The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    Turn off your VPN to register and your email must be a working email to join and login.

Thought the Alabama story looked bad for *Democrats*? Check this one out...

Homoaffectional

1,000th post? Customize!!
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Posts
1,657
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It's funny how this one astonishingly doesn't get as much press as the one with ad hominem bashing of the national Democratic Party because of actions of a small subsection of the Democratic Party (the upper echelons of which, do not even support the decision, BTW...) in a state that wouldn't even strike institutionalized segregation out of the language of its state constitution...


So in the spirit of equal time, chew on this, Democracy [for America] bashers --

[Openly] Uncle Tom's Cabin Republican opposes marriage equality

Is he genuine or just trying to stand out in a crowded race?

As stage-managed political events go, the one at the Massachusetts Republican Party nominating convention back on April 29 was a classic. A hundred down-ticket Republican candidates paraded down the side aisles of Lowell’s Tsongas Arena, two streams of waving, fist-pumping foot soldiers striding to the familiar pounding of the Rocky III anthem “Eye of the Tiger” as an audience of GOP faithful cheered them on from their seats. But as they amassed onstage, the contenders became a waving, grinning blur of mostly middle-aged white men in dark suits, one nearly indistinguishable from the next. Just one candidate managed to stand out in the bland throng: The six-foot-four 24-year-old holding aloft the red, white and blue campaign placard that read “Aaron Maloy for State Rep.” It was a clever way to make the most of an otherwise empty, feel-good gesture at an event that was staged largely as a coming out party for gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey.

There is no doubt that Aaron Maloy knows how to separate himself from the pack. In the crowded race to succeed retiring Republican state Rep. Shirley Gomes in the Fourth Barnstable District, the Orleans Republican is the youngest of the six candidates vying for the seat and the only political newcomer in the bunch. But he is also the only candidate who is unequivocally opposed to same-sex marriage. Oh, and he’s openly gay.

Maloy isn’t the only gay candidate in the race; so, too, are Democrats Sarah Peake, a Provincetown selectwoman, and Ray Gottwald, a member of the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates (they’re competing in a three-way September primary with Chatham Selectman Ron Bergstrom). But his position on the marriage issue has brought him a good deal of attention, much of it negative. Many observers, it seems, are unable to fathom the idea of an openly gay man who is opposed to letting same-sex couples legally marry; Maloy, for instance, has generated considerable discussion on the blog Cape Politics at CapeCodToday.com. Said one poster with the handle “capecod_mom” of Maloy back in June: “I thought that he was just a conservative who was using gay marriage as his one ‘stand’ to try and differentiate himself. Finding out that he is actually gay is mind boggling.” CapeCodToday.com editor Walter Brooks went so far as to dub Maloy “Phyllis Schlafly in drag.” Brooks contends that running as an openly gay man in the Fourth Barnstable — which encompasses Provincetown, Truro, Wellfleet, Eastham, Orleans, Chatham and Harwich — is a huge asset for Maloy. But what is not to Maloy’s advantage, Brooks quickly adds, is for the candidate “to appear like the hypocrite he is by being against same-sex marriage while he’s a gay person himself.”

Is an openly gay opponent of marriage equality running in the only state where it’s legal dooming his candidacy from the start? Not really, says Spyro Mitrokostas, a former Dukakis political operative and Cape Politics contributor. “If there is criticism, it’s not coming from people who are going to be called on to vote for him,” says Mitrokostas, who is the executive director of the Dennis Chamber of Commerce. “He is running in a Republican primary. The criticism is probably coming from people who will be voting in the Democratic primary.” That said, Mitrokostas adds, “It may come into play in the general election, if he makes it that far.”

Indeed, Maloy’s position on the issue is a selling point for some of his supporters — folks like Justine Kirkwood, the 75-year-old member of the Orleans Republican Town Committee who has been active in local GOP politics for decades. Kirkwood notes that Maloy is alone among his opponents in his belief that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman, and though some voters think it’s not an important campaign issue, she says, “I do. It was the way I was brought up I suppose.”

Maloy, Kirkwood adds, “has a very strong religion … and a faith in God which is nice to see also.” Maloy attends a Congregational Church on the Cape. She does not believe that Maloy’s sexual orientation will be an issue among voters in the GOP primary, in which he’ll compete against Harwich Selectman Don Howell and former Chatham Selectman and journalist Andrew Buckley. Kirkwood, a retired teacher and school librarian, came to know Maloy when he was one of her students at Nauset Regional Middle School, helped Maloy celebrate his 24th birthday back in June by hosting a fundraiser for him at her Orleans home.

Maloy has steadfastly defended his position against same-sex marriage on the campaign trail, though he acknowledges it has cost him some support. He notes that he recently ran into another former teacher who said she’d not be voting for him since he was not supportive on the issue. When Maloy pointed out that there are other important issues to be considered in the race, “she said, ‘That’s the only issue I care about,’” Maloy recalls. “That’s like the make it or break it [issue],” he says. “I’ve heard that a lot.” The candidate’s opposition to same-sex marriage is based on his belief, which he says has “evolved very recently,” that marriage is a religious institution and “part of the heterosexual culture.”

“A lot of religious people hold it very sacred,” says Maloy. “I think that marriage is something that’s more religious and perhaps should be — perhaps,” he emphasizes — “should be separate from the state.” Maloy is supportive of offering same-sex couples benefits and protections through civil unions or domestic partnerships. But marriage, says Maloy, “is an institution between a man and a woman and I think that it’s part of the heterosexual culture. I don’t buy the whole separate but equal thing,” he adds, a reference to arguments by marriage equality advocates — and the Supreme Judicial Court’s advisory opinion in Goodridge — that creating a separate legal status for same-sex couples is inherently unequal.

Maloy supports letting the question of whether or not to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts go before voters, a matter the Legislature is poised to take up on Nov. 9. “I think it’s really important for everyone to vote on this,” he explains. “That way the different groups can lobby the people in Massachusetts and whichever way the majority of people decide that’s the way it will be.” (For the record, Buckley also supports letting voters weigh in on the amendment; Howell did not respond to an interview request to discuss his position on the proposal. Peake, Gottwald and Bergstrom are opposed to putting the amendment on the ballot.)

It would be easy to write Maloy off as a self-loathing gay man; indeed, he concedes, critics have accused him of being just that. But don’t go there, says Maloy, who notes that he came out to his Evangelical Christian single mother when he was just 12 years old. His realization that he is gay coincided with his decision to leave home due to his mother’s homophobia and other abusive behavior. On the day after his 12th birthday, Maloy says he went to the fire station near his Yarmouth residence and asked someone to call DSS.

“My mom was crazy,” he recalls. “I couldn’t take her anymore. I said a foster home has got to be better than this.” What ensued was a parade of about 15 foster homes and youth shelters, places where, ironically, he was often mistreated for being gay. “It was really hard being a gay kid in foster care,” says Maloy. “But I learned to fight to defend myself.”

School turned out to be equally as isolating; Maloy recalls being called a “fag” and doused with salad dressing by a fellow student. School administrators, he says, turned a blind eye to the anti-gay bullying he experienced. Nonetheless, Maloy adopted what could be described as a flamboyant style, dying his hair bright red, donning “funky leather jewelry, painting his fingernails. He hints that his experiences spurred him into gay activism during his teen years, but declines to elaborate for fear of alienating his conservative supporters.

Maloy attended five different high schools on Cape Cod before graduating from Westport High School and heading off to UMass Amherst, where he majored in political science, graduating in 2004. He was homeless throughout the summer between high school and college. At one point he lived in a tent in a friend’s backyard, another friend let him crash for a time at his New Bedford home. Finally, says Maloy, his grandmother allowed him to stay in Eastham with her until the school semester began. Maloy now works for Outer Cape Health Services, where he helps low- and middle-income people access health care.

Not surprisingly, Maloy has made foster care reform a major plank in his campaign platform, along with affordable healthcare, rolling back the income tax and making the Cape a more affordable place to live. Having experienced the sting of anti-gay bias while growing up, it’s hard not to wonder how Maloy can sanction anti-gay discrimination in the state’s marriage law. When the question is put to him, he replies with a surprisingly personal answer. “It’s probably going to hurt me,” he acknowledges at the outset. “It was really hard for me growing up,” says Maloy, who had no contact with his father. “I think that a lot of kids want to have a male and a female role [model] in their life regardless of the arrangement and we create our laws around ideals. … There are studies that have shown that it’s really the best situation for kids growing up to have a mom and a dad with a biological connection.

“I used to be a vocal, outright aggressive supporter of gay marriage and I’m just trying to take as much of an informed, reasonable and honest look at this,” he adds. “And we create our laws around ideals and I just think that you know it’s important to keep the bar high.” Maloy says that while he knows many same-sex couples who are raising smart, well-adjusted kids, “I think every child wants to have on a full-time basis a male and female role [model] in their life.”

Though Maloy’s position on marriage may be alienating to a swath of Fourth Barnstable voters, the candidate cannot certainly be counted out of the race. And while his youth and political inexperience have also raised red flags, Mitrokostas says that Maloy’s running for the right reasons. “He’s stated pretty emphatically he wants to work on behalf of people who live in the district and in those areas that are particularly interesting to him, whether it’s human services [or] social services. I think he spends a lot of time dealing with healthcare for particular parts of the community, so there’s no better place to try to affect policy but the legislature when it comes to that.” Mitrokostas also notes that the Cape is known to elect either “first timers or old timers,” meaning candidates who are just starting their careers or those heading toward the end of their careers. While Maloy falls into the former camp, the remaining candidates, Mitrokostas observes, are somewhere mid-career. Maloy, he concludes, “can distinguish himself by being the youngest and most enthusiastic guy.”

Some would say that’s a more worthwhile distinction than being an openly gay candidate who opposes marriage equality. But for all of Maloy’s pronouncements in opposition to same-sex marriage, during those times when he strays from his message of opposing it on religious grounds, it’s hard not wonder if Maloy is genuinely sincere in his opposition or merely using the issue to separate himself from the herd. “I’m not a conformist,” Maloy says at one point during one of several interviews with Bay Windows. “I just don’t conform. And now that gay marriage is normal and everything and everybody’s … thinking the same way — they’ve had it ingrained in them by these big media campaigns — I go against the flow. I’m a nonconformist. That’s just how I am, I go against the flow and I don’t like to be controlled.”


http://www.baywindows.com/ME2/dirmo...91&tier=4&id=BC024D089078457280F8E94AEBE0CCD2


Now, I dare any of the Democratic Party haters on this board find an *openly gay or lesbian* member of the Democratic Party that actually opposes gay marriage, let alone in a state where they *already have it*...
 
This is a disgrace, too. However the Alabama thing takes disgrace to the utmost level. Mr. Maloy is just a single person with some fucked-up priorities, but the Alabama thing is thwarting and voiding the will of an entire state congressional district.
 
This is a disgrace, too. However the Alabama thing takes disgrace to the utmost level. Mr. Maloy is just a single person with some fucked-up priorities, but the Alabama thing is thwarting and voiding the will of an entire state congressional district.

How about Tom DeLay's attempt at thwarting the will of not ONE but SIX congressional districts in Texas? Redistricting the ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS, two years after the 2000 Census redistricting. How could he do that? He had the Texas Republican Party in his back pocket.

I find it ironic that a group of over zealous pin-heads sitting on a "subcommitte" within Alabama's State Democratic Executive Commitee (SDEC) can presume to determine an outcome of an election that's already been held is being considered more of an outrage than some of the shit the Rebuplican National Commitee has done to the nation over the past few years.

Can you say DIEBOLD ELECTRONICS? #-o Can you say "mid-decade redistricting?"

I understand the point that Homoaffectional is trying to make. :=D:

My point is, that no matter what happened/happens within Alabama it WILL NOT have an impact on what happens in the rest of the country, and it will not effect Gays and Lesbians within the Democratic Party. If it does it will only energize them to get off their asses, and to push for more diversity within their state's Democratic Party, and to not assume that because they/we "feel" that we share the Civil Rights Movement with African Americans that they feel the same way. THEY DON'T.

I can assure you that this is NOT a debate being held anywhere within the Republican Party; on any level!

Fuck Gay Marriage! It's a single-myopic-issue that the religious right has been handing our asses to us on a platter with, and outspending us by a margin of nearly 3 to 1 each election cycle.

Equality is SO MUCH MORE THAN that one single issue!

Name me a currently elected Democrat (anywhere in this country) who's introduced legislation AGAINST the GLBT community within the past six years, and who if they did are still in office, and is not being challenged by another Democrat.
 
How about Tom DeLay's attempt at thwarting the will of not ONE but SIX congressional districts in Texas? Redistricting the ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS, two years after the 2000 Census redistricting. How could he do that? He had the Texas Republican Party in his back pocket.

I find it ironic that a group of over zealous pin-heads sitting on a "subcommitte" within Alabama's State Democratic Executive Commitee (SDEC) can presume to determine an outcome of an election that's already been held is being considered more of an outrage than some of the shit the Rebuplican National Commitee has done to the nation over the past few years.

Can you say DIEBOLD ELECTRONICS? #-o Can you say "mid-decade redistricting?"

I understand the point that Homoaffectional is trying to make. :=D:

My point is, that no matter what happened/happens within Alabama it WILL NOT have an impact on what happens in the rest of the country, and it will not effect Gays and Lesbians within the Democratic Party. If it does it will only energize them to get off their asses, and to push for more diversity within their state's Democratic Party, and to not assume that because they/we "feel" that we share the Civil Rights Movement with African Americans that they feel the same way. THEY DON'T.

I can assure you that this is NOT a debate being held anywhere within the Republican Party; on any level!

Fuck Gay Marriage! It's a single-myopic-issue that the religious right has been handing our asses to us on a platter with, and outspending us by a margin of nearly 3 to 1 each election cycle.

Equality is SO MUCH MORE THAN that one single issue!

Name me a currently elected Democrat (anywhere in this country) who's introduced legislation AGAINST the GLBT community within the past six years, and who if they did are still in office, and is not being challenged by another Democrat.

..| Claps for Centex Farmer :=D: BTW... will you marry me? (*8*) :kiss:
 
and to not assume that because they/we "feel" that we share the Civil Rights Movement with African Americans that they feel the same way. THEY DON'T.

I hate to break with you on anything (especially pending you telling me that's really your pic and then realizing just how sexy you are...), but I have to say based on generalizations, blacks are actually quite divided. The churchgoing ones are the ones that are brainwashed with the incredibly opportunistic vitriol of corrupt black preachers.

However, if you witnessed the Black State of the Union in 2005, the overwhelming majority of the speakers there were in striking disagreement with the sentiments of the Willie Wilsons, Harry Jacksons, Eddie Longs, Walter Fauntroys, Ken Hutchersons, T.D. Jakes, etc. among the black 'community'...

It's the part of the black community that is so disillusioned and demoralized that they look to self-loathing and opportunistic black 'men of god' that are the ones that simply can't 'get' gay rights, because to do so they'd have to undo Sunday after Sunday of horrifically, homophobic conditioning first -- even many gay/bi African Americans have sadly been led astray by them.

Keith Boykin and (the now sadly disgraced as a total hypocrite) Jasmyne Cannick recently tried something about this - http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/2005/09/26/outing_black_pa & http://jasmynecannick.typepad.com/jasmynecannickcom/outing_black_pastors_campaign/index.html - but I feel they went about it the wrong way. 'Outing' every homophobic black minister as a closet case? Um... not sure what that accomplishes... want to make a difference? Hit them where it hurts... their purse strings.

Gay activists should work w/their straight and gay black allies that haven't been to bring these people down financially. Once they realize they have more to lose in small donations and through targeted boycott campaigns than they have to gain from right wing astro turf organizations that will bribe them, they will drop this homophobic bullshit -- lickety split!

Unfortunately, I'm the only one in the universe that has thought this up so far... and I don't have the time or resources to make it a reality just yet. Anyone who wants to help out with this and has the connections... get to it!

Also, if you do, feel free to keep me in the loop about your progress.
 
Maloy is right: marriage is a religious institution, part of a dominant heterosexual culture. As such, it doesn't even lie in the purview of the state; we're supposed to have religious freedom. What we all ought to mbe seeking is to remove marriage from every legal reference, and invent a new category that will apply to all unions, regardless of sex, even regardless of numbers involved.

Is there a gay-friendly congresscritter bold enough to introduce a "Sanctity of Marriage Act" that would rescue it from 'defamation' and 'corruption' by removing it from the government realm entirely? and replacing every reference to marriage in federal law with "interpersonal bond" or something similarly profound-sounding?

I'd vote for him/her, regardless of party!
 
How about Tom DeLay's attempt at thwarting the will of not ONE but SIX congressional districts in Texas? Redistricting the ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS, two years after the 2000 Census redistricting. How could he do that? He had the Texas Republican Party in his back pocket.


Thanks for mentioning this/these, centexfarmer. This is certainly more egregious than the Alabama thing, as are the rigged Diebold voting machines (their CEO: I will do my best to deliver Ohio to Bush in 2004). I am suffering from a very advanced stage of "disgrace fatigue" - I've been a news junkie for years, and I have to say that, when I follow politics, I see something entirely disgraceful at least once every ten minutes, as I read stuff. Taking into account the massive amounts of money involved, and the power that the United States wields in the world, we are suffering under the most horribly corrupt, arrogant and selfish government that has ever existed in the history of mankind. We are suffering under the first government ever that not only has the power to utterly destroy this planet and end the existence of all humanity, but they're doing a damned good job of trying to do so.

I have a long political memory, and it's almost all depressing. As such, I've been mostly forced to give up following this stuff deeply. My friends continue to be hurt and impoverished by these damned Republicans (and, often, Democrats) who want to give everything to the privileged few, stomp homosexuals deep into the bowels of hell, and screw anybody they don't like.

I'm glad to see that there are people, even in some of the "reddest" of states, who truly realize what's going on.

By the way, regarding DeLay's re-redistricting, WHY did it take me nearly a year (NOT WITH YOUR POST HERE, BUT A WHILE AGO, but still...) to even find out whether DeLay's crap was the first or the second re-districting? Yes it can be argued that he only did what is commonly done by the party that is in power. However, redistricting was to be done ONLY ONCE PER CENSUS, I thought - why didn't anybody challenge that (and, again, wy did it take me a year to even find out this was the case)? Maybe it's not illegal, though I thought it was...but that was entirely an INTERNAL issue, and he had no business screwing with it.
 
This is a disgrace, too. However the Alabama thing takes disgrace to the utmost level. Mr. Maloy is just a single person with some fucked-up priorities, but the Alabama thing is thwarting and voiding the will of an entire state congressional district.

So prairie looner, any new comments about the whole 'one person thwarting and voiding the will of [one or more] entire state congressional district(s) with Alabama Democracy Party members having done the right thing, but not being able to say the same thing about either Texas [anti-Democracy] Republicans, nor the [anti-Democracy] Republican dominated US Supreme Court?
 
Marriage not a right....
THAT takes some mental gymnastics, since freedom of association is a basic right, and marriage is a form of free association!
Your last line, "It's nothing new, nor unexpected, when one attaches oneself to a political ideology that happens to hate the sin(ner) and forces you to deny yourself", makes me think of the Democrat party, that on the one hand assures us they think we're all valuable, but on the other, policy-driven hand tell us our lives aren't valuable enough that we should be allowed to defend ourselves against crime.
 
So prairie looner, any new comments about the whole 'one person thwarting and voiding the will of [one or more] entire state congressional district(s) with Alabama Democracy Party members having done the right thing, but not being able to say the same thing about either Texas [anti-Democracy] Republicans, nor the [anti-Democracy] Republican dominated US Supreme Court?

I'm not sure what you're saying (as I vehemently disliked both the Texas redistricting and Alabama things, and felt they totally thwarted the wishes of the constituents), bit unfortunately I could go on and on with comments. I could probably be here until sometime in October before I finally finished, too. (I'll have to check and see if there's an update about the Alabama thing - which I hope means it changed - but I also didn't think the Alabama D. P. members did the right thing, either - the drift I got was that the entire ADP was trying to void the results, not just one or two people.)

I'd like to see more political fairness and decency start taking hold in Washington and in the various states, but I'm not holding my breath - I can't see any major political machine in all of the history of mankind that was ever truly benevolent, fair and sensible.

I merely find the problem to be with Republicans more often, but they don't hold the monopoly on such problems. Another thing that totally infuriated me was when the Supreme Court voted that New London, Connecticut could demolish people's lifetime homes (by CLAIMING they were "blighted") for no other reason than to allow a private developer with deeper pockets and a better tax base. I was surprised when I found out it was the "LIBERAL" JUSTICES, NOT SCALIA AND THOMAS et. al., who voted for that monstrosity.

Of course, in 2000, George Bush won the election by ONE vote: 5 to 4!
 
What the hell does Texas has to do with Alabama?

It has a lot to do with the assertion that what happened to do w/Alabama was 'thwarting the will of the voters of (an) entire district(s).

The only reason to mention DeLay in this thread is that he invaded Alabama and redistricted it for his own re-election campaign.

No, I can think of more reasons, actually. Thanks, though.

As for Maloy, he can believe what he wants to believe.

Sure, he can. A gay Republican like himself can. Just as a Jew can believe that all Jews should be sent to concentration camps.
 
makes me think of the Democrat[ic] party, that on the one hand assures us they think we're all valuable, but on the other, policy-driven hand tell us our lives aren't valuable enough that we should be allowed to defend ourselves against crime.

Sure, because having dangerous weapons that often serve only to perpetuate a cycle of violence and up the stakes in that perpetual cycle is the only way to do that...
 
Sure, he can. A gay Republican like himself can. Just as a Jew can believe that all Jews should be sent to concentration camps.

That's utterly inane. There is NOTHING similar between Maloy's stance and sending Jews to concentration camps.

Maloy's position is logical and very Constitutional. Since about four-fifths of Americans believe that marriage is a religious institution, Maloy is quite right to be against gay marriage -- unless we all want to join one religion or another and abide by its rules... oh, wait, those are the people who don't want gays even living together, huh?
When someone fights for gay marriage, what most Americans see is an attack on God -- and by extension, on country. They see an assault on their deeply held principles, an attempt to tear down and devalue what they hold dear. That's a self-defeating course for an attempt to get gay partners equal rights under the law, and is exactly why so many states are successfully passing anti-gay-marriage laws. It's those who fight for gay marriage who we can thank for these latest assaults on our human dignity, because they're hitting the majority of Americans in a sensitive spot and expecting them to enjoy it.
If we're ever to win this thing, we MUST abandon the "gay marriage" approach. First we have to acknowledge and respect that most Americans consider marriage to be a religious matter, and assure them we don't want to tread on matters of faith. But at the same time we need to hammer home that in order to preserve their treasured sanctity of marriage, it ought to be removed from the domain of government entirely, and that government should recognize only "personal unions" or "domestic partnerships" or some such thing... and that marriage would be a "holy" matter for those who desired a religious bond, while other forms of bonding between persons would be equally recognized.
 
Interesting, because there has yet to be one reason stated to justify mentioning him.


prairie_looner said:
but the Alabama thing is thwarting and voiding the will of an entire state congressional district


centexfarmer (who has *YET* to respond to my marriage proposal said:
How about Tom DeLay's attempt at thwarting the will of not ONE but SIX congressional districts in Texas? Redistricting the ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS, two years after the 2000 Census redistricting. How could he do that? He had the Texas Republican Party in his back pocket. I find it ironic that a group of over zealous pin-heads sitting on a "subcommitte" within Alabama's State Democratic Executive Commitee (SDEC) can presume to determine an outcome of an election that's already been held is being considered more of an outrage than some of the shit the Rebuplican National Commitee has done to the nation over the past few years.

I have to add more stuff here that's something other than quotes, but it was just a reminder for Mr. ICO7...
 
That's utterly inane. There is NOTHING similar between Maloy's stance and sending Jews to concentration camps.

Of course not. Because Hitler himself wasn't a self-loathing man and Germany went immediately to concentration camps and a quest to domination of the entire Eurasian continent and beyond about 3 seconds after Hitler took power in 1932/33... wait, no... it took a bit longer than that, didn't it...? (!) ](*,)
 
The mention of the RNC and DeLay in a thread having to do with Alabama is an attempt at changing the subject.

Hmmm...

A) The subject of *this* thread (I might know a thing about it since I started the thread myself) was actually about a self-deluded, self-loathing Jew for Hitler in Massachusetts, of all states -- the one where gays have full marriage rights.

B) The subject had gone on way beyond that, even on the other thread. It had degenerated into a general condemnation of the Democracy Party as full of rabid homophobes.

C) "Changing the subject" is a pretty lame way of people trying to control the flow of ideas and people being able to provide as many possible bits of information. You trying to stop it and insisting on the 'justness' of your 'cause' says more about you than 'the subject' or changing thereof...
 
There have been many threads regarding DeLay around here back in the day

Were there as many as there were Shit Boat Bitterans Against the Truth ads... smearing John Kerry?

I'm not sure why they had to go and do that... and 'change the subject' (!)

Centex... you don't really have any compunctions about leaving people hanging, do you? :cry: Hint -- Don't leave marriage proposals pending for so long... at the very least, let me down gently. Lie and tell me you're already married. Say you don't believe in marriage -- that it's a patriarchal, heterosexist institution that you want no part of. But this stony silence just sucks... [-X
 
… in the spirit of equal time, chew on this, …
Hmmm...

A) The subject of *this* thread … [which] I started … was actually about a self-deluded, self-loathing Jew for Hitler …

The body of your original post consists of 2,000+ words apparently quoted from a web site which you failed to properly introduce and which you titled under the caption “Thought the Alabama story looked bad for *Democrats*? Check this one out...

I suspect that most readers are unable to read your mind and have no idea to what “Alabama story” you are referring. You offer no link(s) to the other story, while proceeding to “aggrandize” the quoted article beyond its apparent context.

Please take notice that there is no reference whatsoever to Jews –OR- Hitler in the quote you used to “start” this thread. Your subsequent characterization of the article is therefore without proper warrant or explanation.


I think you owe an apology to the readers of this forum for a general lack of sincerity, overt cultural insensitivity, and specific suggestions of a most-shallow basis for interpersonal correspondence. :badgrin:


C) "Changing the subject" is a pretty lame way of people trying to control the flow of ideas and people being able to provide as many possible bits of information. You trying to stop it and insisting on the 'justness' of your 'cause' says more about you than 'the subject' or changing thereof...
… BTW... will you marry me? (*8*) :kiss:
Especially if that's really you in the pic … (!)



AARON4.jpg

.​
 
Back
Top