Arpaio apparently send his deputy bullies to Hawaii because the Hawaii DOH got tired of their bullshit and got cheeky with him. I have gained a new appreciation for Trollwaii.
Why? At least New York is honest about it. NY doesn't try to pretend it doesn't look and is comfortable with its gayness, whereas all the others are hypocrites.
Why? At least New York is honest about it. NY doesn't try to pretend it doesn't look and is comfortable with its gayness, whereas all the others are hypocrites.
Im gonna have to do a lot of googling to pad our stats. THank god I have a long weekend coming up.
1. Mississippi 2. Texas 3. New Mexico 4. Florida 5. West Virginia 6. Louisiana 7. Kentucky 8. New York 9. Arizona 10. Colorado
YAAY! I've long suspected my state was in the closet! Shame we're a hell of a way from coming out. But oh the self loathing! No wonder my parents are so uptight about this. One day I hope I can come out.
If I were a Texan homophobe, I'd argue that the reason for all the Googling is to find out where it is so we can keep it away from our childrens. And so that we can better define it in the laws we are making to ban it. Yup.
The most reasonable devil's advocate point I can think of is that all the gay people in California are too busy having the gay sex to be looking up porn of it on the Internet, but in places like Texas the gay people (regardless of political affiliation) have to be a bit more reserved about it in public, so have to get their sexual release through pornography instead.
What world is he living in? I mean maybe in certain parts of Austin, but otherwise...
Let's just say where I live isn't very friendly and leave it at that. Also, my parents aren't any less homophobic than they were a few years ago. Well, maybe my mother a bit, but she always defers to father.
What world is he living in? I mean maybe in certain parts of Austin, but otherwise...
Let's just say where I live isn't very friendly and leave it at that. Also, my parents aren't any less homophobic than they were a few years ago. Well, maybe my mother a bit, but she always defers to father.
Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread.
Well, if you're going to talk about people who are rather less than fond of homosexuals, the republican thread isn't really the worst place to do it.
What world is he living in? I mean maybe in certain parts of Austin, but otherwise...
Let's just say where I live isn't very friendly and leave it at that. Also, my parents aren't any less homophobic than they were a few years ago. Well, maybe my mother a bit, but she always defers to father.
Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread.
These are the Front Row Crew Forums, we lost those rails years ago.
Check out this repulsive bullshit from North Carolina. I'd be heading to a protest if I was anywhere near that church. This kind of foulness needs to be called out for what it is. Also, if any religious leader ever EVER starts talking about who to vote for, like this asshole did, they should immediately loose their 'tax exempt' status. You get involved in politics, you pay the piper.
Y'know what pisses me off about those guys? They always tend to be overweight, middle-aged white guys with weird hair and cheap suits. Even if their suits are expensive, they look cheap because those bastards are always overweight, have no taste, and don't know how to wear them.
I'm always a little afraid when I wear a suit (especially around here) that someone will mistake me for a preacher. No one has, of course, because I'm too gooddamn mean and I don't have a stupid sounding southern accent. Those guys makes the rest of us middle-aged white guys look really bad, especially those of us, who for one reason or another are living (if only temporarily), in the less developed regions of our fucked-up country.
Okay - kind of on a rant here - the other thing that pisses me off about those guys is that they don't really need any education whatsoever. It's true. In some of these more fundamental, conservative sects, all you have to do is quote the Bible a couple of times, say some weird, stupid shit, and BAM! - you're a preacher. At least the Catholics require some school before you can do that sort of shit, and I think that's why we don't hear as much craziness from the Catholics (note: I'm not saying we hear no craziness, I'm just saying that we hear less).
Okay - kind of on a rant here - the other thing that pisses me off about those guys is that they don't really need any education whatsoever. It's true. In some of these more fundamental, conservative sects, all you have to do is quote the Bible a couple of times, say some weird, stupid shit, and BAM! - you're a preacher. At least the Catholics require some school before you can do that sort of shit, and I think that's why we don't hear as much craziness from the Catholics (note: I'm not saying we hear no craziness, I'm just saying that we hear less).
Yeah, a lot of the fundy churches think that having divine inspiration is all you need to become a preacher. The Catholic church requires the equivalent of a bachelor's or master's degree in Catholic theology before you can become a priest. Part of it has to do with most fundy churches going with literal interpretations of the Bible (for some definition of "literal") whereas Catholic theology is heavily influenced by 2,000 or so years of theological thought (part of the reason why you need those degrees to become a priest). Catholic theology also states that the Bible is not to be interpreted literally and that much of it is parable used to illustrate morality, faith, and such.
The fact that Catholic interpretations can change also means I have far more faith in Catholicism eventually changing with the times (even if it's crazy slow) than many of the branches of Christianity you find in the so-called Bible Belt. Remember, Catholic theology has stated that the universe is 15 or so billion years old, the earth is 4 billion or so, and evolution is the scientific description of the process of Creation. They've also adapted by eventually agreeing Galileo was right and by ditching the Latin Rite in favor of services in local native languages.
Income of professionals — such as doctors, lawyers, architects, and accountants — practicing in partnerships will be tax-free. In a law firm, for example, the partners will pay no tax, while the clerical staff will continue on the tax rolls.
Income received from partnerships and trusts will be tax-free. Wealthy Kansans who own real estate, stocks, bonds and other investments will simply transfer those assets to a partnership or trust, thereby freeing all their investment income from tax.
All income of farmers will be exempt from tax.
Who will still be paying Kansas income tax? Only three groups: 1) employees, 2) some retirees and 3) individuals whose investments are so modest that they cannot afford to create a trust or partnership to shelter their investment income.
Well, I think that state is toast. I have no clue how that legislation could ever get passed, but it did.
Enjoy your crippling budget deficits and ultimate governmental shutdown, Kansas. Colorado should just absorb you and make you cool and logical.
The ironic thing about Kansas was that around the turn of the 20th century, it was considered one of the more progressive states. There's even a book about it, What's the Matter with Kansas.
He's right, though. I'd like to think that military casualties "died for their country," but the truth is that they are victims of political agendas.
Does that make them heroes or abused tools? I guess that comes down to a case-by-case basis. I know military heroes and I knew military heroes. I've also known military shits.
The problem comes when you categorically call veterans/war casualties heroes. I'm guilty of this; my publication just ran a big Memorial Day section calling them heroes. But it's complicated by the social taboo against speaking ill of the dead. There is little to be gained by telling family members that their loved ones died to line the pockets of military contractors or to enhance the favorability rating of a few politicians. There is much to be lost.
It's the mass cultural equivalent of the white lie to spare someone's feelings. But Chris Hayes is right in stopping to ask whether or not the lie is ethical, especially when it's used to leverage support for wars of questionable morality.
The worrying thing is the level of outrage levelled at him when he was simply questioning the language we use. The manner in which rational discourse can be quashed so ruthlessly on the public stage is disturbing.
The worrying thing is the level of outrage levelled at him when he was simply questioning the language we use. The manner in which rational discourse can be quashed so ruthlessly on the public stage is disturbing.
Comments
Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread.
I'm always a little afraid when I wear a suit (especially around here) that someone will mistake me for a preacher. No one has, of course, because I'm too gooddamn mean and I don't have a stupid sounding southern accent. Those guys makes the rest of us middle-aged white guys look really bad, especially those of us, who for one reason or another are living (if only temporarily), in the less developed regions of our fucked-up country.
Okay - kind of on a rant here - the other thing that pisses me off about those guys is that they don't really need any education whatsoever. It's true. In some of these more fundamental, conservative sects, all you have to do is quote the Bible a couple of times, say some weird, stupid shit, and BAM! - you're a preacher. At least the Catholics require some school before you can do that sort of shit, and I think that's why we don't hear as much craziness from the Catholics (note: I'm not saying we hear no craziness, I'm just saying that we hear less).
The fact that Catholic interpretations can change also means I have far more faith in Catholicism eventually changing with the times (even if it's crazy slow) than many of the branches of Christianity you find in the so-called Bible Belt. Remember, Catholic theology has stated that the universe is 15 or so billion years old, the earth is 4 billion or so, and evolution is the scientific description of the process of Creation. They've also adapted by eventually agreeing Galileo was right and by ditching the Latin Rite in favor of services in local native languages.
Does that make them heroes or abused tools? I guess that comes down to a case-by-case basis. I know military heroes and I knew military heroes. I've also known military shits.
The problem comes when you categorically call veterans/war casualties heroes. I'm guilty of this; my publication just ran a big Memorial Day section calling them heroes. But it's complicated by the social taboo against speaking ill of the dead. There is little to be gained by telling family members that their loved ones died to line the pockets of military contractors or to enhance the favorability rating of a few politicians. There is much to be lost.
It's the mass cultural equivalent of the white lie to spare someone's feelings. But Chris Hayes is right in stopping to ask whether or not the lie is ethical, especially when it's used to leverage support for wars of questionable morality.