Yet another closeted gay conservative Republican senator gets jiggy and gets caught. Thank you conservative Republicans for being so completely repressed about your sexuality, it really spices up the news!

Senator pleaded guilty, reportedly after bathroom stall incident (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/?iref=mpstoryview)

In recent years, Craig's voting record has earned him top ratings from social conservative groups such as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council.

He has supported a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, telling his colleagues that it was "important for us to stand up now and protect traditional marriage, which is under attack by a few unelected judges and litigious activists."

In 1996, Craig also voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages and prevents states from being forced to recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples legally performed in other states.

From the article.

According to Roll Call, the arresting officer alleged that Craig lingered outside a rest room stall where the officer was sitting, then entered the stall next door and blocked the door with his luggage.

According to the arrest report cited by Roll Call, Craig tapped his right foot, which the officer said he recognized "as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct."

The report alleges Craig then touched the officer's foot with his foot and the senator "proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times," according to Roll Call.

At that point, the officer said he put his police identification down by the floor so Craig could see it and informed the senator that he was under arrest, before any sexual contact took place.

To be honest, I have no idea how you'd go about signalling a desire for lewd conduct in an airport restroom. Is this really what happens?

Hell, even I don't know that ;)

When I head about the foot tap, I had wondered if he was just out of toilet paper and that was a way to get the guy's attention to ask for some.

Wait, am I a gay conservative republican today or one of those anarchist libertatians? Must be the later since I don't know the special gay signals.

EDIT: Yea, that was sarcasm, you doofus.

Well, he did plead guilty.

Yet another closeted gay conservative Republican senator gets jiggy and gets caught. Thank you conservative Republicans for being so completely repressed about your sexuality, it really spices up the news!



Not even close to the "news-spiciness" of the closeted gay liberal Democrat congressman who had sex with an under-age House page (Gerry Studds) or the closeted gay liberal Democrat congressman who allowed his homosexual lover to run a prostitution business out of his own home in Washington (Barney Frank).

When it comes to perversity neither party nor political inclination has anything close to a monopoly.

Makes me wonder what might be in the hvac vents up there.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/28/MNMJRQB4G.DTL&tsp=1 In 2006, a gay activist alleged he had spoken with men who had sexual encounters with Craig, including an anonymous man in the restrooms at Union Station in Washington. Craig's office told the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Wash., that the allegations were ridiculous.It would have been even more entertaining had he not pleaded guilty.

When it comes to perversity neither party nor political inclination has anything close to a monopoly.But when it comes to hypocrisy, it's hard to compete with the right-wing Christian "family values" crowd.

But when it comes to hypocrisy, it's hard to compete with the right-wing Christian "family values" crowd.

Give me a break. If Craig had been a liberal democrat most of the media would have been screaming about entrapment. Isn't there a liberal movement to decriminalize the use of rest rooms and highway rest stops for homosexual encounters? I remember a story about one state trooper who was censured for patrolling rest stops and ordering men who had stopped for no apparent "honest" reason to get in their cars and "move on". He was accused of harassment and intolerance.

Craig may well be a slimebag but gimmee a break if you're going to use his behavior to fling mud at everyone who espouses "family values." Hypocrites can be found lurking everywhere and especially under rocks.

Hypocrites can be found lurking everywhere and especially under rocks.

Actually, if you hide under a rock and don't say anything then it's hard to contradict your words by your actions :).

Give me a break. If Craig had been a liberal democrat most of the media would have been screaming about entrapment.That wouldn't have involved any hypocrisy, though.Isn't there a liberal movement to decriminalize the use of rest rooms and highway rest stops for homosexual encounters?I wouldn't know; around here, homosexual encounters occur in the same way that heterosexual encounters do.

It's rather sad to hear that Minnesotans are so intolerant that gays have to lurk in public bathrooms and make foot signals just to hook up.Craig may well be a slimebag but gimmee a break if you're going to use his behavior to fling mud at everyone who espouses "family values."He's just one in a long line of right-wing Christians who preach one thing then do exactly the opposite. It's so common, that whenever I see a religious zealot who preaches "family values" I can safely assume he does the reverse in private.

You are absolutely correct in that everyone who preaches values and morals, are themselves immoral and go against their values from time to time. Their transgressions against their value set may or may not be in the field that is currently receiving political attention at the whim of the people at the time. Currently, it is gay relations and things that impact them. Next generation, it might be online affairs. Who can tell?

For example, I see plenty of 'moral' people insisting that everyone should stay faithful to your spouse, and then screwing up later. Any immoral behavior you care to name will have those that oppose it, and many such immoral behaviors are bad for society, the specifics depending on which study came out this week. Whether these morality supporters be Republican, Democrat, Independent, or other; they will, by nature, have skeletons of some variety in their closet. This is not shocking or new information. This is humanity.

It takes one mistake to fall; a lifetime of perfection to do the opposite.

How many murders must one commit to be a murderer?
How many affairs must one have to be an adulterer?
How many things must one steal in order to be a thief?
How many lies must one tell in order to be a liar?

If it turns out that waving your hand under a stall is soliciting gay sex, then what he did, especially since he is married, was wrong. It remains wrong even if everyone who says it is wrong is currently doing it.

I'm not sure when the current societal caveat came into existence, but it becomes almost apparent whenever someone that is seen to be "moral" falls. The caveat is also completely idiotic. Let me see if I can capture its essence:

"In order to attempt to dictate right or wrong behavior of any form to society at large, the one dictating this must be perfect, and without flaws. If they ever are found to have a flaw that they spoke against, then their points and issues are null and void, their value system is found to be false, and their God is found not to exist. "

Foolishness. We are all fallible beings here.

Certain things (not all things) are either right or wrong, regardless of who's doing them, speaking for them, speaking against them, or ignoring them.

How about NOT dictating in the first place?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exDo2SMdB-0

"In order to attempt to dictate right or wrong behavior of any form to society at large, the one dictating this must be perfect, and without flaws. If they ever are found to have a flaw that they spoke against, then their points and issues are null and void, their value system is found to be false, and their God is found not to exist. "

You're confusing the issue. It's much simpler than that. In order to dictate that people shouldn't have gay sex you shouldn't yourself indulge in secretive gay sex. In order to dictate that marraige is of utmost importance you should yourself respect marraige vows.

We're not talking about a "flaw" here. We're talking about politicians secretly exercising the freedoms that they are deliberately trying to remove from other people. They're misleading their supporters and oppressing their opponents. Why should they get any sympathy from anyone?

"In order to attempt to dictate right or wrong behavior of any form to society at large, the one dictating this must be perfect, and without flaws. If they ever are found to have a flaw that they spoke against, then their points and issues are null and void, their value system is found to be false, and their God is found not to exist. "To avoid hypocrisy, you don't have to be perfect, you just have to follow the same rules you try to impose on others against their will. Christians, by and large, don't.

If you can't follow your own rules, don't pretend that you can and in any event stop trying to force ME to follow them.

In the privacy of your own home, you can pray to your fictional gods and deny yourself sex all you want. I'm not a Christian, and therefore I won't try to torture or kill you because your mythology is different, I won't try to convert you to atheism at gunpoint, and I won't force you to have sex the way some book requires it.Certain things (not all things) are either right or wrong, regardless of who's doing them, speaking for them, speaking against them, or ignoring them.Being gay, bisexual, or just wanting to experiment isn't wrong, except in your hypocritical Christian zealot world.

I am a firm believer that morality should not be dictated by the government anyway.

"In order to attempt to dictate right or wrong behavior of any form to society at large, the one dictating this must be perfect, and without flaws. If they ever are found to have a flaw that they spoke against, then their points and issues are null and void, their value system is found to be false, and their God is found not to exist. "
If you're trying to pass laws that oppress people who do something, and you're currently doing the same thing, isn't that pretty much the pinnacle of hypocracy? It seems like you're spending a lot of time trying to explain away why that sort of hypocracy is ok.

I don't know about you but I generally expect people to practice what they preach. If they don't, why should they have any credibility or influence over anyone? We are more than just our words, in fact, I give words very little credibility. It is your deeds that you should be measured by. And this is what I find so unbelievable about the conservative social movement... it is, at times, all words with the deeds totally not falling in line with the words. Especially when it comes to making laws over other people's behaviors.

We're not talking about a "flaw" here. We're talking about politicians secretly exercising the freedoms that they are deliberately trying to remove from other people. They're misleading their supporters and oppressing their opponents. Why should they get any sympathy from anyone?

I am not up on the secret codes of bathroom soliciation, so forgive me if I reserve my utter condemnnation of the person until such time that it is definitely confirmed that waving your hand under a stall is asking for "teh buttsechs".

Seems a bit esoteric to me. But if you had read my above post fully, you would know that I am not trying to defend him if what he did, is in fact, what the media is makng it out to be. Have they definitely confirmed that is what he was seeking? If he confesses, that would be the best way to ascertain what his intent actually was.

In the privacy of your own home, you can pray to your fictional gods and deny yourself sex all you want. I'm not a Christian, and therefore I won't try to torture or kill you because your mythology is different, I won't try to convert you to atheism at gunpoint, and I won't force you to have sex the way some book requires it.

I see what you've done there.

"I'm not a Christian, and therefore I don't:"

Torture/kill based on beliefs = lethal force to convert to another belief = banning a sexual behavior.

The bait is very visible, but you just have to have a response to it, I'm guessing.

Might I have the temerity to suggest that the three behaviors you listed are not all the same?
Might I also suggest that no one is forcing anyone to do anything?
I am unaware of any laws banning gay sexual relations proposed in recent years. All the ones on state books have been struck, or are going to be struck. No one is forcing them to not practice their relations in the privacy of their own homes, much like you have no problem with Christians in theirs.

/sideline on

It's not tolerance that the LGBT groups want. They have that already from me, as a Christian. It's not my place to be bedroom police.

The problem arises when they want "morally equivalent" acceptance, and they vehemently sue to get it. You aren't going to get Christians as a whole to accept homosexuality, adultery, and anything else as morally equivalent to one man/one woman marriage. And yes, because the Bible tells them so.

Going back to the civil arena, it's when LGBT groups attempt to redefine the word "marriage" that it encroaches on others' beliefs (not just Christian, btw. Muslims and Orthodox Jewish as well). If they came up with another contract that gave them the legal rights of marriage, without invoking marriage or the church in any way, then there would hopefully be no protests.

The worry with the civil unions and alternate means of union, is that the government will somehow force the churches to perform, or force them to be performed on their property.

If the following conditions applied:

1) Only justices of the peace could perform civil unions
2) Civil unions could only be performed in a courthouse
3) (the big one) They were excepted from the Full Faith and Credit clauses between the states.

,then I see that as the perfect way to give LGBT couples the rights they say they are being denied, without infringing on churches and others' beliefs about their practices.

/sideline off

I am a firm believer that morality should not be dictated by the government anyway.

So. . what's left for the government to dictate? There's more than just Christian morality, you know.

Morality includes murder, rape, theft, child abuse, domestic abuse, and a host of other activities, all of which the government dictates you should not do.

In fact,
Main Entry: mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
1 a of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment

Those definitions are all pointing to notion of "right" and "wrong" behavior. The government has definite notions about what is "right" and "wrong" behavior, and makes laws against the wrong behavior, then making it illegal. No behavior is illegal that at one point was not considered wrong by the law's authors.

Additionally, if you truly believe your statement, then "Do as thou wilt" is the whole of the law.

Otherwise, you have some system of morality being enforced. It may not be based on religion, but some behaviors are "right", and not punished, and some are "wrong", and are punished. "Legal" and "illegal" are then just government words for "right" and "wrong".

It seems like you're spending a lot of time trying to explain away why that sort of hypocracy is ok.

No, hypocrisy is not ok. But we are all hypocrits at some point or time in our lives. It may be for something minor, like saying someone is lazy, and then later, being lazy ourselves. You can say that example of hypocrisy has no ill effects, so doesn't count, but in principle it's the same.

I don't know about you but I generally expect people to practice what they preach. If they don't, why should they have any credibility or influence over anyone?

So, you do believe then, that our lawmakers should be perfect in their deeds in order to have the moral authority to make laws.

Wow. Might I guess that you have problems with every lawmaking official?

I agree with you in principle about hypocrisy and not respecting those who fail to practice what they preach. Where I differ vehemently is in your identification of hypocrisy with "the conservative social movement." The hypocritical behavior among liberals and left-wingers is so pervasive that the best argument to be made is that hypocrisy is pandemic across the political spectrum. Just consider Hollywood celebrities and politicos like Al Gore who preach about protecting the environment yet tool around in SUVs and private jets while living in mansions which burn more electricity than some small towns.

Anyone who identifies hypocrisy with conservatism is just demonstrating their own political bias.

Just consider Hollywood celebrities and politicos like Al Gore who preach about protecting the environment yet tool around in SUVs and private jets while living in mansions which burn more electricity than some small towns.That's a totally different situation.

1) Al Gore doesn't attempt to hide his oil/energy use.
2) Al Gore also has a far greater need to use more oil/energy than the average person.
3) The total pro-environmental effect of his work that is made possible by the oil/energy use overwhelmingly exceeds the environmental detriment, whereas most people just piss away oil/energy for the hell of it.

Otherwise, you have some system of morality being enforced. It may not be based on religion, but some behaviors are "right", and not punished, and some are "wrong", and are punished

You left out the category of "not wrong", and are punished.

I am sure that we can agree that we are discussing this very group. Your omission of it, was in intentional or unintentional?



Unless you are such a mush head to have the belief that; "If punished" therefore it is wrong, is a correct statement. If this is the case, it only proves your opponents arguments further; and people who have opinions like yours should somehow be prevented from making laws in the first place.

Torture/kill based on beliefs = lethal force to convert to another belief = banning a sexual behavior.

Might I have the temerity to suggest that the three behaviors you listed are not all the same?They're the same in principle, the difference is just in the degree. (And Christians are fond of all three.)Might I also suggest that no one is forcing anyone to do anything?Of course you are. You are forcing gays to forgo all the economic and social benefits heterosexuals get through marriage. By perpetuating bigotry, you are also forcing gays to lurk in bathroom stalls and tap their feet just to have sex.No, hypocrisy is not ok. But we are all hypocrits at some point or time in our lives.But we are not all bigoted preachers. At least we non-Christians aren't. Therein lies the difference.

They're the same in principle, the difference is just in the degree.

They are the same in that they are punished, true. They are not the same in that the crime either affects you or does not. If you murder me, you harm me. If you have gay sex it does not harm me. If you pay for sex it does not harm me.

Not a matter of degrees.


Mala in se
Mala prohiba

Two different things.

If you murder me, you harm me. If you have gay sex it does not harm me. If you pay for sex it does not harm me.It is a matter of degree; you're just giving two different examples.

The accurate comparisons would be "if you murder me, you harm me; if you force me not to have sex, you harm me" and the opposite, "if you murder him, you don't harm me; if you force him not to have sex, you don't harm me."

The overriding Christian principle is, of course, control. And forced conversions, torture, and sex bans are all different ways of accomplishing it.

Your comparison leaves out...

If you murder him, you harm him. Etc.

If you have sex with him, you don't harm him.
If you pay to have sex, you don't harm him/her.
One can even argue that you are helping him or her, you are doing the opposite of harm.



Additionally, just so that there is no confusion, we have to agree that theft is harm.
That is harder for socialists to understand, I know, but we do need that as common ground for this debate.

Your comparison leaves out...

If you murder him, you harm him. Etc.

If you have sex with him, you don't harm him.You are still talking about something completely different.

The comparison is between murdering and restricting sex -- both common tools of Christian oppression -- not having sex. (Unless you're talking about rape, another favorite Christian pastime).Additionally, just so that there is no confusion, we have to agree that theft is harm.I don't see why we wouldn't.

I just don't want to get caught in the ideological trap.

For example:
A responsible breeding policy or system of laws would be a good thing for our society. Yet because the NAZIs(bad people) did it, it has to also be bad. An ethical program or system is thwarted because bad people once did it(badly, of course).

Judge the behavior on its own merit seems more logical to me.

Not every thing that Christians do or want are necessarily bad or wrong. Just a lot of it is. But just like the NAZIs, they are in the majority and hard to fight against.

Just consider Hollywood celebrities and politicos like Al Gore who preach about protecting the environment yet tool around in SUVs and private jets while living in mansions which burn more electricity than some small towns.

Who do cynical polluters expect all environmentalists to live in caves and weave their own clothes, yet still laugh at those eccentrics who actually do it?

They're the same in principle, the difference is just in the degree. (And Christians are fond of all three.) You are forcing gays to forgo all the economic and social benefits heterosexuals get through marriage. By perpetuating bigotry, you are also forcing gays to lurk in bathroom stalls and tap their feet just to have sex.But we are not all bigoted preachers. At least we non-Christians aren't. Therein lies the difference.

You use the word bigotry, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

I, nor most Christians, hate or are intolerant of homosexuals. I explained what some politically active homosexuals want beyond mere toleration* of their practices. They want to be seen as an equally moral choice compared to monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

*Tolerance means "to put up with", from the Latin toleratus, past participle of tolerare, which means to endure, put up with. This is not about toleration.

You are forcing gays to forgo all the economic and social benefits heterosexuals get through marriage.

This one sentence proves you don't read my posts, and just see:

"A Christian posting? Ha, I have this bigoted, close minded fool figured out. I will post accordingly."

Either that, or you're just trying to get a rise out of me, or you just seriously hate Christians that dare to come out of their houses and have the temerity to speak their minds.

So, go back, read my post on how to once and for all settle the "denying rights to gays!!1!!" objection.

I am finished with this thread.

I, nor most Christians, hate or are intolerant of homosexuals.Then why do you want to deny them the same rights you have?

They want to be seen as an equally moral choice compared to monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
They are seen that way by non bigots.

*Tolerance means "to put up with", from the Latin toleratus, past participle of tolerare, which means to endure, put up with. This is not about toleration.
Well, we all know how well the Romans tolerated Christians, don't we?


"A Christian posting? Ha, I have this bigoted, close minded fool figured out. I will post accordingly."
Fair assessment.

Either that, or you're just trying to get a rise out of me, or you just seriously hate Christians that dare to come out of their houses and have the temerity to speak their minds.
Yes, you Christians should just slink back into your homes and temples, and keep your bigoted yaps shut. You are figuring that out, good.

Keep your silly Bible where it should be, and out of the public square, legislatures, and out of courthouses. Your book of myths does not belong making laws, not in this country. It belongs in your homes and in your churches, the rest of us will tolerate that.


I am finished with this thread.
Amen.

Not every thing that Christians do or want are necessarily bad or wrong.Did anyone say (or imply) that's so?

Against my better judgement I want to add a few words.

I, nor most Christians, hate or are intolerant of homosexuals.

I am sorry, but this does not bear out from the observed facts. I have no reason to doubt you when you say that you do not hate homosexuals and are not intolerant towards them. I also can not make claims regarding the majority of Christians (unlike Tuda is fond to do). However, it does not take all that much looking around to see that homosexuality hating is regularly sanctioned by Christian religious leaders (and also by just about every other religion out there). It is in the Christian holy book that homosexuality is a sin and those who practice it are going to end up in hell. At least people are no longer burned alive (or otherwise creatively and painfully killed) for it with the full support of the church. It does not take all that much looking around to find Christian inspired studies/universities/doctors who operate on the assumption that homosexuality is a disease and that praying hard enough to their god is going to cure you of it.
I am not saying you, or all, or even most Christians are hating homosexuals, but as a religion Christianity is pretty hostile towards homosexuality.


I explained what some politically active homosexuals want beyond mere toleration* of their practices. They want to be seen as an equally moral choice compared to monogamous, heterosexual marriage.


I am sorry, but this sounds entirely too much like blaming the victim to me.
Of course homosexuals want more than toleration (which is in this discussion a nice word for saying: I think you are a pervert but if you are hiding in a hole in the ground I think I can let you rot there).
By the way you phrase your refusal (i.e. claiming it is not an equally moral choice) you are essentially condemning every homosexual as being less than you. That is not tolerance and it is a very long way from acceptance (which is a reasonable thing to ask for by homosexuals). On what ground would a heterosexual 'one man one woman' pairing be the only moral choice to spend your life? Is one man and four women unacceptable somehow? Or perhaps one woman and two men? Or maybe two men and two women? With the possible exception of the last all of these are existing and perfectly acceptable, and within their cultures 'moral' ways, to create permanent bonds.

You (generic you) can not go around making claims what is right or wrong for people to do within their own lives. You most certainly can not easily go around limiting their choices based on your own sense of right and wrong. The one thing we can base our laws on is the concept of harm, and even there we must be very careful because it is entirely too easy to twist the concept of harm into justifying our own morality becoming law (e.g. somebody who devoutly believes that practicing homosexuals go to hell could feel justified in outlawing the practice and even accept excessive punishment, on the ground that he is in fact protecting their souls from eternal harm and any physical discomfort is insignificant compared to that).

Still, if the objection against gay marriage was really only about the word and not about the principle I think the issue would have been settled long ago. Or at the very least a few years. But we both know that the objection really is about the idea of gays marrying and that the word is only a convenient rallying cry by certain leaders to get their masses of followers behind them in their objections. (and this is at both ends of the argument, both proponents and opponents!).
In the Netherlands we have a 'civil marriage', which is performed by a civil servant in the town council building, and which is the legal binding relation between two adults, with all the rights and obligations for the law. And we have a 'church marriage' which is performed by clergy in a building of worship for whatever religion you chose. While legally speaking it is window dressing, for those who care about it, it is the other half of marriage. A church is free to restrict who can and can not be married (though it can not put legal restrictions on a civil marriage that are not mandated by law. I.e. any religious restrictions on marriage are between the person and his or her faith, not between the person and the state). Homosexuals can have a civil marriage under this system, but no faith can be forced to give them a church marriage (nor is that required for the legality of the marriage).
A solution like this could easily be adopted in the USA as well, but I do believe suggestions along this line have been shot down in the (recent) past.


*Tolerance means "to put up with", from the Latin toleratus, past participle of tolerare, which means to endure, put up with. This is not about toleration.

And this definition already shows that tolerance is at its root about inequality.
We 'put up' with something either because we do not have the power to change it, or because we do not care enough to try to change it. But if we were not convinced that it was not wrong or inequal or immoral we would not have to put up with it. We would accept it, or better yet, we would not think about it at all. We do not, after all, have to 'put up' with people wearing white T-shirts.
So, I think that homosexuals asking for a little more equality than 'tolerance' are not being entirely unreasonable.


This one sentence proves you don't read my posts, and just see:

"A Christian posting? Ha, I have this bigoted, close minded fool figured out. I will post accordingly."


I do agree that Tuda has the tendency to fly off the handle, make sweeping generalisations and argues rather aggressively. His wild attack on you, and all Christians, was uncalled for.


Eri

In the Netherlands we have a 'civil marriage', which is performed by a civil servant in the town council building, and which is the legal binding relation between two adults, with all the rights and obligations for the law. A solution like this could easily be adopted in the USA as well, but I do believe suggestions along this line have been shot down in the (recent) past.We do have something along those lines, called a domestic partnership. But here even in San Francisco, where domestic partners have the most rights, they still have a long way to go to be recognized as married people are.

The difference is, you live in a secular country, whereas we live in a religious one.I do agree that Tuda has the tendency to fly off the handle, make sweeping generalisations and argues rather aggressively. His wild attack on you, and all Christians, was uncalled for.It wasn't an attack per se, it was a summary of Christian history from the middle 4th century to the present, and an accurate one at that.

If you're a Christian today, you can probably trace your family's religious history back to an ancestor who was forced to convert with a sword pointed at his neck.

I, nor most Christians, hate or are intolerant of homosexuals. I explained what some politically active homosexuals want beyond mere toleration* of their practices. They want to be seen as an equally moral choice compared to monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

*Tolerance means "to put up with", from the Latin toleratus, past participle of tolerare, which means to endure, put up with. This is not about toleration.


That, I am afraid, is twisting the meaning of bigotry. Before Rosa Parks, I'm sure that black people were tolerated as long as they sat at the right end of the bus.

I see this board is just chock full of tolerance of other viewpoints and lifestyles.

HINT: that was freakin sarcasm

Hypocrisy abounds.

That's a totally different situation.

1) Al Gore doesn't attempt to hide his oil/energy use.
2) Al Gore also has a far greater need to use more oil/energy than the average person.
3) The total pro-environmental effect of his work that is made possible by the oil/energy use overwhelmingly exceeds the environmental detriment, whereas most people just piss away oil/energy for the hell of it.

This responds to your contention that the height of hypocrisy is to preach something while personally not living up to it. My contention is that Al Gore, among MANY other liberals (he probably isn't close to the worst, gimmee a few minutes and I can come up with many more) is an example of gross hypocrisy on the left because his lifestyle doesn't honor the principles he wants to impose on the rest of us.

WHY does Al Gore NEED to use more energy than the rest of us? He could travel on commercial airliners, he could ride in a hybrid Toyota rather than a gas-guzzling SUV, he could go vegetarian, it would do him some good to shrink that gut. He talks the talk but won't walk the walk. If the contention is that he's somehow "more important" than the ordinary guy therefore deserving of a bigger share of this planet's limited assets, then I hate to tell ya but that's just the kind of "holier-than-thou" attitude which will lead Democrats to lose control of Congress in the very near future. In terms of your 3rd comment, this would only be true if we could harness the hot air he blows to some kind of turbine and store the energy in some kind of environmentally safe batteries.

We used to have a governor here in Massachusetts, Mike Dukakis, a liberal who I disagreed with on many issues but one thing he did impress me with is that he used to ride the "T" (our local subway) to work. Maybe that's unrealistic today but the willingness to show the world that you try to live the lifestyle you recommend to others goes far toward making the argument convincing. Isn't that your whole point about Craig, that by living contrary to the principles he espouses he renders himself unworthy of being listened to?

What's bad for the right-winger, is equally bad for the left-winger. You'd see that if you could see beyond your own bias.

I realize your ploy of trying to deflect the criticism off of your hero and derail the discussion but Al Gore offsets his carbon use by purchasing carbon credits. I.e. investing in wind and solar credits. There's simply no way for him to do the job he does without flying and traveling.

In general anyone living in a big house, and wealthy people in particular, are going to have a huge carbon footprint. There are ways for them to assuage their conscious by:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1
The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program  electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."
It is good he got called on the carpet for it I hope he shows other rich and famous people how they can live in a manner that is less intrusive on the climate.

I see this board is just chock full of tolerance of other viewpoints and lifestyles.

I don't deny that I am intolerant. Or a bigot.

I realize your ploy of trying to deflect the criticism off of your hero and derail the discussion but Al Gore offsets his carbon use by purchasing carbon credits. .

If by "your hero" you're referencing Craig you're way out of line. I've already called him a slimebag; he couldn't resign fast enough to suit me, assuming he is guilty, of course.

I love to see the extent that supporters of celebrity hypocrites will bend over backwards to excuse their idols. How about this story:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/07/kennedy_doesnt_play_by_the_rules/

This is from the Boston Globe, one of the most liberal newspapers in the country and even this paper chastises the grand ole man of liberalism, Mass. Senator Ted Kennedy for engaging in back room shenanigans to shoot down the proposed wind farm program off Cape Cod. This wind farm is projected to supply 75% of Cape Cod's energy needs by replacing oil with that most renewable of natural resource... WIND.

Why does Ted oppose the wind farm? Because it will mess up the view from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis and clutter up the scenery he likes to see when he goals sailing in the bay. Hypocrisy is spelled "K E N N E D Y"!

And realistically there is no good reason why rich people should feel justified in consuming more energy than the rest of us. Nobody HAS to live in a mansion or fly in a private jet. Sure, they CAN because they're rich but don't try to argue that this makes them somehow more deserving than the "average" man or woman.

You laud Gore for supposedly reducing his carbon footprint by some contrivances but the significant thing I read here is that he had to "called on it" before this balancing BS started. I'm not impressed by anyone who corrects bad behavior only when they're called out on it.

Deflect, deflect, deflect. Your tactics are old and over utilized, boringly predictable.

The topic is Social Conservative Republicans who would pass laws to oppress gay people yet secretly are gay themselves. It is becoming terribly cliche. In fact, one begins to wonder if being a SCR is some sort of over compensation for being uncomfortable with one's own gay sexuality. Not exactly a new concept since: Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal? (http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:OuUWXezMbF8J:www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf+)

You laud Gore for supposedly reducing his carbon footprint by some contrivances but the significant thing I read here is that he had to "called on it" before this balancing BS started. I'm not impressed by anyone who corrects bad behavior only when they're called out on it.

While it is true that 'celebrities' have high energy lifestyles and could certainly do better, there is a still a difference here. You are asking for people to meet your undefined environmental standard even before any law is in place. It is far worse for a politician to put laws in place and then fail their own chosen legal standard.

Asking politicians to set an example in their personal lives is always fraught with difficulty. Should they all cycle to work? Should they never touch alcohol or gamble? Must their families always enter the worst schools or live in slum areas to show just how much they are like working class people? Should their families be deprived of the best medical care because that care isn't financially available to their voters? Should they never take a foreign holiday and instead support local tourism? My personal opinion: I'm usually satisfied if they follow the laws they impose on everyone else.

(It is true though that the environmental debate puts out confusing messages of personal responsibility and institutional change. A person who wants to reduce exhaust emissions may or may not want recycling and nuclear power, but it if you package all environmentalists together it becomes easy to criticize a disparate group of people for not all adhering to a single standard. It's a cheap shot to criticize every environmentalist who uses air travel, for example).

My contention is that Al Gore, among MANY other liberals (he probably isn't close to the worst, gimmee a few minutes and I can come up with many more) is an example of gross hypocrisy on the left because his lifestyle doesn't honor the principles he wants to impose on the rest of us.It's not hypocrisy if he uses a little extra to help convince the world to improve the environment. (Note also the key word convince, instead of force.)

Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal? (http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:OuUWXezMbF8J:www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf+)You're incorrectly assuming that being aroused by watching gay pörn means you're gay. It doesn't.

Also, the less you watch pörn (your hypothetical homophobes), the more you're going to be aroused by it when you do watch it.

These researchers really need to think about their assumptions before putting out such a study.

N=30.

That is not a study.

It is hardly even a circle jerk.

And I am still trying to figure out if single orifice dp is gay or not.

First time I saw it, it was "This is cool".
Now I think, "Man, this is really gay".

Additionally if hot trannies are doing chicks, it's not gay.
But if they do dudes, the dudes are gay, but the trannies aren't(I think).

There are ways for them to assuage their conscious by:


Like medieval Catholics buying pardons from the Vatican for their sins?

Like medieval Catholics buying pardons from the Vatican for their sins?No, it's not like that at all. If you spew out X tons of carbon but use your income to cause X+1 tons of carbon not to be spewed out, you're helping the environment, even if X is a very big number.

You buy your own PR don't you?

Pity.

This is a fn joke.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-craig31aug31,0,3675793.story?coll=la-home-center


YOUYUUU gotta be kidding me.


Talk about a fn witch hunt. You know what, you Liberals disappoint me more than the Conservatives who have shunned this guy. You fn Liberals are no different than the fag haters, and you Conservatives? You can all burn in Hell.

Both of your houses can burn and rot in some Hieronymus Bosch Hell, for all I care. I hope you eat other's spleens, and fist **** each other in eternity.

Dude is not even gay, and has probably never even seen single orifice dp action, or trannie on girl action ****. Let alone any gay ****.

Dude just bumped his foot, and tried to get out of a higher crime without being discovered.

Cop was an ass. Probably likes it in his too.

And I am still trying to figure out if single orifice dp is gay or not.

First time I saw it, it was "This is cool".
Now I think, "Man, this is really gay".

Additionally if hot trannies are doing chicks, it's not gay.
But if they do dudes, the dudes are gay, but the trannies aren't(I think).

*blinks*

*blinks again*

*blinks again because doing so before did not improve things*

I know you do speak english here, but what are you saying?

And do I even want to know?


Eri

Dude just bumped his foot, and tried to get out of a higher crime without being discovered.Did you even listen to that tape? He was clearly lying his ass off. If he were truly innocent he would not have been so defensive and would have stuck to his original story without trying to weasel his way around what the cop was saying.

And he certainly would never have pleaded guilty to the charge if he didn't do it, and had nothing to hide. Don't tell me a bible-thumping gay-bashing "family values" senator didn't realize that pleading guilty to gay sex solicitation is political harakiri.

I wasn't really sure what went on before, but after listening to the tape, I am sure. He either did exactly what the cop said he did, or he was afraid of what will come out (i.e., his past gay flings) if he takes it to trial.Cop was an ass.That's his job.

No, it's not like that at all. If you spew out X tons of carbon but use your income to cause X+1 tons of carbon not to be spewed out, you're helping the environment, even if X is a very big number.

Gee, this argument never seems to work for me. Like I always tell people that knock my gas-guzzling SUV that if I'm willing to spend the extra money tacked onto such vehicles as a penalty for their high fuel consumption then take my money and STFU about me driving one. Same goes for any extra taxes they tack onto gasoline at the pump... if I burn more, I pay more and that includes taxes.

Does it help that I use a hand mower to cut my grass?

Even if I do this more for the exercise than to conserve fuel? Do I have to intend to conserve fuel for its own merits to be a good greenie?

I need a liberal to untangle the moral equivalencies here...

:lol:

Does it help that I use a hand mower to cut my grass?


Maybe, but you'd probably have to spend every hour of the day cutting grass just to compensate for the pollution of the SUV :).

Like I always tell people that knock my gas-guzzling SUV that if I'm willing to spend the extra money tacked onto such vehicles as a penalty for their high fuel consumption then take my money and STFU about me driving one.

Although extra taxation is likely on motor vehicles it's worth remembering that it's not a typical way of curbing pollution. You wouldn't tell the ranger in a national park that you just want to litter the place and you'll be happy to pay all the fines.

Gee, this argument never seems to work for me. Like I always tell people that knock my gas-guzzling SUV that if I'm willing to spend the extra money tacked onto such vehicles as a penalty for their high fuel consumption then take my money and STFU about me driving one.It doesn't work because it's not true. Any taxes imposed don't cover the extra damage done, and aren't directly used towards the environment anyway.Same goes for any extra taxes they tack onto gasoline at the pump... if I burn more, I pay more and that includes taxes.Again, those taxes aren't solely used to curb greenhouse gas emissions, let alone all the emissions from the gasoline, so it's irrelevant.I need a liberal to untangle the moral equivalencies here...It's not moral, but mathematical. Add what you put into the atmosphere, and subtract what you take out.

And now he's going to resign, confirming his guilt.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/31/national/a153556D03.DTLIdaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig will resign from the Senate amid a furor over his arrest and guilty plea in a police sex sting in an airport men's room, Republican officials said Friday.

Craig will announce at a news conference in Boise Saturday morning that he will resign effective Sept. 30, GOP officials in Idaho and Washington told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity.Maybe he should move to San Francisco.

Well Senator Closeted is resigning from the Senate due to pressure from the Republican party. I guess even they recognize stark hypocrisy when they see it. If they just let people alone with their sexuality then perhaps they wouldn't have to go through this.

Well Senator Closeted is resigning from the Senate due to pressure from the Republican party. I guess even they recognize stark hypocrisy when they see it. If they just let people alone with their sexuality then perhaps they wouldn't have to go through this.

The question of course remains who is being a hypocrit here. The senator, or the republican party, or the law?

And all the things this farce taught me that I did not want to know about the bizarre mating habits of the homo homo amaricanus ...

(the lengths people apparently must go to hide themselves, and that others go to arrest them. It is really rather sad if you look at it objectively).


Eri

Sadly Senator Craig would probably get a standing ovation if he walked into any gay bar in America... sad because the very people he oppressed the most probably feel sorry for him and understand him the best.

Sadly Senator Craig would probably get a standing ovation if he walked into any gay bar in America

I'd rather they didn't cheer him for (allegedly) being a married man who solicits sex from strangers in public toilets, to be honest.

Sadly Senator Craig would probably get a standing ovation if he walked into any gay bar in America...I doubt that; he's certainly not popular around here. He is seen a bigot (albeit a self-hating bigot), liar, and pervert.

Now, if instead of getting caught soliciting sex in a bathroom he had just come out of the closet on his own, he'd probably have the sympathy of the gay community.

Why would anyone want or need that sympathy?

I don't need the sympathy from the heterosexual community. I certainly don't have to seek their approval.

Why should gays?

A recurring theme of yours. I wonder where it comes from.

I don't need the sympathy from the heterosexual community.Because you're not an oppressed minority.

I don't need the sympathy from the heterosexual community. I certainly don't have to seek their approval.

Why should gays?

They shouldn't have to, but they do. Many gays struggle to get sympathy from even their parents when they come out. I imagine married republic politicians who come out of the closet would get even less sympathy than that ;).

Because you're not an oppressed minority.

Of course I am.

I am an Atheist Libertarian. Who is also pro war.

I think there is like ONE of us. I can't think of a minority with fewer numbers.


Maybe Black people who drive Mustangs. Second thought, I see too many of them, even if it is only a few.

And I also don't need any sympathy from Atheists, Libertarians, or pro war hawks.

Many gays struggle to get sympathy from even their parents when they come out.
That is stupid.

Grandma and grandpa have found out their genetic line has stopped, and they are suppose to be sympathetic?

Why should they be?

Hell, my Dad has berated me and chastised me on most of my life decisions. Still does. Can you imagine his acceptance IF he found out my REAL sexual orientations? That is why they invented privacy and secrets.

Just because you are gay, you expect special sympathy. Why?

Just because you are gay, you expect special sympathy. Why?

I don't think it is special sympathy. Many heterosexuals want approval/sympathy from their parents too for decisions about marraige, divorce, abortion, etc. Families can certainly become estranged over those sort of issues.

I expect they want no more special sympathy than a child who has other problems, such as a divorce maybe.
Even with a divorce, they are still going to find another mate and breed. Most usually.

I don't tell people, especially my family, what I like sexually.

If I say, hey "I'm gay" to them, because what I really am telling them is, "Hey, Dad, I love to suck c0cks, and love to have a sweaty hairy man shove his in my butt."

If I were gay, I don't think I would ever be ready for that convo. And that is only because, because I certainly am not ready to tell anyone what I love to do with women.

I expect no sympathy for my own particular sexual peccadilloes. I expect the opposite really.

"Hey, Dad, Betty really likes it when I hang her from the ceiling and whip her....."

You finish the story, and tell me if you would like to explain that over a Thankgiving Dinner conversation to your parents. I doubt it.

Like I said, that is why they invented privacy and secrets.

Like I said, that is why they invented privacy and secrets.

Which is fine if you want homosexuals to stay in the closet and live out a lie, like this Senator (allegedly).

Which is fine if you want homosexuals to stay in the closet and live out a lie, like this Senator (allegedly).

I don't care if the Senator, you, or anyone likes to suck dick.

That was not the issue.

The issue was acceptance of the gay community.

We already know that Christian bigots like Gunny don't accept their behavior. Because they don't like guys who suck dick. They are perfectly fine knowing that their moms or daughters suck dick, they just don't like knowing that their dads or sons suck dick.

I certainly do not need the acceptance of them, or the gay community of what I do with their moms and daughters.

Why do gays need it?

If omission is a lie, then I lie all the time. /shrug. Why do gays need to be so truthful? I don't tell anyone what I do with women behind closed doors, and I tell you what, it is a whole lot freakier than a dude sucking a dude.

I can write about it here, because none of you know me. I don't care what you think, I don't care about your opinions of me, it won't affect me. But in the real world it is real, and I have to keep that sh!t secret.

I expect no affirmation or acceptance from the "I like to hang chicks from the ceiling, and whip them, and make them eat out other chicks" community. And contrary to Tudamorf's conjecture, this group is probably more of a minority than being just gay.

I don't care if you see me walking down the street and think, "Man, that is just a normal heterosexual good looking dude." Which is just as much a lie, if I were a homosexual good looking dude walking down the street, and you thought the same thing of me.

Which is just about as stupid as needing the acceptance or approval of the so called gay community. Who don't even, according to Tudamorf, accept or approve of bisexuals.

What a weird concept. But what is even more weird, is that there must be acceptance of that even.

"I am a cool heterosexual, because I accept only the sexuality of others if it is accepted by the gay community; aren't I cool heterosexual? Like me, because I am a cool, gay friendly heterosexual. I'm not gay, but I am on your side, please accept me even though I am heterosexual."


edit: Re: first sentence. Of course I do care if you are a hot chick with me and you like or don't like to suck dick. If you don't, hit the bricks sister. Ain't gonna happen.

Of course I am.

I am an Atheist Libertarian. Who is also pro war.You forgot the "oppressed" part.

When is the last time someone refused to hire you, refused to rent you an apartment, or beat you up for being an atheist libertarian?

Grandma and grandpa have found out their genetic line has stopped, and they are suppose to be sympathetic?Even with a divorce, they are still going to find another mate and breed. Most usually.Gays breed too.

You forgot the "oppressed" part.

When is the last time someone refused to hire you, refused to rent you an apartment, or beat you up for being an atheist libertarian?

My point is, that IF I flaunted it like a flaming fairy fruity fag, that would probably happen pretty often, wouldn't it?

But I hide it, don't I.

I have to stay in the closet, don't I.


If I drove around with a bumper sticker of an upside down blackened Cross from which hung aborted babies, and cum dripping bloody vaginas. How long do you think my car would go before being totaled by some rampaging Christian Atheist haters?

You really aren't arguing this, are you? You have got to be kidding me.

Gays breed too.

Really?

I never thought of that.

My partner was married and has 5 kids who we care for. I want kids of my own (tho doing so without having sex with a woman and having one the "normal" way makes it extremely difficult), too, one day.. So yes, we do "breed" and it's probably quite a lot more common than you would think.

I'd rather they didn't cheer him for (allegedly) being a married man who solicits sex from strangers in public toilets, to be honest.
That wouldn't be what they were cheering, it'd be recognition of the struggle to be honest about his sexuality and identifying with his failure to do so. Probably most grew up in environments where they weren't accepted and were ostracized for being who they are. I'm sure they realize that Craig's denial and behavior is due to all the crap they themselves had to go through. If he had been accepted for what he is, he probably never would have ended up like this. A married, closeted gay Republican being forced out of the Senate.

My point is, that IF I flaunted it like a flaming fairy fruity fag, that would probably happen pretty often, wouldn't it?I have never been "in the closet" about atheism, and I've never been personally targeted on account of it.

So no, it wouldn't happen pretty often, certainly not as often as it would happen if you were gay and admitted it.If I drove around with a bumper sticker of an upside down blackened Cross from which hung aborted babies, and cum dripping bloody vaginas. How long do you think my car would go before being totaled by some rampaging Christian Atheist haters?That's not just "coming out," it's launching an attack on the other side.

Really?

I never thought of that.Your post shows you didn't; maybe you've learned since then.

That wouldn't be what they were cheering, it'd be recognition of the struggle to be honest about his sexuality and identifying with his failure to do so. Probably most grew up in environments where they weren't accepted and were ostracized for being who they are. I'm sure they realize that Craig's denial and behavior is due to all the crap they themselves had to go through. If he had been accepted for what he is, he probably never would have ended up like this. A married, closeted gay Republican being forced out of the Senate.

It is his failure, in my opinion, and it shouldn't be condoned. He chose a career in politics where he was taking donations and using volunteers on a false premise. He presumably had enough money, contacts, and opportunity to find a career where he could have been honest with his family, friends, and colleagues. He chose instead to associate with the rich, powerful, and homophobic. He perhaps should have chosen better friends.

Your post shows you didn't; maybe you've learned since then.

How?

How?Grandma and grandpa have found out their genetic line has stopped, and they are suppose to be sympathetic?If you understand that gays breed and gay parenting is very common, why would you claim that their genetic line has stopped?

I didn't. Grandma and Grandpa did.

Stop being obtuse.

I didn't. Grandma and Grandpa did.You said they found it out, not that they claimed it, implying it's the truth.

If you meant to say, "Grandma and Grandpa, in their ignorance and bigotry, thought their family line wouldn't continue, and therefore weren't sympathetic," then yes, I see what you mean.

You know for someone who lives in Frisco, you certainly seem to be ignorant of gay people.

You have never happened to meet the unaccepting parents of gay friends you might have? You have not talked to them, or heard them talk to your gay friends? We were talking about the unaccepting parents, weren't we? Duh!



Additionally, because this was my point.
If I were gay, the last thing I would need is the acceptance of some gay club or community. I suppose I might if it got me more gay sex, but then when gay sex can be found so easily in the toilet, by only tapping a foot; who would need a club. I certainly would not change my behavior to satisfy them or appease them.

Your insistence that gay or bi people must change their behavior to be accepted by your elite gay behavior dictators is silly. It is even more stupid than changing behavior to stay in a closet.

You have never happened to meet the unaccepting parents of gay friends you might have?Nope. Around here, no one gives a **** if you're gay. Of course, there's a huge selection bias here, and I don't personally know any Christian zealot bigot Gunny types.If I were gay, the last thing I would need is the acceptance of some gay club or community.Social acceptance is a basic need; it's in your genes. Just about everyone wants it at some level, even libertarian anarchists who make it their mission to buck the trend.

For example, if this country were de facto atheist, you'd probably be happier living here. I know I'd be.Your insistence that gay or bi people must change their behavior to be accepted by your elite gay behavior dictators is silly.Who said anything about changing behavior?

Now, if instead of getting caught soliciting sex in a bathroom he had just come out of the closet on his own, he'd probably have the sympathy of the gay community.

You did.

You did.I'm not asking him to change his sexual behavior, just his criminal behavior. And not lying or being a hypocrite would be nice, too.

He should've just asked the cop to a hotel room, where he could've done anything he intended to do in that bathroom.

It is only criminal behavior because of the Christian majority and their forcing their behavior on the rest of us. No difference besides numbers, and them having made a law about it.

Everyone lies about their sexuality.

Hell, at one time I was young and naive to believe it.
Every woman I know tells everyone they don't like buttsex(or they cringe, or make yucky faces, you know what I mean, Mr. Literal).
But every woman I have ever been with(minus the first couple, who I believed) like it.
So either I am really good at buttsex, or most woman lie about it. Or both.

I don't discuss openly my particular tastes, lie by omission, hypocrisy I assume you would call it. My particular tastes are not mainstream, besides its not their business. No more than if I were gay.

It is only criminal behavior because of the Christian majority and their forcing their behavior on the rest of us.It is criminal behavior because it's a public restroom. If you tried to have sex in a public place with a woman, you'd be guilty of disorderly conduct too.

If he had simply asked the cop out for a drink and rented a hotel room, and then performed whatever it is he wanted to perform in that bathroom, he would not have been guilty of any crime.I don't discuss openly my particular tastes, lie by omission, hypocrisy I assume you would call it.Who said you have to openly discuss your sexual preferences? And why would that be lying about anything?

Now, if you were a senator who publicly tried to criminalize your own perverted sex habits, then yes, you'd be a liar and a hypocrite, like Craig.

Who said you have to openly discuss your sexual preferences? And why would that be lying about anything?
It is you who said that it is better for gays to come out of the closet.

To openly admit in public that they like to scuk cock and have buttsex with men.

I don't even admit that I have buttsex with women(great and satisfying for both, I might add), or that I am an awesome cunniliguist, in public. Why would they have to(to somehow get your or your gay community approval)?

I don't owe anything to heterosexuals.

Why do you feel that gays owe something to homosexuals?

It is you who said that it is better for gays to come out of the closet.No, I said it's better for a senator to come out of the closest rather than lie to his constituents and live a public life of hypocrisy.

It's a totally different situation if you're just some guy and want to hide your homosexuality because you're insecure or worried about what others may think. Stay in the closet if you like, no one cares.

He should've just asked the cop to a hotel room, where he could've done anything he intended to do in that bathroom.

This entire discussion is getting as ludicrous as the original 'crime',
but I thought this senator was accused and executed for doing just that: asking the cop if he were interested in having sex. I do not recall from briefly glancing through the news article that any negotiations regarding the location had yet taken place. All he seems to have done was tapping his feet and hands in such a way that it apparently was an extremely obscure way to indicate interest in having gay sex. Possibly there is more to it that the news article neglected to mention, but am I ever glad that I do not live in the USA andr am not ever likely to be found in the men's restroom, because I am fairly certain to have tapped my feet while humming a song a couple of times and that apparently is enough to get me arrested in that wonderful 'land of the free'. Or rather it would be if I were male. Guess it will not be long before the paranoia reaches such degrees that public restrooms no longer are allowed for men and buildings must remodel to have a separate door for each individual toilet.

At least every militant activist for the democratic party now knows how they can destroy the career of republican senators (and presumably congresmen). Just follow them into the restroom and accuse them of solliciting them. They do not even need proof, the accusation alone is enough for his own party to destroy his career.


Eri

but I thought this senator was accused and executed for doing just that: asking the cop if he were interested in having sex.No. He was accused of soliciting for sex in the bathroom, i.e., intending to perform the act right there.

It would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (among other things) to criminalize asking gay men out.At least every militant activist for the democratic party now knows how they can destroy the career of republican senators (and presumably congresmen). Just follow them into the restroom and accuse them of solliciting them. They do not even need proof, the accusation alone is enough for his own party to destroy his career.He wasn't just accused, he pleaded guilty. What idiot Congressman would plead guilty to a career-ending charge if he didn't do it?

No. He was accused of soliciting for sex in the bathroom, i.e., intending to perform the act right there.

Innocent until proven guilty.

As I said, there probably is more going on that I as a poor ignorant European girl do not understand, but from what I have read the man tapped his foot and waved his hand and that supposedly constitutes the crime he was accused of, and was pre-emptively punished for by his own party without the benefit of a trial.

The only thing that we really have here is the word of a police officer saying: he did this and that means that. I do not believe the two actually exchanged any words, so any accusation is based solely on the interpretation of the police officer of somebody else's intentions. While it is of course possible that he was in fact correct, it is awfully thin when it comes to proof of a crime. In fact, I strongly doubt it would stand up in court.


It would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (among other things) to criminalize asking gay men out.He wasn't just accused, he pleaded guilty. What idiot Congressman would plead guilty to a career-ending charge if he didn't do it?

Plenty of people every year plead guilty to far more serious crimes than the senator. Plea bargaining is a blot on any legal system if you ask me. It forces the accused to judge himself. (e.g. if you plead guilty to murder you will get 15 years of prison, with chance of early release for good behaviour. If you plead not guilty you risk being executed for it. Are you going to risk that even if you are innocent? Especially when you know that your guilt is not determined by evidence but by how much of a monster the prosecution can paint you to be, and you happen to be black and male and strong while the victim was a young white woman?)

Maybe this senator was an idiot. Or he panicked and thought that by pleading guilty he could keep it out of the press. Or maybe he was an idiot -and- guilty. I have no idea, but I do think that his 'conviction' by the republican party is based on extremely thin evidence, if you can call it that, and hinges on the interpretation of his actions by one person, and a presumption that the senator was in fact aware of what those supposed hand and foot signals mean to a particular sub section of the homo homo americanus. Since apparently no words were spoken until after the arrest all the prosecution has is inferred intent, and that frankly can never be enough evidence for a conviction. Should the case have gone to a court without additional evidence I have little doubt it would have been dismissed, and that the republican party immediately put pressure on this senator to resign his seat over the mere accusation of being gay, just gives the signal to the public that it apparently is good to hate and discriminate against gays. Because, that is the message that is being picked up by the average person, that this senator was kicked out for being gay, not for asking somebody to have sex with him.


Eri

that is the message that is being picked up by the average person, that this senator was kicked out for being gay, not for asking somebody to have sex with him.

Alternatively you could say that he built his career with backing from anti-gay supporters and without that core support he had no option except to resign. There is a subtle difference, although it still reflects badly on him and the party.

Innocent until proven guilty.What? HE said he was guilty. He didn't have to do that.

He also wasn't denied any rights. He voluntarily gave up his right to a trial, right to remain silent, and so on. He didn't have to do that either.Maybe this senator was an idiot. Or he panicked and thought that by pleading guilty he could keep it out of the press.If he's really that stupid, then he shouldn't be in Congress making our laws. Either way, it's a good thing he's gone.Should the case have gone to a court without additional evidence I have little doubt it would have been dismissed, and that the republican party immediately put pressure on this senator to resign his seat over the mere accusation of being gay,He wasn't just accused. He admitted it.

Yet another closeted gay conservative Republican senator gets jiggy and gets caught. Thank you conservative Republicans for being so completely repressed about your sexuality, it really spices up the news!

Senator pleaded guilty, reportedly after bathroom stall incident (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/?iref=mpstoryview)

Even jackhole GOP hypocrit senators should never be arrested for what he was arrested for. A) I've heard no evidence of anything explicit. He was arrested for innuendo and perception. B) Why the **** was this a crime in the first place? C) If I lived in Idaho, I'd be pissed that I was paying $45k/year to have an undercover cop lurking in bathrooms trying to arrest people who aren't even trying to solicite prostitutes (which, itself, shouldn't be illegal).

All in all, this Senator is getting hosed, hard.

Oh, btw, Howdy all.

I think this article addresses some of those concerns, Aidon:
http://dotcommonsense.blog-city.com/senator_craig_entrapped__welcome_to_the_club_sir.h tm

There was a cop there due to complaints about men having sex in the bathroom. I suppose it'd be somewhat annoying to men there to relieve their bladder.

There was a cop there due to complaints about men having sex in the bathroom. I suppose it'd be somewhat annoying to any men there to relieve their bladder.

Fixed.

Yeah, thanks. :)

by the by, having read a bit further through the thread:

Fyyr's 100% correct on this issue.

Look, sexual predilections should not be inquired to, advertised, or legislated.

My own tastes run along quite similar lines to Fyyr. I don't advertise it. I certainly am not one of those sad sad people who make their sexual practices one of their primary identifiers. Hell, I don't even like the stupid munches and play parties. Sex is a private affair in our culture. It should stay that way.

I don't like flamboyantly gay men. I don't like militantly butch lesbian women. I don't like the numble****s who actually consider themselves a "Dom" or "Master" or "sub" or "slave" as any sort of primary identifier and wear the stupid little buttons with the half Krull half Ying/Yang crap on them. I don't like jackasses who advertise that they are saving themselves for marriage and I don't like the a-holes who find their greatest source of pride is the number of girl's they've ****ed.

Noone should care if a couple of gay men or women are wandering down the street holding hands. Hell, noone should care if they are necking on a park bench (well, anymore than its inappropriateness for heterosexuals given the time and locale). I'll retain my opinion that any man wandering down the street in a leather harness and assless chaps is a ****ing tool unless shown otherwise.

As for people who take sexual tastes into political consideration, they are the worst of the lot. Be it the red-stater who votes to illegitimatize sexual practices he doesn't have interest in or the rabid Gay Rights Supporter who seems to think its acceptable to out any potential homosexual who disagrees with their political agenda.

Keep the sex in the bedroom, folks (or the car, or the dungeon, or the convenient bushes for you exhibitionists).

I don't like flamboyantly gay men. I don't like militantly butch lesbian women.So it's OK for a straight man to advertise his sexuality, but it's not OK for a gay man to do the same? Interesting equality.

So it's OK for a straight man to advertise his sexuality, but it's not OK for a gay man to do the same? Interesting equality.

You don't have to like them.

So it's OK for a straight man to advertise his sexuality, but it's not OK for a gay man to do the same? Interesting equality.

...pray tell, how does a straight man advertise his sexuality? I think anyone wearing a shirt with "I like sex with women" printed on the front is pretty much a tool, regardless of what sex they happen to be (unless, of course, its a smokingly hot woman who also likes sex with men and has the intention of inviting me to partake)

When I walk down the street, there's no way people can definitively tell what my sexual orientation or predilections may be.

Last I checked a pair of jeans or khaki chinos and a button down shirt signifies nothing about my sexual preferences.

Look, in the end, it boils down to this:

Ones sexual preferences is nothing to be proud of. Its nothing to be ashamed of either. It just is. I'm neither proud nor ashamed that I have dark hair. I'm neither proud nor ashamed that I like to listen to Les Mis and The Cult.

There are many other far more important aspects of a person's life which should take far greater precedent than where they like to stick or be stuck. When people on both sides of the divide realize this, we'll finally become more sane as a culture. Neither side does, however. From what I've seen gay and lesbians are only slightly more tolerant of others than conservative heterosexuals. Damn militant lesbians are frequently downright brutal in their opinion on gals they don't think are lesbian enough..and heaven help actual bi-sexual women. My observations suggest the homosexual male community is much more relaxed about such things..which makes sense to me..the more people available fora man to **** within his sexual preferences the happier the man is, be he straight or gay.

It is almost axiomatic that in our society a persons tolerance for sexual deviance goes only so far as their own predilections and anything beyond their boundaries is "wrong". So long as we continue to lend import to such things and follow that reasoning, we'll continue to have these problems.

Simple rules: Don't flaunt your freakiness in the face of those who do not share your interest. Don't attempt to sniff out and regulate the freakiness of those around you. Sexual deviance should be a non-issue due to widespread lack of giving a damn.

There should be no "Gay Pride" parades. There should be no "Straight Pride" parades. There should be no "Kinky BDSM Pride" parades. There should be no "Missionary 4 Life Pride" parades.

We would be a much better society if sexual preferences held little more important than what kind of music a person listened to.

(Presuming all situations are between consenting adults and the occasional tiajuanan donkey. Issues of non-consent are a different discussion entirely)

You don't have to like them.

Why is it socially acceptable for me to dislike nascar watching, country music listening, WWE watching rejects who plaster their pickup truck with #3 stickers and pictures of Calvin knockoffs peeing on things, but I'm some sort bigot and homophobe if I admit that I also dislike the flamboyant fag who won't proffer a proper handshake, speaks with a gaccent, and plasters his late model volkswagen bug with stickers of rainbows and pink triangles?

I also dislike holier than thou bible thumpers who drive around with bumper stickers saying that Jesus saves and is their co-pilot. I don't like people driving around with vanity plates which reference their car or their job either. I really don't like people with a damn W sticker on their car.

The list of people I don't particularly like is long. That doesn't mean I think their rights should be infringed. It means they, in general, annoy the piss out of me.

Don't even get me started on ****ing neo-hippie Dead and Phishhead types.

(Yes, I know Anka was agreeing with what I just said...the quote was because he was on point with what I wanted to post)

...pray tell, how does a straight man advertise his sexuality?He just walks down the street and doesn't act gay.

If a gay man isn't allowed to advertise his sexuality (under your rules), he's at a severe disadvantage.Sexual deviance should be a non-issue due to widespread lack of giving a damn.I agree completely (though I'd replace "deviance" with "preference"). But we're still not there yet, and we can't pretend we are.

If a gay man isn't allowed to advertise his sexuality (under your rules), he's at a severe disadvantage.

Nobody is writing any rules. If they did then our conjectured gay man would probably break them anyway, just like he did with all the other unwritten rules.

Hehe,

Welcome back, Aidon. I love you, I missed you.



Not in a gay way of course.

If a gay man isn't allowed to advertise his sexuality (under your rules), he's at a severe disadvantage.I agree completely (though I'd replace "deviance" with "preference"). But we're still not there yet, and we can't pretend we are.

It is at it's most simplest a statistical term.

Those who deviate from the norm.

A tired mind become a shape-shifter
Everybody need a mood lifter
Everybody need reverse polarity
Everybody got mixed feelings
About the function and the form
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

Ok. I wouldn't be what you consider "flamboyant", i don't go out of my way to announce that i'm gay to people, i certainly do not prance around and wave my arms about like a ninny. However, if people were to have to guess whether i was gay or not, 9/10 would say yes. I'm just "obviously" gay, something about the way i talk/move that i have ZERO control over, it isn't a concious decision in the slightest.

That being said... If gay people had equal rights under the law, do you think they'd still be throwing extravagant "pride" parades? I think not. It's a means to draw attention to the fact that we DO NOT have the same legal protections and privileges as the ordinary person. I know that the Sydney G+L Mardi Gras we have here every year isn't merely some pride show, it originally started as a protest march and still is in every way - and i can tell you right now it gains more attention than a simple march where people wave around placards and chant the same phrase over and over.

It's the same as "black" people and women having being treated as second class citizens. I'm sure there are still people out there who thinks black people should be slaves and women should be in the kitchen. Change takes time. I'm not happy about that but can realise that eventually we'll get there, but in the meantime we still have to push FOR that change. Sitting back and hoping it'll change by itself would be naive.

Not that its any consolation, but I read the preamble as being directed at all people. Not just straight people, white people or even just men. The use of men in, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights.", is the generic form of human.

Making special laws for each sub category of human is stupid and wasteful. The law applies to all.

Then again, I'm not a law maker or enforcer.

The list of people I don't particularly like is long. That doesn't mean I think their rights should be infringed. It means they, in general, annoy the piss out of me.
Aidon, your list of things you don't like about people made me think you must have a rather boring circle of friends and you don't like to experience anything slightly challenging to your sensibilities. That is a shame because I've often met people with likes that I didn't particularly share that I found were great people to be around.

I have found great friendships with people I never expected to like based on stereotypes I had formed.

Aidon, your list of things you don't like about people made me think you must have a rather boring circle of friends and you don't like to experience anything slightly challenging to your sensibilities. That is a shame because I've often met people with likes that I didn't particularly share that I found were great people to be around.

I have found great friendships with people I never expected to like based on stereotypes I had formed.

My circle of friends comprises of a quite bizzare mix, actually.

From old goths who haven't grown out of it to a "family" of wiccans in a somewhat convoluted six way open "marriage". One of my best friends who I've known since 4th grade is a gay republican who rides crotch rockets and dresses like Kurt Cobain never blew his head off (when he's not at work). Another friend of mine looks like he walked out of a skinhead convention, except half of his friends are Jewish. I don't know whatever happened to my friend who was an african-american satanist punk-rocker. I've had friends who were felons and friends who were worth 25 million at age 23. Most of my closest friends are 30-something republican business people (They call me Commie Bastard), one of my friends is a Libertarian.

I have friends who are "horse people" and friends who are the epitome of the D&D geek.

I could go on and on.

Not that its any consolation, but I read the preamble as being directed at all people.Actually, it's explicitly only directed at men who believe in religious creation myths. It explicitly calls the Native Americans merciless savages (even though in reality, the Europeans were the merciless savages and the Native Americans were the opposite). And it implicitly states that only men of European descent who are good white Christians are created equal.

It's a good thing that that declaration is merely a symbolic token and not actual law.

Actually, it's explicitly only directed at men who believe in religious creation myths. It explicitly calls the Native Americans merciless savages (even though in reality, the Europeans were the merciless savages and the Native Americans were the opposite). And it implicitly states that only men of European descent who are good white Christians are created equal.

It's a good thing that that declaration is merely a symbolic token and not actual law.

Heh, the Native Americans were very much not the opposite.

I'm not going to excuse the conduct of the European settlers, but never make the mistake of thinking that the Native Americans were any less ruthless, conniving, or brutal. They simply had vastly different worldviews and, in the end, made two vital mistakes: 1) They cedes their judicial sovereignty to the European settlers' courts in virtually every treaty and deal they made and appealed to the settlers' courts in order to stave off various tribal civil wars. 2) They never managed a unified front, as it were. The tribes were regularly using alliances with settlers against other tribes, whereas by and large (with notable exceptions such as the Seven Years War, the Revolutionary War and the Napoleonic War) the settlers did not contrive alliances with the tribes in order to weaken the positions of other settlers.

I hate revisionist history.

The Europeans did not come to the New World in order to purposefully spread disease and plunder land. They came and, initially, saw vast massive tracts of virgin land. To the European cultural mindset this land was unused and did not belong to anyone. They did not understand the Tribal land customs. Conversely, the tribes did not grasp the concept of individual ownership of land. Thus, when you hear tales like the sale of Manhatten island (no it wasn't for beads, it was for coin and not as small an amount as people might believe), both sides of the deal felt they were taking advantage of the other. The tribe thought these stupid white folk were willing to give them stuff for land and laughed at the notion that people could own land. In their cultural view a tribe could control areas of land which they could use, but to own it in perpetuity was unimaginable. The settlers, for their part, felt they were getting huge amounts of fertile land for unbelievably low prices..and furthermore these uneducated savage yokels were even willing to allow the settlers' courts jurisdiction over the deal.

Granted, what the Europeans did later on was shameful, but the initial 75-100 years of contact between Europeans and the Native tribes was one of relative equality between the two cultures where the loss of dominance by the Native tribes lies as much at their own doorstep as at the Europeans.

Actually, it's explicitly only directed at men who believe in religious creation myths. It explicitly calls the Native Americans merciless savages (even though in reality, the Europeans were the merciless savages and the Native Americans were the opposite). And it implicitly states that only men of European descent who are good white Christians are created equal.

It's a good thing that that declaration is merely a symbolic token and not actual law.

Make no mistake...the Declaration, Federalist Papers, and other writings by our Founders hold precedential weight. How much weight varies with the period of jurisprudence, but over the past decade or so the courts have been shifting towards lending them more credance as they've come to realize that we have the somewhat rare benefit of huge bodies of work which permit us a glimpse into the actual intentions and debates which surrounded the formation of our nation.

Heh, the Native Americans were very much not the opposite.If foreign conquerers tried to run you off YOUR ancestral land of thousands of years, stole your stuff, raped your daughters, enslaved your sons, and destroyed your environment, what would YOU do?

And the Native Americans were, on the whole, friendly to the foreigners before they started screwing them over.

There isn't even remote moral equality between the savage, greedy behavior of the Europeans who wanted to turn everything they saw into gold bars -- and didn't care who they had to kill or what they had to destroy to accomplish it -- and the Native Americans who fought back against ruthless invaders to their land and way of life.I hate revisionist history.Then stop repeating it. Yeah, the Europeans had the guns, germs, and steel (to borrow a phrase) to beat the natives into submission, but they didn't have a moral leg to stand on.

Make no mistake...the Declaration, Federalist Papers, and other writings by our Founders hold precedential weight.The declaration just told the Brits to piss off and was used as a propaganda piece to rally support against them. It shouldn't hold even an ounce of legal weight.

If foreign conquerers tried to run you off YOUR ancestral land of thousands of years, stole your stuff, raped your daughters, enslaved your sons, and destroyed your environment, what would YOU do?

And the Native Americans were, on the whole, friendly to the foreigners before they started screwing them over.

There isn't even remote moral equality between the savage, greedy behavior of the Europeans who wanted to turn everything they saw into gold bars -- and didn't care who they had to kill or what they had to destroy to accomplish it -- and the Native Americans who fought back against ruthless invaders to their land and way of life.Then stop repeating it. Yeah, the Europeans had the guns, germs, and steel (to borrow a phrase) to beat the natives into submission, but they didn't have a moral leg to stand on.

Your grasp of the history of those early decades is simply flawed, Tudamorf.

As I said, the conduct of the Europeans after the first quarter of the 18th century or so and beyond was deplorable, but during those initial years the two cultures were essentially on equal footing with both sides using the other to their own advantage, as they saw it. The European settlers were not invaders, nor invading. They did not come with with armies, but came with families. They did not drive the Natives out of their lands, but engaged in trade and diplomacy. The Europeans who came to settle in North America could not possibly have driven the Native tribes out of their lands with those who came. They were not conquistadores, they were farmers, and it was a century or more before they held sufficient dominance that they were able to force their will upon the native tribes.

The European settlers of North America did not come to conquer. They came to settle. The conflicts which arose during those first decades were the result of two very different cultures coming into close contact with neither side fully understanding the other and this is a phenomena which is virtually universal in the human experience.

The declaration just told the Brits to piss off and was used as a propaganda piece to rally support against them. It shouldn't hold even an ounce of legal weight.

It doesn't hold much, but it does hold precedential value...though I can't think of a situation, offhand, where anything it would be used for where other sources wouldn't hold greater weight.

However, to dismiss the Declaration as worthless requires a truly stunted intellect.

The preamble gives voice to the fundamental principle to which our nation has ever striven and continues to strive for, to this day.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Regardless of the real effects at the time and the flawed implementation of these ideals in our history, the import and message portrayed remains undiminished and as vital to our national identity as it ever has.

There is nothing more fundamental to the philosophy for which the United States stands for than those words.

'GREEN' GORE GOES GULFSTREAM: VIDEO CATCHES ECO-WARRIOR ON LUXURY PRIVATE JET
Fri Sep 07 2007 07:48:23 ET

**Exclusive**

As former Vice President Al Gore waits to hear if he has won this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless effort on climate change, a new video will air this weekend capturing Gore on a fuel-guzzling private jet!

http://www.drudgereport.com/gore.htm

But it's all OK cuz he's zeroing out his carbon "footprint" (gotta love scientific-sounding buzzwords, eh) by switching to 75watt bulbs at home, or some such thing.

The bottom line is that when Gore and the other celebrity eco-warriors do stuff like this it means the ONLY people who listen to them are the existing converts, i.e. they're limited to preaching to the converted because nobody who disagrees or is on the fence is going to listen to a hypocrite who flies in luxury private jets while telling the rest of us to use 30watt bulbs...

they're limited to preaching to the converted because nobody who disagrees or is on the fence is going to listen to a hypocrite who flies in luxury private jets while telling the rest of us to use 30watt bulbs

Oh please give up on that tiresome crap. As soon as you tell me that you personally cycle everywhere, only buy recycled goods, have solar panels and a wind turbine on your house, plant a tree every day, and don't use any energy consuming electronic goods can you start criticising other people for "not setting a good example".

It's the cheapest shot going. You really don't need to fire it so often.

The European settlers of North America did not come to conquer. They came to settle.Heh. What's the difference? They came to grab land, resources, and, of course, gold, and didn't let anything in their path stop them. The Spanish went up through California and Florida, looking for gold of course, and forcing natives to convert or die; the Russians went through Alaska, enslaving the natives so they could rape the resources; the French did the same from the eastern end; and the English landed on the east coast to see what resources and gold they could find.

The Europeans were greedy, merciless, self-righteous thugs dreaming of more gold bars to add to their vaults back home.The conflicts which arose during those first decades were the result of two very different cultures coming into close contactYeah, and one culture trying to destroy the other. That's called conquering, no matter how much you try to whitewash it with your revisionist Eurocentric history book.

The preamble gives voice to the fundamental principle to which our nation has ever striven and continues to strive for, to this day.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."So we strive to be misogynistic religious zealots?

The declaration even contradicts itself, it says all "men" are created equal, but then goes on to describe Native Americans as unequal. And one draft of the declaration also included a bit about slavery being unsavory, but they ultimately took that out because everyone knew, of course, that black men weren't equal either.

The only men who were "equal" were the good, white, wealthy Christians from Europe.However, to dismiss the Declaration as worthless requires a truly stunted intellect.It's not worthless; it has historical value. But legal value, no.

Conversely, the tribes did not grasp the concept of individual ownership of land.Of course they did. Every animal that has to compete for resources does. Land "ownership" is just an expression of human territoriality: this area is mine, go away or I'll kill you.

'GREEN' GORE GOES GULFSTREAM: VIDEO CATCHES ECO-WARRIOR ON LUXURY PRIVATE JET
Fri Sep 07 2007 07:48:23 ET

**Exclusive**

As former Vice President Al Gore waits to hear if he has won this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless effort on climate change, a new video will air this weekend capturing Gore on a fuel-guzzling private jet!

http://www.drudgereport.com/gore.htm

But it's all OK cuz he's zeroing out his carbon "footprint" (gotta love scientific-sounding buzzwords, eh) by switching to 75watt bulbs at home, or some such thing.

The bottom line is that when Gore and the other celebrity eco-warriors do stuff like this it means the ONLY people who listen to them are the existing converts, i.e. they're limited to preaching to the converted because nobody who disagrees or is on the fence is going to listen to a hypocrite who flies in luxury private jets while telling the rest of us to use 30watt bulbs...

Its not even his jet.

Jesus f'in christ on a goddamn pogo-stick.

Of course they did. Every animal that has to compete for resources does. Land "ownership" is just an expression of human territoriality: this area is mine, go away or I'll kill you.

No, not really.

They didn't and, evidently, you don't either.

Do you rent or something?

No, not really.

They didn't and, evidently, you don't either.Of course they did. You think they didn't defend their villages against invaders?

Just because they didn't have some European document with calligraphy, ribbons, and seals saying they "own" this and that doesn't mean they weren't territorial.

EVERY human is territorial. It's in your genes. It's in the genes of most animals on Earth.

Nomads are territorial too?

Nomads are territorial too?Of course. Territories need not be fixed. Territoriality means you make efforts to prevent others from using the resources around you (the most basic of which are land, water, food, shelter, and women), and all humans do that. It's deeply embedded in their genes.

Heh. What's the difference? They came to grab land, resources, and, of course, gold, and didn't let anything in their path stop them. The Spanish went up through California and Florida, looking for gold of course, and forcing natives to convert or die; the Russians went through Alaska, enslaving the natives so they could rape the resources; the French did the same from the eastern end; and the English landed on the east coast to see what resources and gold they could find.

The Europeans were greedy, merciless, self-righteous thugs dreaming of more gold bars to add to their vaults back home.Yeah, and one culture trying to destroy the other. That's called conquering, no matter how much you try to whitewash it with your revisionist Eurocentric history book.

You're an idiot Tudamorf. The worst kind of idiot, at that; the kind of idiot willing to simply change history to reflect your point of view without any thought to the veracity or accuracy of what you are spewing.

If you can't understand the history, then just shut the **** up and allow your intellectual superiors to study and understand it without your puling declarations.

The early interactions between the Europeans and the Natives in what would become the 13 original colonies cannot be truthfully described as you would have it described.

If you wanted to describe the American treatment of the Native Americans as brutal ruthless and vicious, that would be accurate, but the conflicts between the European settlers and the Native tribes in North America during the 17th and early 18th century cannot be described under the notion that vicious wicked evil Europeans came and slaughtered poor innocent peaceful helpless Natives, because it simply is not true.

As for your definition of conquering...well, if you want to call it that than every civilization which has survived conflict with a bordering culture (which is virtually all civilizations at some point) are evil conquerors.

Of course they did. You think they didn't defend their villages against invaders?

Just because they didn't have some European document with calligraphy, ribbons, and seals saying they "own" this and that doesn't mean they weren't territorial.

EVERY human is territorial. It's in your genes. It's in the genes of most animals on Earth.

You can't evidently can't even grasp the argument, let alone answer it.

The Native American's understanding of territory and ownership was quite vastly different than the European.

Noone owned land...but Tribal territory meant they had the right to use the land, essentially. The concept of a person owning land to use as they see fit, which other people not only couldn't use, but could not even travel over without permission, in perpetuity was a foreign concept.

The early interactions between the Europeans and the Natives in what would become the 13 original colonies cannot be truthfully described as you would have it described.I see your North American conquest history is as faulty as your Mesoamerican conquest history.

The contacts between Europeans and Native Americans weren't limited to the English or the 13 original colonies. They had to deal with Spanish, French, and Russian conquerers from all sides.

While SOME of these contacts ended in relatively peaceful trading relationships, such as the French convincing the natives to drive species to extinction for their pelts in exchange for goods, many others were not. The Spanish were, for the most part, brutal conquerers interested only in finding gold and converting everyone to Christianity as a further measure of control. The Russians practically enslaved the Alaskan natives. This was long before the English settlers even dreamed of colonizing those areas.

Learn some history, Aidon, before you continue making a fool of yourself. (And I'd throw away the book you're currently reading, which seems to ignore everything except the English.)As for your definition of conquering...well, if you want to call it that than every civilization which has survived conflict with a bordering culture (which is virtually all civilizations at some point) are evil conquerors.Conquer: "to acquire by force of arms; win in war." Are you telling me that's NOT what the Europeans did?

The Native American's understanding of territory and ownership was quite vastly different than the European.Obviously. We are way past this -- or we should be.Noone owned land...but Tribal territory meant they had the right to use the land, essentially. The concept of a person owning land to use as they see fit, which other people not only couldn't use, but could not even travel over without permission, in perpetuity was a foreign concept.Let me dumb this down for you, because you're not getting it.

Did the Native Americans believe they should let the Spanish overtake their villages, steal all their stuff of value (including women), destroy the rest, and force them to move elsewhere?

The European concept of land ownership is just an extension of human territoriality. Everyone, even the Native Americans, were (and still are) territorial, although they didn't express it in the same legal terms. It's in our genes.

I see your North American conquest history is as faulty as your Mesoamerican conquest history.

My understanding of both far exceeds your own.

The contacts between Europeans and Native Americans weren't limited to the English or the 13 original colonies. They had to deal with Spanish, French, and Russian conquerers from all sides.

Ok, allow me to educate:

Russia didn't discover Alaska until roughly 1735. Doh.

Spain, while they made forays up the Eastern seaboard of what would become the US as far north as Georgia, never managed to maintain a significant presence. Nor did the French settlers in Florida. The original native tribes of Florida were not displaced by white men, but by the Creek tribe (those Creek who resettled in Florida became the Seminoles) during the middle of the 18th century. It wasn't until the early 19th century after the war of 1812 that Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson would lead the first true and successful campaign of white Europeans against the Native inhabitants.

Both the French and the British of North America had varying degrees of relationships with the Native tribes, but it can well be noted that Native tribes were major allies of both sides of the Seven Years War (French and Indian war).



While SOME of these contacts ended in relatively peaceful trading relationships, such as the French convincing the natives to drive species to extinction for their pelts in exchange for goods, many others were not.

Ah, so its the Europeans fault that some species went extinct, too? You're a ****ing loon.

The Spanish were, for the most part, brutal conquerers interested only in finding gold and converting everyone to Christianity as a further measure of control.

The Spanish could barely maintain a single settlement larger than the occasional monastary in North America. Their control over Florida and Louisiana, when they had it, was pretty much a paper fallacy of European politics. By and large they had little impact on the Natives there. In Mexico and South America well, that's another story, but the Spaniards, even there, were no more brutal than those they managed to defeat.

The Russians practically enslaved the Alaskan natives.

Again, mid to late 1700s. As I've mentioned, numerous times, I was speaking of the initial contact between the Europeans in what would become the original 13 colonies...and century and change after that you stupid ****ing git.

This was long before the English settlers even dreamed of colonizing those areas.

...Ok. Jamestown. 1607. Remember the big thing this year with QEII coming over here and making our President look stupid? And last I checked, ****ing Alaska was nowhere near the 13 original colonies. When people speak of the colonization of North America...they aren't ****ing talking about Russia in Alaska or Spain in Florida...or even France in Quebec and Louisiana (eventually). The colonization of North America, without qualification, generally refers to the 13 colonies which eventually became the United States.

Learn some history, Aidon, before you continue making a fool of yourself. (And I'd throw away the book you're currently reading, which seems to ignore everything except the English.)

Tudamorf, everytime you attempt to argue with me about anything historical, you look like a goddamn idiot. You need to stop believing whatever your "I hate anything American!" self-hating overlords feed down your throat and ****ing learn some things.

Conquer: "to acquire by force of arms; win in war." Are you telling me that's NOT what the Europeans did?

That isn't how you are using the term Conquer though Tudamorf. You are using it with the connotation of unjustified aggression in order "to acquire by force of arms; win in war." Whereas that defintion doesn't make any such distinction.

By that given definition, which is a proper definition (if not the one you were using), then, as I mentioned, every civilization which has ever survived a clash of cultures with a neighbor is guilty of this so called crime. Lord knows your precious ****ing Aztecs were the most ruthless brutal vicious conquerors that Mexico ever saw...including the Spanish conquistadors, who would have been a ****ing Godsend in comparison if they hadn't brought the pox with them.

The colonization of North America, without qualification, generally refers to the 13 colonies which eventually became the United States.Only for ignorant people who think American history is the only relevant history on Earth. Fortunately some of us are actually interested in the history of many cultures, not just revisionist ethnocentric history to stroke our American ego.

Let me teach you something basic, Aidon: "North America" means more than 13 little insignificant colonies, and has a history that long predates any Englishman setting foot in a small area of its eastern seaboard.Ok, allow me to educate:

Russia didn't discover Alaska until roughly 1735. Doh.So? They were there a LONG time before the Americans were. They made the initial contact. And they were oppressive and brutal.

(Oh I forgot, in your mind, if the Americans didn't do it, it didn't happen.)Spain, while they made forays up the Eastern seaboard of what would become the US as far north as Georgia, never managed to maintain a significant presence.Spain held Florida for centuries until 1819. Spain also had a huge presence in California. There's a reason our coast line is filled with cities called San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and San Diego. No significant presence, my ass.Ah, so its the Europeans fault that some species went extinct, too? You're a ****ing loon.Why, because it's true? The Europeans ravaged the North American environment, killing off many native species. All for the sake of more of those shiny gold bars.

My understanding of both far exceeds your own.Such as your belief that "North America" means 13 British colonies. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

I'll give you a little credit, though; it does seem that after I point out things you've never even heard of, you do a little research before writing a reply. At least you're learning, albeit with a pro-American twist.Tudamorf, everytime you attempt to argue with me about anything historical, you look like a goddamn idiot. You need to stop believing whatever your "I hate anything American!" self-hating overlords feed down your throat and ****ing learn some things.I don't believe I was even talking about Americans. They weren't really that important back then.Lord knows your precious ****ing Aztecs were the most ruthless brutal vicious conquerors that Mexico ever saw...including the Spanish conquistadors, who would have been a ****ing Godsend in comparison if they hadn't brought the pox with them.Yes, the Aztecs were quite brutal and conquered and held many territories. If you're interested, I can even teach you how that led to their downfall.

Only for ignorant people who think American history is the only relevant history on Earth. Fortunately some of us are actually interested in the history of many cultures, not just revisionist ethnocentric history to stroke our American ego.

I hate to break it to you Tudamorf, but its not ethnocentric history. The advent and rise of the United States is the most significant occurance in North America. While only time will tell our long term influence, we are currently the single most powerful nation to have ever existed on the planet.

There are conventions which are fairly accepted. When one speaks of the Classical Age, they are speaking of Greece and Rome. When one speaks of "the crossing of the Rubicon", they are speaking of Caesar. When one of Caesar, unqualified, they are speaking of Gaius Julius. When one speaks of "Crossing the Alps" a person is speaking of Hannibal or Napoleon, depending on if you're speaking about ancient or modern times. When one speaks of Paul, unqualified, by and large they are refering to Paul the Apostle.

When one speaks of the colonization of North America, generally speaking one is referring to what would become the original 13 colonies and 13 original United States.

Let me teach you something basic, Aidon: "North America" means more than 13 little insignificant colonies

It takes true stupidity to call those 13 colonies insignificant. At is stands, those 13 colonies and their rebellion arguably qualifies as the most significant occurance of the modern era shaping the world as we know it in ways not yet finished or fully known.

and has a history that long predates any Englishman setting foot in a small area of its eastern seaboard.

And the list of italic peoples who pre-existed the Kingdom of Rome is long, yet when people speak of the rise of Rome, they aren't speaking about the etruscans or the corsii.

So? They were there a LONG time before the Americans were. They made the initial contact. And they were oppressive and brutal.

...I can't make it any simpler for you to understand. 17th century, early 18th century is the time frame I was speaking of, which I'm mentioned what, four or five times now?

Spain held Florida for centuries until 1819.

No, actually, they did not. Look up the period from roughly 1765 through 1784.

Through it all, Spanish "colonization" of Florida essentially consisted of St. Augustine and scattered missions as far north as the coast of what is now Georgia.

Spain also had a huge presence in California. There's a reason our coast line is filled with cities called San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and San Diego.

Not until the mid 18th century.

No significant presence, my ass.

Spain had no significant presence in North America (excepting Mexico, if you consider Mexico to be North America, which it usually isn't in this context) until the mid 18th century and even then that presence would last less than a century when California would become part of the Mexican Republic for less than twenty years, when it would become part of the US for the next 157 years.

Why, because it's true? The Europeans ravaged the North American environment, killing off many native species. All for the sake of more of those shiny gold bars.

Yeah, because the native tribes didn't kill anything. Out of curiosity, what species were driven to extinction during the 17th and 18th centuries in North America, due to evil Europeans?

Yes, the Aztecs were quite brutal and conquered and held many territories. If you're interested, I can even teach you how that led to their downfall.

Tudamorf, I've known, for years, how the Aztec triple alliance and the flower war raids against the other tribes in the region lead to the alliance between Cortes and tribes such as the various tribes of the Tlaxcala, which provided significant numbers for the siege of Tenochtitlan, and then provided them with local members of a bureaucracy in order to rule the area.


In fact, I believe I've mentioned it all before when discussing the Spanish conquest of Mexico on here.

And yes, on those occasions when I'm unfamiliar with a topic, I will research it before responding. However, by and large, in this area, I have little need to, other than to refresh specific data such as names and dates. Though I will admit that my knowledge regarding the French colonization of Canada is very sketchy.

I hate to break it to you Tudamorf, but its not ethnocentric history. The advent and rise of the United States is the most significant occurance in North America. While only time will tell our long term influence, we are currently the single most powerful nation to have ever existed on the planet.America is now. America was not then. When you speak of first and early contact between Europeans and Native North Americans, the Spanish, French, and Russians overall played a much more significant role than the English (who became Americans).When one speaks of the colonization of North America, generally speaking one is referring to what would become the original 13 colonies and 13 original United States.Only if one wants to stroke one's American ego and ignore the influence of the other Europeans. (Of course, much of what the early Americans did is nothing to be proud of.)Out of curiosity, what species were driven to extinction during the 17th and 18th centuries in North America, due to evil Europeans?For starters, anything with fur that could be sold. Animals such as sea otters and walruses were driven from a healthy population to nearly the brink of extinction on account of European fur traders. Then there was the elimination of the buffalo, a key species for many Native Americans, though that was a bit later.

And countless species were eliminated or endangered through European negligence or apathy, mostly because they could not compete with the invasive species the Europeans introduced and because of destructive European farming methods which destroyed their habitat. An interminable list, covering everything from the California condor to the swiftfox.

All of this began not when the Native Americans came here some 20,000 years ago, but in the past few centuries immediately following the arrival of the Europeans.

America is now. America was not then.

America was America in the early 16th century, when it was named for Amerigo Vespucci

When you speak of first and early contact between Europeans and Native North Americans, the Spanish, French, and Russians overall played a much more significant role than the English (who became Americans).

No, actually, that's just not correct. First significant contact between Europeans and Natives in North America was between the French, Dutch, and English settlers of the 17th century and the tribes they encountered...again, the Spanish presence in Florida was relatively minimal, St. Augustine and assorted scattered missions, they had little impact and they didn't start up the Pacific coast until the 18th century, as I mentioned before. The Russians, also, were not until the 18th century, as I mentioned before.

Only if one wants to stroke one's American ego and ignore the influence of the other Europeans. (Of course, much of what the early Americans did is nothing to be proud of.)

The significant European influence in North America were the Colonies. You can attempt to argue the point all you like, but you're simply wrong.

For starters, anything with fur that could be sold. Animals such as sea otters and walruses were driven from a healthy population to nearly the brink of extinction on account of European fur traders.

Both of those examples, along with the buffalo, were the result of 19th century over-hunting. Not so much 17th and 18th century.


And countless species were eliminated or endangered through European negligence or apathy, mostly because they could not compete with the invasive species the Europeans introduced and because of destructive European farming methods which destroyed their habitat.

European farming methods were not meant to conserve wildlife, they were meant to feed people..and they were the best in the world at it (which isn't saying much at all, at the time). As for European negligence or apathy regarding invasive species, you're speaking of a concept which was alien and unknown to anyone during the 17th and 18th centuries...thus they can't be held negligent or apathetic in that regard. You're attempting to impart nefarious conduct on them based on what we know today, when any judgement rendered in this regard must be based on what they knew then. Origin of the Species wouldn't be published until the second have of the 19th century. To be certain, however, the livestock which the Europeans introduced to North America was, in the end, a massive net benefit, however. Horses, pigs, cattle, and sheep to name a few.
An interminable list, covering everything from the California condor to the swiftfox.

No, actually, that's just not correct. First significant contact between Europeans and Natives in North America was between the French, Dutch, and English settlers of the 17th century and the tribes they encountered.Perhaps the first contact with those tribes, but not first contact in general. The English only settled on a relatively small portion of land on the eastern seaboard.European farming methods were not meant to conserve wildlife, they were meant to feed people..and they were the best in the world at it (which isn't saying much at all, at the time).Yet they still routinely stole crops from the Native Americans to feed themselves when they came here. And didn't the first English settlements eventually die of starvation?As for European negligence or apathy regarding invasive species, you're speaking of a concept which was alien and unknown to anyone during the 17th and 18th centuries...thus they can't be held negligent or apathetic in that regard.It doesn't take science to realize that if you cut down trees and unleash hordes of grazers you're going to overrun the natural environment.

It's not that they didn't know, they simply didn't care. On the contrary, they thought that raping the environment was some sort of religious mission.To be certain, however, the livestock which the Europeans introduced to North America was, in the end, a massive net benefit, however. Horses, pigs, cattle, and sheep to name a few.A benefit to the humans eating and using them; a severe detriment to the natural environment.

Perhaps the first contact with those tribes, but not first contact in general. The English only settled on a relatively small portion of land on the eastern seaboard.

...this argument is over, Tudamorf. You're just not correct. The settlements which would become the 13 colonies were the primary significant European contact with North American tribes.

Yet they still routinely stole crops from the Native Americans to feed themselves when they came here.

Not routinely, at all. It happened with Jamestown, the first winter, to an unknown extent...probably.

And didn't the first English settlements eventually die of starvation?

The Roanokes? The first Roanoke "settlement" was contrived solely of men, soldiers. They did poorly in all aspects and eventually hooked a ride back home with Sir Francis Drake. It was less than poorly planned. The Second Roanoke settlement vanished. It is unknown what happened (though there are all manner of speculations). It doesn't seem likely that they died of mass starvation, since there were only two skeletons found, rather than a settlement full, however, if they had, it was probably because the years of the second roanoake were thought to have been one of the worst droughts in the region for centuries.

Again, however, this doesn't refute the fact that throughout history, Western Civilization has been at the forefront of agriculture...we were better at it than anyone else. I guarantee you that the Natives of America, North or South, would have suffered the same setbacks if they had figured out how to sail a ship and sailed across the ocean...in all likelihood, they would have sufferred far greater setbacks.

It doesn't take science to realize that if you cut down trees and unleash hordes of grazers you're going to overrun the natural environment.

No, but it takes science, and more importantly history, to realize that the repurcussions of doing so are long term effects. Despite the repurcussions, however, I would very clearly judge that the Europeans had a beneficial effect on North America, at least for humans.

It's not that they didn't know, they simply didn't care. On the contrary, they thought that raping the environment was some sort of religious mission.A benefit to the humans eating and using them; a severe detriment to the natural environment.

If this is your opinion, then you're as bad as any other idiot fanatic so enamoured with the point of view foisted upon him as to be rendered unthinking and you'll continue to judge the actions of people four centuries ago based on modern ecological theories which aren't even completely embraced today.

In short, you're not bright enough to continue this discussion with.

There are plenty of things for which to criticize the European settlers of North America, but you don't know what they are, evidently...and would rather hold onto your mythology that the Native Americans were some child-like innocents incapable of even basic self-protections, which does them a great disservice and is simply incorrect. Both parties, like almost every instance of different cultures coming into contact, looked out for their own self-interest and competed with each other in various ways. The Tribes which the Europeans were encountering during the 17th and 18th century in America were not poor pathetic pitiable sods falling beneath the oppressive scythe of European conquest, despite what your revisionist masters would have folks believe, and to suggest that is what is so is to do a disservice to both the Europeans and the Native Americans involved.

Europeans didn't come to North America seeking to conquer, rape, and pillage all before them. Nor did they come to despoil the lands and wipe out species. They came to this land without the benefit of modern science, and they didn't know much about extinction. They still believed in monsters and evil spirits living in woods, for God's sake. Jamestown was founded before Newton was born...and was contemporary with Gallileo. Modern Science was in its infancy and modern biology was unheard of, germ theory, as we know it, wouldn't come along until the mid 19th century.

They saw a bountiful land largely uninhabited by their standards...the idea that they could possibly hunt anything to extinction was a concept largely foreign to them.

The settlements which would become the 13 colonies were the primary significant European contact with North American tribes.So you're saying that the English colonies had the first contact with the natives in Canada, Alaska, the west coast, and the south? How ignorant of history can you possibly be?Again, however, this doesn't refute the fact that throughout history, Western Civilization has been at the forefront of agriculture...we were better at it than anyone else.Wrong. Agriculture was equally developed in what is today central and south America. During the European dark ages, the Native Americans were far more successful and had cities which dwarfed the relatively tiny European settlements of the time.

The only way Europeans were "better" at agriculture is that they had the good fortune of having beasts of burden and a lot of land that could be easily cultivated. They weren't more skilled at it, however.I guarantee you that the Natives of America, North or South, would have suffered the same setbacks if they had figured out how to sail a ship and sailed across the ocean...in all likelihood, they would have sufferred far greater setbacks.Maybe. So?No, but it takes science, and more importantly history, to realize that the repurcussions of doing so are long term effects.It doesn't take science at all. Many of the Native Americans understood this basic point so well, it became part of their mythology.Despite the repurcussions, however, I would very clearly judge that the Europeans had a beneficial effect on North America, at least for humans.For the white European Christians, yes I agree. They had a very beneficial effect. For every other human, and for the environment, it was a disaster....and would rather hold onto your mythology that the Native Americans were some child-like innocents incapable of even basic self-protectionsI never said that, and certainly don't believe it.Both parties, like almost every instance of different cultures coming into contact, looked out for their own self-interest and competed with each other in various ways.Obviously.The Tribes which the Europeans were encountering during the 17th and 18th century in America were not poor pathetic pitiable sods falling beneath the oppressive scythe of European conquest,Perhaps not in a dramatic sense, as it happened with the Aztecs and Incas, but make no mistake, it was an eventual conquest.Europeans didn't come to North America seeking to conquer, rape, and pillage all before them. Nor did they come to despoil the lands and wipe out species.Right, they came here to find new ways to get those shiny gold bars. But they ended up doing all those things (conquest, rape, pillage, environment destruction) anyway.

So you're saying that the English colonies had the first contact with the natives in Canada, Alaska, the west coast, and the south? How ignorant of history can you possibly be?

You're ****ing idiot. Look up the word significant. The first significant contact with north american tribes were the European settlers along the eastern seaboard, which would become the 13 colonies. The contact between Europeans and Natives in North America prior to that was on a much smaller and less significant scale.

There were settlements nearly 150 years old in the colonies by the time the first Russian disembarked onto Alaskan soil.

The Spanish influence of Califo...oh for ****s sake, go back and read what I've posted three or four times already. It's pretty damn clear what I was saying, but evidently you're incapable of comprehensing even basic english anymore.

Wrong. Agriculture was equally developed in what is today central and south America. During the European dark ages, the Native Americans were far more successful and had cities which dwarfed the relatively tiny European settlements of the time.

Um, yeah, except, you know, you're simply incorrect there, as you so frequently are. Rome, during the European "dark ages" numbered half a million people, as did Constantinople, around 100 CE. Throughout the Mediterranean basin there were major cities numbering in hundreds of thousands. Meanwhile Teotihuacan numbered about 150-200,000 in 600 CE at its peak. Tenochtitlan, also, numbered around 200,000 people at its peak. At the time, Tenochtitlan was on par with any major Western City, but in no small part this was a result of the Black Plague, which killed some 20 million or so Europeans during the 14th century, as well as the near constant warfare in Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries.

The only way Europeans were "better" at agriculture is that they had the good fortune of having beasts of burden and a lot of land that could be easily cultivated.

There's lots of land in the Americas for cultivation..and lets be fair, the Europeans bred their beasts of burden. The Meso-Americans, evidently, never figured breeding out. Western Civilization was better at agriculture...as well they should be, they had a few thousand years more experience.

They weren't more skilled at it, however.

They managed to feed populations which far exceeded anything seen in Mesoamerica.

It doesn't take science at all. Many of the Native Americans understood this basic point so well, it became part of their mythology.

If so, it was because the Native Americans had hunted a species out of existance, then. Something which, until the 17th century, the Western world hadn't seen.

For the white European Christians, yes I agree. They had a very beneficial effect.

Um, for the entire world, actually. We provide a whole hell of alot of food to the world.

For every other human, and for the environment, it was a disaster.

No more so than any other environment where humans settled in large urban centers, sorry.

Perhaps not in a dramatic sense, as it happened with the Aztecs and Incas, but make no mistake, it was an eventual conquest.

Almost two centuries later, which was the original point.

Right, they came here to find new ways to get those shiny gold bars. But they ended up doing all those things (conquest, rape, pillage, environment destruction) anyway.

They came for gold, and found fertile farmland instead, and so they came for different reasons, then. It is why there were fundamental differences between the English colonization of North America and the Spanish colonization of Mesoamerica.

You're ****ing idiot. Look up the word significant. The first significant contact with north american tribes were the European settlers along the eastern seaboard, which would become the 13 colonies. The contact between Europeans and Natives in North America prior to that was on a much smaller and less significant scale.But they did it first. Which was MY point.Um, yeah, except, you know, you're simply incorrect there, as you so frequently are. Rome, during the European "dark ages" numbered half a million people, as did Constantinople, around 100 CE.History lesson, Aidon: "Dark Ages" = 500 to 1000 CE. Rome was in shambles and had a population of maybe 20,000, yet Tikal supported a population of hundreds of thousands, not to mention a far greater population density. And this was in the middle of a tropical jungle, not some easily cleared grassland.

Even as Europe slowly climbed out of the Dark Ages, Mesoamerica was thriving. At the time of the conquest, Tenochtitlan had a population of 200-250,000, four times that of London at the time. Even Cortes was amazed when he first saw it. And most of it was artificially built on water.

Europe was a joke in the Dark Ages, basically many small rural villages struggling to stay alive and fighting one another in petty battles over their scant resources.There's lots of land in the Americas for cultivation..and lets be fair, the Europeans bred their beasts of burden.Let's be fair, the Europeans HAD the beasts of burden that could be domesticated. The Mesoamericans didn't. The camels in South America could be domesticated into llamas, but even they weren't nearly as useful as a horse or ox.

It was just a matter of good fortune, not skill, that gave the Europeans this advantage.The Meso-Americans, evidently, never figured breeding out.What a retarded comment. Everyone figured breeding out. But only very few animals can be domesticated.They managed to feed populations which far exceeded anything seen in Mesoamerica.Wrong, wrong, wrong. See above.If so, it was because the Native Americans had hunted a species out of existance, then. Something which, until the 17th century, the Western world hadn't seen.I have no idea what you're talking about. The Native Americans lived here for millennia in relative harmony with the environment (unless you want to go back to the primitive era of mammoths and giant sloths). The Europeans came here and turned the environment upside-down in the blink of an eye, relatively speaking. This is not even a point of controversy.

But they did it first. Which was MY point.History lesson, Aidon: "Dark Ages" = 500 to 1000 CE. Rome was in shambles and had a population of maybe 20,000,

No, about the lowest Rome ever got was roughly 40,000.

yet Tikal supported a population of hundreds of thousands, not to mention a far greater population density. And this was in the middle of a tropical jungle, not some easily cleared grassland.

Tikal numbered somewhere around 100,000 people. It wasn't even as big as Tiotihuacan. By 1000 CE, Cordoba, Spain numbered nearly half a million people. Constantinople numbered over 300,000. All along the Med. Basin, there were population centers numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Carolingian France had a massive population, and all this despite plagues and the collapse of a civilization which was so far advanced of anything ever seen in Mesoamerica as to make comparison laughable. The Visigothic barbarians, themselves, made Mesoamerican civilization during the same period look like mindless savages who hadn't managed to learn how to sail, crafted a wheel, or learned mettalurgy.

Figure it out, already, Tudamorf. The ****ing Mesoamerican civilizations were at the very least a millenia behind Western Civilization. All of your revisionist bull**** can't change the basic facts. Including the superiority of Western Farming techniques, by and large.
Oh and jungles are great for farming once you clear the jungle. Europeans were figuring out how to clear their forests (and primordeal European forest was every bit as daunting as any jungle...early medieval Black Forest was nothing to scoff at), perhaps it had to do with their advancement beyond the stone age...

Even as Europe slowly climbed out of the Dark Ages, Mesoamerica was thriving. At the time of the conquest, Tenochtitlan had a population of 200-250,000, four times that of London at the time. Even Cortes was amazed when he first saw it. And most of it was artificially built on water.

Europe was a joke in the Dark Ages, basically many small rural villages struggling to stay alive and fighting one another in petty battles over their scant resources.Let's be fair, the Europeans HAD the beasts of burden that could be domesticated. The Mesoamericans didn't. The camels in South America could be domesticated into llamas, but even they weren't nearly as useful as a horse or ox.

It was just a matter of good fortune, not skill, that gave the Europeans this advantage.What a retarded comment. Everyone figured breeding out. But only very few animals can be domesticated.Wrong, wrong, wrong. See above.I have no idea what you're talking about. The Native Americans lived here for millennia in relative harmony with the environment (unless you want to go back to the primitive era of mammoths and giant sloths). The Europeans came here and turned the environment upside-down in the blink of an eye, relatively speaking. This is not even a point of controversy.[/QUOTE]

Tikal numbered somewhere around 100,000 people.You mean, the lowest scholarly estimate of the population was 100,000. You neglect to mention that the highest is 300,000. Any way you slice it, Rome was a crumbling has-been town by comparison, at that time.The Visigothic barbarians, themselves, made Mesoamerican civilization during the same period look like mindless savages who hadn't managed to learn how to sail, crafted a wheel, or learned mettalurgy.Except that when you're living in the middle of a tropical jungle, you have no practical use for sailing or wheeled carriages. The Aztecs, for example, knew full well how to fashion wheels, they just had no practical use for them (except in their children's toys (http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/index.php?one=azt&two=fac&id=122)).

Stop being re so blindly ethnocentric. Your culture's specific accomplishments aren't the only benchmark for advancement.Oh and jungles are great for farming once you clear the jungle.Because there are so many tropical jungles in Europe. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

The truth is, the Europeans sucked badly at farming in the tropics. When they invaded the south of Africa and started moving northwards, they began to fail miserably at farming while the native Africans prospered.

On the other hand, the Europeans were pretty good at stealing the crops they were unable to grow.

Could this get any further off-topic?

Could this get any further off-topic?

Easily :eek:

Should guys wear boxers or briefs?
Do women prefer tampons or pads?
What is the average speed of a Swallow?
We could discuss if Brussels sprouts are really inedible or only seem to be.

:grin:


Eri

Off topic, you say?
We could discuss if Brussels sprouts are really inedible or only seem to be.
Hmm...clearly this is a message in code. What could it possibly mean?
http://www.basicinstructions.net/2007/09/how-to-pick-code-phrase.html

brussel sprouts are tasty!

Should guys wear boxers or briefs?

Boxerbriefs!

What is the average speed of a Swallow?

African or European? http://www.style.org/unladenswallow/

I could post some Enchilada recipes...

Could this get any further off-topic?The old topic is dead. The new topic is Aidon's ignorance of world history. There's no reason to crap on the thread.

Boxerbriefs!



African or European? http://www.style.org/unladenswallow/
Great web page!

I recommend this book (http://www.amazon.com/Quick-Easy-Thai-Everyday-Recipes/dp/0811837319/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-6090402-9300607?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190647813&sr=8-1). It is great except they tend to use a lot of fish sauce. Fish sauce is great but it can be very salty, depending on the brand. So cut the fish sauce in half, from what the book recommends, and add more if it needs it.

The original topic isn't dead, there's been recent developments that I would have added but... it was so severely hijacked it seemed pointless. Start your own damn thread, geesh, people so lazy.

Easily :eek:

Should guys wear boxers or briefs?

Boxer-briefs..support w/o looking like a tool!

Do women prefer tampons or pads?

...I'll leave this one to the fairer sex.

What is the average speed of a Swallow?

African or European?

We could discuss if Brussels sprouts are really inedible or only seem to be.

:grin:

Steamed and then drenched in melted buter with a lil garlic salt and brussels sprouts are damn tasty...even if they are named after brussels

The old topic is dead. The new topic is Aidon's ignorance of world history. There's no reason to crap on the thread.

Tudamorf...the only ignorance exists in your head.

Topic is far, far from dead. Especially since Craig decided to not leave the Senate after all.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/05/craig.staying/

Some fellow Republicans are peeved that Sen. Larry Craig has decided to complete his term despite his earlier announcement about resigning, but the Idaho lawmaker still has his backers.
art.craig.door.jpg

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, has backed off an earlier statement that he would resign from the Senate.

"It's embarrassing for the Senate. It's embarrassing for our party," said Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who leads the GOP's Senate campaign committee.

"I think it's best for the U.S. Senate, it's best for certainly his party, that he just keeps his word," Ensign told reporters outside the Senate chamber Thursday. "He gave us his word he would do something, and he's backing out on us, and I don't think that's the right thing to do."

A judge ruled Thursday that Craig's guilty plea to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge could not be withdrawn. Craig entered the plea after his June arrest in a men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport for allegedly propositioning a plainclothes police officer for sex.

After news of his arrest and guilty plea broke in August, the senator announced that he would resign at the end of September, but he postponed that move while seeking to have his guilty plea withdrawn.

My guess is he'll never be able to ride out this scandal. Nothing is in his favour and friends will be hard to come by.

And he'll never again be able to use the Senate bathroom in peace.

Everyone will flee when he walks in the bathroom door... except Mark Foley.

Fyyr Lu'Storm, there are a few things you seem to miss.

First, being gay isn't just a sexual choice. It is a life choice.

If you whip your girlfriend in private, fine. But do you pretend to the whole world that you don't have a girlfriend at all? Even if you live with her? Do you pretend you like guys?

Does everyone ask you if you have a boyfriend? If you are married?

If you are gay, you have to deal with these kind of things all the time. I would guess that no one asks you about your whipping habits, forcing you to lie all the time. If you were gay, you either have to come out of the closet, lie or tell everyone it is none of their business. Try that with your family.

Why should someone have to be secret about their partner? Don't compare it with whipping and sex, compare it with as if you were white and wanted to marry a black woman and you couldn't tell anyone. Or if you were a black man that loved a white woman in the South in 1960.

Being gay isn't about sex. That's why the gay community isn't rallying behind Craig. Because they aren't happy that a man married to a woman who denies being gay and hates gays was caught trying to have sex with men.

In fact, many experts on sex have stated that many men who solicit sex from men in public places don't consider themselves gay. I know it sounds strange but they are married and have sex with their wives and they think that having sex with a stranger once a year or six months or whatever is just a lark and doesn't make them gay.

As for acceptance, you are in the minority. Most humans seek acceptance and praise from others. It is normal. Humans are not solitary creatures. We are pack animals. We establish pecking orders. We seek to know our place and gain acceptance from those we love.

We are just big mammals with larger brains than most. While we do have the ability to transcend our animal heritage, we can not deny it. It is hard wired into us.

Children and dogs seek acceptance from the people in charge of them. We are all just children who are a little older and hopefully wiser. Being an adult does not suddenly make you not care about issues that are part of our genetic makeup, it just hopefully lets you understand them and work to overcome the bad ones.

Everyone will flee when he walks in the bathroom door... except Mark Foley.
...and Barney Frank.

--This message politically balanced.

Naw, we're talking about closeted homosexuals, Barney Frank has been Frank about his sexuality.

BTW: "Wide Stance" has become a new phrase!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/wide_stance;_ylt=Am3Jz5uEc_bqFF6BtHqNc8.s0NUE

Lets see... how would you use it. "I know he's married and has kids, but frankly I think he has a wide stance".

Fanra,

I lie all that time about that stuff, or omit it. Or just tell people it is not their business. It is not their business, unless I want it to be so.

I have several girlfriends, actually.

Sexual deviance should be compared with other sexual deviance. Not with skin color, that makes no more sense than comparing it to what kind of window coverings you may choose. Are you a blinds man, or a curtains man?

Being gay is about sex, what else could it be about...curtains?

Don't dilute your points by bringing in absurd arguments and inane analogies.

I agree with Fyyr. I am never asked which side I bat for at work, nor do I ask which hole a coworker likes. I have a few gay fraternity brothers and they hate the labels. I was friends with them before I knew they were gay, and I am still after they felt the 'NEED' to tell me they were. It never mattered to me at all.

I feel like the people that give a **** about a persons sexual proclivity also care about the skin color of their friends now. Its just plain sad.

Gay people have more labels for gay people than straight people have for gays. Exponentially more.

Gay people have more labels for gay people than straight people have for gays. Exponentially more.

That would be hard.

I do not believe there are enough words in all human languages combined to make that statement true :)

(yes, I did have to look up the meaning of exponential)


Eri

http://www.google.com/search?q=gay+dictionary&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS223US223

Fanra,

Don't dilute your points by bringing in absurd arguments and inane analogies.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

- William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616), "Hamlet", Act 1 scene 5

Well, if you want to continue to state, for example(as an analogy).

That firemen are not firemen because they want to put out fires.
That they don't want to get paid to put out fires.

And that they are only firemen because they want to hold a hose every once in a while, and clean red trucks every day.

And that they really have no interest in getting paid or putting out fires, that those two things never cross their mind, ever.

.
.
.

Go for it.

That is as much like what you state, that gay people are gay because they DON'T want to have sex with other gay people.

Absurd.

Having sex, or wanting sex, with those of the same sex is DEFINTIONAL to being homosexual. Your stating that it is not, does not mean that it is not.

I love pussy, I love ass, I love mouth(tonsils and throat sometimes too),,,I am a heterosexual. I love sex with women. That makes me a heterosexual. If I liked those things on with a person of the same gender, I would be a homoSEXual. I could have turned out homosexual. I did not. All the right factors were there. But I love pussy, and curves, and hips, and boobs, and hairless and soft body parts, and smooth skin.

To say that homoSEXuality has nothing to do with sex, is just, just, just, unbelievable.

Now don't get me wrong, I do appreciate women who have strong faces. I can even get turned on by muscle chicks, but they better have a pussy.