banning the free market! I honestly don't know how Michael Savage lives there. Or any rational human being for that matter.

This is liberalism on full display. Yes, extra grams of fat in ones diet is a bad thing. High cholesterol is a bad thing. Yet S.F. liberals have no problem celebrating men sodomizing each other and calling it a civil right. The health risks associated with contracting AIDS or some other venereal disease are far more lethal than packing on some extra pounds. At least with the McDonald's Happy Meal you get a toy that's not intended to go in anyone's ass.

Right, only gays get AIDS. Tell me, what's it like in 1983? I'm legitimately curious.

Don't forget the heroin users!

[The Bison King]

This is liberalism on full display. Yes, extra grams of fat in ones diet is a bad thing. High cholesterol is a bad thing. Yet S.F. liberals have no problem celebrating men sodomizing each other and calling it a civil right. The health risks associated with contracting AIDS or some other venereal disease are far more lethal than packing on some extra pounds. At least with the McDonald's Happy Meal you get a toy that's not intended to go in anyone's ass.

What the f*ck is wrong with you?

[Timminz]

He's on a low moral-fibre diet.

[The Bison King]

He's on a low moral-fibre diet.

To me it sounds like he's the one with a happy meal toy up his ass.

[Timminz]

He's probably not using enough lube.

[AndyDufresne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/us/05brfs-Trans.html

California: Transgender Candidate Is New Judge
By MALIA WOLLAN
Published: November 4, 2010

Voters in the San Francisco Bay Area elected the first transgender trial judge in the country on Tuesday. Victoria Kolakowski, a lawyer who underwent gender reassignment surgery more than two decades ago, won the race for Superior Court judge in Alameda County with more than 50 percent of the vote.

--Andy

[beezer]

Are you kidding me? Yes, take the responsibility from the parents and children and let the government pass laws banning the free market! I honestly don't know how Michael Savage lives there. Or any rational human being for that matter.

This is liberalism on full display. Yes, extra grams of fat in ones diet is a bad thing. High cholesterol is a bad thing. Yet S.F. liberals have no problem celebrating men sodomizing each other and calling it a civil right. The health risks associated with contracting AIDS or some other venereal disease are far more lethal than packing on some extra pounds. At least with the McDonald's Happy Meal you get a toy that's not intended to go in anyone's ass.

Right, only gays get AIDS. Tell me, what's it like in 1983? I'm legitimately curious.

Ignoring Brad's brashness, there is a legitimate point to be made here. On one hand you have liberals in San Francisco openly celebrating a sexual lifestyle that includes the act of sodomy. In that case, they seem to be completely satisfied to allow the choice to be made by people. On the other hand, they are not willing to allow people to make the choice of what kind of food to purchase.

The health risks do seem to be of a far more dire consequence from engaging in sodomy than buying a Happy Meal from McDonalds. In my time here, I have constantly heard people on the pro-homosexual side say that it's all about consent. Ok, then why can't a person living in S.F. consensually buy a Happy Meal as long as he agrees to the price that's being charged by McDonalds? There is hypocrisy in how S.F. operates. I know this firsthand from having lived near there when I was going through flight training. On at least three occasions over the four years that I lived nearby, there was some kind of parade celebrating homosexuality with some signs that read "CELEBRATE SODOMY". So please don't tell me that sodomy isn't part of the pro-homosexual agenda. It was also disgusting having to explain to my son, who at the time was in first grade, what sodomy was and why men wanted to do that with each other.

[bradleybadly]

Right, only gays get AIDS. Tell me, what's it like in 1983? I'm legitimately curious.

Hmmmm, perhaps you'd like to show me where I've ever said only homosexuals get AIDS. My point was that the health risks associated with sodomy are greater than eating a Big Mac or Quarter Pounder. Maybe in San Francisco they're called a Big Sac or Queerer Pounding but whatever. Do you have some evidence stating that eating fast food with more grams of fat leaves one open to contracting AIDS or something worse than a bulging waistline?

Ignoring Brad's brashness

I don't deny being direct. I don't use moral arguments of the same type that Christians do, but I've always said homosexuality is unnatural. But I really wasn't going to get into the whole hotgaybumsex* thing again. The main argument here (which you actually did grasp for a minute) is that in one case liberals are alright with consent when it applies to something they like - sodomy & homosexuality, but they're against it when it comes to something they don't like - interacting in the free market. That's hypocrisy.

*citation to b.k. barunt

[Juan_Bottom]

Children are defenseless.
Just because a parent is responsible for a child, doesn't mean that they have the child's best interests at heart. Obviously there is a big difference between consenting adults having hot gay butt sex and a defenseless child being fed health-damaging foods. Duh.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Right, only gays get AIDS. Tell me, what's it like in 1983? I'm legitimately curious.

Haha as soon as I read this I thought of a certain shirt that Sebastian Bach (singer from Skid Row, and a complete douche, like all the hair/glam band members were) wore, that said "AIDS kill fa*s dead. I thought of posting it, but it seemed highly inappropriate. However it was from the eighties, and kinda proved spurgistan's point.

-TG

[jbrettlip]

Right, only gays get AIDS. Tell me, what's it like in 1983? I'm legitimately curious.

Haha as soon as I read this I thought of a certain shirt that Sebastian Bach (singer from Skid Row, and a complete douche, like all the hair/glam band members were) wore, that said "AIDS kill fa*s dead. I thought of posting it, but it seemed highly inappropriate. However it was from the eighties, and kinda proved spurgistan's point.

-TG

ANAL INFLICTED DEATH SENTENCE A.I.D.S
That's what you get for putting a hamster up your ass



Just remembering some M.O.D. Lyrics.

[The Bison King]

I don't deny being direct. I don't use moral arguments of the same type that Christians do, but I've always said homosexuality is unnatural. But I really wasn't going to get into the whole hotgaybumsex* thing again. The main argument here (which you actually did grasp for a minute) is that in one case liberals are alright with consent when it applies to something they like - sodomy & homosexuality, but they're against it when it comes to something they don't like - interacting in the free market. That's hypocrisy.

*citation to b.k. barunt

eating a Big Mac is a choice, being Gay isn't.