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

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

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

Ooh, cat fight.

I just enjoyed the tidbit that Maloy was doused by salad dressing in the school cafeteria. That must have been really traumatic to have turned him into a Jew for Hitler, to use an expression.

And, am I the only one who thinks that "Phyllis Schafly in drag" is redundant?
 
most rightwingers could point this out on how an unrelated thread led to Bush-bashing

Does that include you? Only right wingers I know are pained when either Bush or DeLay are bashed... as far as I'm concerned, both *deserve* to be bashed as often and as harshly as possible... for their crimes against Americans, the world, and humanity at large...

Only right wingers complain when the 'subject' is 'changed' to something like that...
 
Does that include you? Only right wingers I know are pained when either Bush or DeLay are bashed... as far as I'm concerned, both *deserve* to be bashed as often and as harshly as possible... for their crimes against Americans, the world, and humanity at large...

Only right wingers complain when the 'subject' is 'changed' to something like that...

THat last assertion is incredibly untrue!

THere are a number of die-hard Democrats around here who no longer participate in CE&P because of the hijackers who turned every thread into bush-bashing... and guys from other nations who avoid it for the same reason -- threads about England, Canada, etc. got turned into Bush-bashing.

A certain amount of drift is common in any conversation, but that isn't drift, it's hijacking, and it's rude. If you can't see that, you need to re-examine your worldview.
 
<snip>

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.

They did! The entire Texas Democratic delegation fled out of state to prevent a quorum on the issue. The Texas Legislature left for Ardmore, Oklahoma, and the Texas Senators left for New Mexico.

Remember Tom DeLay interferring with the FAA trying to determine the location of of the Democrats. The Texas Rangers could not leave the State of Texas to arrest them to bring them back for a quorum.

Of course the Repuglicans called the Dems cowards, and all sorts of shit, but in the end the Repuglicans won, but not without a huge protest.

Where's Tom DeLay now? :badgrin: Gone after removing years of senior Democratic Leadership on various committees to do what was best for his party/power than doing what was best for Texans. May the sun-of-a-beyotch burn in hell!

note: Homoaffectional I have no opposition to your marriage proposal, but I want' some bling! :p
 
Wiki says the first concentration camps came along by November 1, 1941.

The mention of the RNC and DeLay in a thread having to do with Alabama is an attempt at changing the subject. There have been many threads regarding DeLay around here back in the day, so I'm not entirely sure why centex had to not only bring it up but feel that unless a crime is of the same magnitude as DeLay then it isn't worth discussing or recognizing because it somehow lessens DeLay's offense. The initial post had to do with Maloy and his perception on rights anyway.

Good gawd! #-o Go back and re-read my original post.

I was speaking of the irony of how some one could get so bent out of shape at the actions of some dimwitted subcommittee within the Alabama Democratric Party while ignoring the actions of the Republican leadership within the RNC. :rolleyes:

Pay attention! :D

Hugs and kisses and all of that! ;)
 
Maloy wins again

It’s official: Aaron Maloy is still the Republican nominee in the race to succeed retiring state Rep. Shirley Gomes in Cape Cod’s Fourth Barnstable District. After a recount of the ballots cast in each of the district’s seven towns, the 24-year-old openly gay political newcomer widened his primary night margin of victory over Harwich Selectman Don Howell from 12 votes to 17. Howell, who had been endorsed by MassEquality, issued a concession statement following the completion of the Oct. 2 recount in which he congratulated Maloy, a vocal opponent of marriage equality, and wished him well on the campaign trail.

“I feel relieved,” said Maloy after the recount. Then, somewhat startlingly, he confessed with a laugh, “and I also feel very scared.” Maloy is most concerned about being able to raise the money to compete with openly gay Democrat Sarah Peake, who had $41,000 heading into the September primary to Maloy’s $3810. Never mind the fact that in addition to being well-funded, Peake, a Provincetown Selectman who gave Gomes a stiff challenge in 2004, is a well-organized and experienced campaigner.

The difference in experience was painfully clear at a candidate forum on health and human services issues sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Lower/Outer Cape Community Coalition at the Eastham United Methodist Church on Sept. 28. Peake showed up with several campaign volunteers in tow, a stack of campaign literature and buttons and ballpoint pens touting her candidacy, all of which were laid out on a table with other candidate information. Maloy, on the other hand, confessed that he had sent his supporters to the United Methodist Church in Orleans and he didn’t have his cell phone handy to redirect them. And during the forum Maloy drew a few chuckles with his earnest but perhaps overeager response to the question of how he would maintain contact with human services professionals and consumers if elected: “Well, the door to my apartment will always be open,” he began. By contrast, Peake opened by noting that she has already established relationships with the local human services community. “Most of you in this room I know already because I go to your meetings,” she said at the outset. “I’m at the public forums, I’m there and I’m participating. I’ve done that already, I’ll continue to do it.”

That’s not to say Maloy doesn’t have things working in his favor. He has effectively sought to portray himself as a political outsider — Howell was clearly the GOP’s “establishment candidate” in the primary — and his opposition to same-sex marriage has brought him plenty of attention. And though Democrats slightly outnumber Republicans in the district, 53 percent of Fourth Barnstable voters are unenrolled and the seat has been in Republican hands since the early 1990s. Despite his financial woes, with the recount behind him, Maloy sounds ready for battle. “If we do lose this seat, there’s going to be no accountability in the Massachusetts Legislature,” he warns, sounding the state GOP’s mantra. “Basically if the Republicans lose their ability to request a roll call there’s going to be no transparency in state government. … It will create an unhealthy political environment in Massachusetts.”

Peake however, has been hustling for those independent votes. Prior to the primary, the candidate says she knocked on the doors of 2500-3000 Democratic and unenrolled voters. “I was in Chatham yesterday and knocking on doors of Republicans and Democrats and unenrolled as well,” she adds of her strategy. “And it’s just spending time in the district going to events like this being at the post office and transfer stations and going door to door — you meet people and you connect on the issues.” Peake could also benefit from the enthusiasm among unenrolled Cape voters for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Deval Patrick, who swept the Cape in the Democratic primary. “The unenrolled are very active voters,” Peake observes. “For example, in Chatham more people pulled a Democratic ballot in the primary than there are registered Democrats in Chatham. Which means that a large number of the unenrolled took out a Democratic ballot. I think the excitement over Deval Patrick’s campaign has invigorated people and is going to cause a very high turnout in the general election.”

With two gay candidates espousing different views on marriage equality, the issue may become a factor in the race. But Peake says it hasn’t been much of an issue thus far. “I think they know what my position is, they know what Aaron’s is, which stands in sharp contrast to mine. I mean, he wants to strip us of our civil rights.” And she confesses that she’s not given much thought to the fact that her race against Maloy is the first time in state history where two openly gay candidates have squared off against each other. Since three of the six primary candidates in the race were gay, says Peake, the chances were pretty good that one or both of the candidates left standing would be gay people. “Maybe I’m just so focused on what the issues are and what I need to do when I get to Boston … I haven’t really spent too much time dwelling on this potentially historic race that’s going on down here,” she says.

Link to original article.


BTW, just caught opinterph's demand for an 'apology'... all I can say is, reading that article, totally detached from reality about 'the lost art of political compromise' (pinning the blame on both parties, instead of the Republicans, where it belongs), it all makes sense now...
 
It intrigues me that his opponent should say Maloy is trying to strip gays of their civil rights because of his stand on the marriage issue. I oppose gay marriage being written into law, because I support civil rights. As it is, we have one special interest's view of marriage written into the laws, one they support by calling it sacred, for the most part. Seeking to get gay marriage added just makes us another special-interest group adding ourselves to the list. And if marriage is sacred -- most Americans agree it is -- then it has no business being regulated in the first place. If we support civil rights, we should be trying to get ALL references to marriage out of the laws at all levels, and replace them with "civil union" or something, wherein the government would recognize the bond between anyone who claims it, regardless of whether they call it "marriage", "civil bond", "personal contract", or "body sharing"... or make up something new, just for them.
So to me, it's Maloy's opponent who isn't in favor of civil rights.
 
I'm afraid marriage is not sacred, Kulindar. Only marriages performed by a priest in a church,"under the eyes of God" are sacred. The Catholic church does not recognise civil marriages nor marriages to non-christians that are not performed under the auspices of a priest. Therefore to call a marriage performed by a judge in city hall or by a celebrant in a garden "sacred" is at best a flowery figure of speech. The reality is that a marriage certificate is a legally binding document that is as much about personal duties and rights as it is about love and religion. As for this gay republican ,I think he is a fool if he thinks he can bring in the gay vote by opposing gay marriage. In the current climate he will be lucky if he is not expeled from the party!
 
I'm afraid marriage is not sacred, Kulindar. Only marriages performed by a priest in a church,"under the eyes of God" are sacred. The Catholic church does not recognise civil marriages nor marriages to non-christians that are not performed under the auspices of a priest. Therefore to call a marriage performed by a judge in city hall or by a celebrant in a garden "sacred" is at best a flowery figure of speech. The reality is that a marriage certificate is a legally binding document that is as much about personal duties and rights as it is about love and religion. As for this gay republican ,I think he is a fool if he thinks he can bring in the gay vote by opposing gay marriage. In the current climate he will be lucky if he is not expeled from the party!

Most Americans consider it sacred, and the whole movement to make two-person hetero marriage the only allowable form comes out of regarding it as sacred. Bush considers it sacred -- and can't figure out that if it is, then what he should be doing is getting the government out of it, because of freedom of religion.
The Catholic church has nothing to do with it -- Every brand of Christianity, along with the cults such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, plus Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, etc. all consider marriage sacred.
The fact that there are laws concerning something the vast majority consider sacred is a holdover from the middle ages, when marriage had to be regulated for both church and state in order to keep inheritance and such straight. Along with other medievalisms -- such as "The State vs. ___" -- this one needs to be killed thoroughly.
I don't think Maloy is trying to "bring in the gay vote" with this stance. He probably knows that for the most part, gays are just another captive special interest of the Demibrats. He isn't pandering, as most politicians do ("What's your stand on X?" "Uh, let's see the latest polls."), but is taking a stand on what he believes is right. But he would get my vote -- for starters because it's nice to see someone who WILL take a stand, but also because I agree with him, to an extent: marriage means, as it has traditionally meant except in some very local cultures, a man and a woman (though not always just one).
 
Hi, I'm not a regular visitor here, I've never heard of this "Alabama thing", and Google News isn't helpful. Could somebody post a link?

And PS to the whole forum, y'all need to take a chill pill. Turn down the volume, please. It's just kind of exhausting reading a bunch of people screaming at each other. Hey, come to think of it -- maybe that's why I don't come here too often!
 
And PS to the whole forum, y'all need to take a chill pill. Turn down the volume, please. It's just kind of exhausting reading a bunch of people screaming at each other. Hey, come to think of it -- maybe that's why I don't come here too often!

Well, I'm sure they'd appreciate your 'money shot' even more over in the porn boards. ;)
 
I live in Birmingham, and I'm pretty familiar with the Patricia Todd story, and I hope you all know that her victory was restored.

Let me reiterate: Patricia Todd, the first openly lesbian candidate to run for and win a state congressional seat, will take office in January.

The scandal over district 54 was far more about race than sexuality. Her opponent, Gaynell Hendricks, is a black woman, and a majority of the consitituents in district 54 are black, too. From what I can ascertain, the district was specifically designed after the 1960's horror show to give the black community a better shot at having a voice that spoke for them in the state Congress. Gaynell Hendricks was running a campaign based largely on the fact that she's black, and more specifically, that Patricia Todd is not. The theory went, Patricia Todd's white, she doesn't understand what it's like to be in a minority (HA.), she'll let Congress re-write the district lines, she doesn't care about black people, etc etc. Thing is, that sort of fear-mongering still works for some old South black families. It's kind of hard to express what remnant of a stigma race is here, still, but when you have people throwing race in your face, it tends to be a reminder of what's come before. So, you have a white woman with a background in business trying to become the representative of a lot of poor, black, working-class families. See what I'm getting at?

The big help to Patricia Todd was that, as black as d.54 is, it's also pretty f..kin' pink. The rent and purchase prices of housing in some of the areas are cheap, the homes are often older houses from the Baby Boom and before, and they do appeal to an aging gay constitutency and young hip couples who think they're in the clear for being homophobic because they have that one gay friend from college. District 54 was 84% opposed to Amendment One, which banned gay marriage, and it was overwhelming in favor of John Kerry in 2004. It's about as moderate-left as you'll find in Alabama, and it's impossible for a Republican to win there, as it stands today.

It was a relatively minor infraction that nearly cost Todd her seat; she didn't report her campaign contributors until 2 days (Sunday) before the election. Democratic Party rules state that all candidates must submit such a list 5 days before the election. However, neither did Gaynell Hendricks, or, for that matter, any of the 700 other Democrats running campaigns in the state of Alabama. Were Hendricks's mother-in-law's appeal (for it was her mother-in-law who filed the complaint) to have taken effect equally, there would be no Democratic opposition to the Republicans. The Democratic Primary board disqualified both Todd and Hendricks, but left the otehr 698 candidates in place. Obviously, there's a problem with that. So, after a series of appeals, another vote at the Democratic Party headquarters was held, and Todd won, and the Alabama Democrats decided it'd be better to not kill the party off entirely.

Thank you for the update. :=D:

That's pretty much the way that I understood the whole gist of this story.

:wave:
 
Kudos to aviary for that calm, substantive, thorough summary! It's nice to read that sort of thing... especially as opposed to the screaming invective verbiage tossed out by a few constant post-ers here, that passes as "reasoned dialogue".

Aviary, here's hoping you've raised the standard!
 
Back
Top