^Yeah @enoch, perception is a funny thing. While you saw a powerful argument, I saw basically two vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless arguments repeated ad nauseum. Those arguments were:

1) It's all a distraction.
2) You are all a bunch of (adorably misspelled insult here).

His ideology is slim enough to fit on a bumper sticker.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the corporate media distracts us from issues that are potentially damaging to corporations. They love issues like gay marriage and abortion, which have few financial ramifications for big money. But you know what? There is plenty of quality reporting out there. Foreign policy, health care, the bailouts and other meaningful issues have been covered at great length and with impressive depth.

The major undoing of choggian bumper sticker politics is the fact that the media he tends to criticize is often the more honest and progressive reporting of people like Rachel Maddows. And when he does decide to lay into Rachel, he does it with the intellectual heft of a flea, with dumb ass comments about her sexual orientation and the way she styles her hair. I've never heard any kind of in depth, insightful or intelligent analysis from choggie beyond the vague and redundant bumper sticker refrains: It's all a distraction, she's a dyke cunt, you are all monkeys.....

If you have a problem with Rachel, then by all means speak up, but an argument requires some bare modicum of substance before it can be taken seriously.

Lastly, do you know what lies at the end of choggie's yellow brick road? Do you know what we are all being distracted from? Satanic UFOs, the illuminati, Bildaburgers, New World Orders among other conspiracies. Say what you will about Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Greens, but at least their belief systems don't play like an episode guide of the X-Files.

Anyway. I enjoyed the choggie freak show as much as anyone else, heck, I even voted to bring him back (sorry nr, kp, bf and bt), but he has been nothing but a bile spewing asshole ever since he's been back. I won't make that mistake again. He's lost my support for good.

The vast majority of average gay folks aren't. But there is a fringe that looks on the gay movement as more of a societal prybar. As with the comment above, they look on this as a chance to 'change' religion/society/attitudes/people as opposed to obtaining simple secular rights.

Again, you reveal substantial ignorance of gay activism and advocacy. Most gay advocacy is directed toward fighting societal attitudes that harm LBGT folk. We don't want people to yell "faggot" or "dyke" at us, seek to have us fired from our workplaces for our orientation or sexual identity, or beat or even kill us for being open about who we are. We don't like being treated like dirt, so we try to change people's minds.

I don't see what's so radical about this.

However, the primary means for achieving these ends are education and persuasion. I'm unaware of any significant group that seeks to achieve that sort of change through the force of law; the notion is reprehensible, and the results would in fact be counter-productive.

But let's be hypothetical and say no-one currently is voicing these radical positions(it's untrue, but let's go with it). Laws have a nasty way of generating unintended consequences - and religious groups are rightfully concerned over the vague language in gay marriage legislation. Ask someone in the 60's whether anti-discrimination laws would be used to put girls in all-male schools, and they'd say "Don't be ridiculous... That isn't the intent!" And yet - that's what happened. Laws get passed, and then the law gets PUSHED in unintended ways. I think religious groups are more than justified in being concerned that these vague gay marriage laws (which contain no specific language to protect them) would be used in future legislation against them - 1st Ammendment or not.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to do this - let's take the time to do it right. Give gay couples their civil unions that extend all the secular benefits of marriage. Craft the law so it has concrete, specific language limiting the law to ONLY extend to secular standing. Let each church make it own rules for 'marriage' as they see fit, with protections that allow churches to refuse gay marriages without being sued for it.

First, I'd like to see an example of all-male schools being forced to accept girls. If it is happening, it must be a state or local issue; single-sex educational institutions, both public and private, are perfectly allowable under Federal law.

Second, I don't see how worries that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages are at all well-founded. Churches cannot be forced to accept female or black pastors, and cannot be forced to perform interracial marriages. Yet legal protections for the equality of women and racial minorities are far stronger and more firmly entrenched in the American legal system than protections for LGBT people.

There are simply no plausible legal avenues by which churches might be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

^*^*talented, progressive, fun at partys dyke, dude.

Lol, Ellen Degenerate, she must hate her parents. Also *dyke channel.

You know, I really bet it was that. Like most Americans, he's only aware of two lesbian comedians, and got them mixed up. Now I'm trying to remember why people believe Rosie hates America. Was it because she was against the war in Iraq? Is that really all it takes?
>> ^KnivesOut:

Maybe he was thinking of Rosie. Everyone knows that dyke hates America.

>> ^Xax:

Where the hell did that jackass get the idea that Ellen doesn't like America? Is it safe to assume it's because she's gay and has a problem with certain principles of conservative government? I guess that does make her an America-hating, unpatriotic, treasonous dyke. I can't think of any other reason he'd say that. Did her maybe have her confused with somebody else?


Maybe he was thinking of Rosie. Everyone knows that dyke hates America.

Where the hell did that jackass get the idea that Ellen doesn't like America? Is it safe to assume it's because she's gay and has a problem with certain principles of conservative government? I guess that does make her an America-hating, unpatriotic, treasonous dyke. I can't think of any other reason he'd say that. Did he maybe have her confused with somebody else?

^ Do what now? Are you saying you don't like British sifts, foad? And the only famous chimney sweep I can think of was Dick Van Dyke, and I think we all know he was not a real Cockney

>> ^therealblankman:
In BC right now there's a Human Rights Tribunal hearing into an incident at a restaurant, which was holding a comedy night several years ago. A lesbian couple walked in and the comedian gave them a hard time for coming late and made a comment about Dykes. Here's a link to the story.
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Lawyer+representing+comedian+walks+human+rights+hearing/2740470/story.html
Seriously, as someone who really fundamentally believes in the freedom of ideas and speech, I'm really shocked that this even has a hearing. We in Canada have no Constitutionally protected freedom of speech- like those in the US do. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be read here... http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/.
Pullman is absolutely right- nobody should have the right to go through life un-offended.


Actually, Supreme Court already ruled it was free speech. The tribunal is just ignoring that. Both sides seem to be lying up a storm though.

Just an FYI though, Americans have less Freedom of Speech than Canadians. They have corporate law stomping their mouths closed too.

In BC right now there's a Human Rights Tribunal hearing into an incident at a restaurant, which was holding a comedy night several years ago. A lesbian couple walked in and the comedian gave them a hard time for coming late and made a comment about Dykes. Here's a link to the story.
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Lawyer+representing+comedian+walks+human+rights+hearing/2740470/story.html

Seriously, as someone who really fundamentally believes in the freedom of ideas and speech, I'm really shocked that this even has a hearing. We in Canada have no Constitutionally protected freedom of speech- like those in the US do. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be read here... http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/.

Pullman is absolutely right- nobody should have the right to go through life un-offended.

Meh. He is free market thinker AKA the ends justify the means. I don't think his points have too much truth to them. Example: He claims that Maddow oversold Obama intentionally. And that she, in some backwards logic helped to initiate the forming of these groups because Obama is starting to dissapoint. I would wager everything I own that over 90% of the tea baggers voted for someone other than obama. They were not effected in anyway by Maddow, because their republicans! they demonize msnbc, they would never allow themselves to take advice from a socialist dyke. They prefer their news from a Beck and the lot. The basis of his whole argumet to me, is not true. So I can't put any weight into him, he's a just another seething, frothing, republican stooge.


So In researching this Andrew guy I found quite a bit of dirt that shows him doing exactly what he is condemming Maddow for doing, which is spreading misinformation and propaganda. Hypocracy = total loss of credibility.
Here's one blog, there are plenty others:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/02/24/a-conscious-effort-to-deceive-is-unacceptable/

I'd imagine that I just don't have proper technique, but I get a lot of irritation any time I shave with a disposable single or multi-bladed razor. I've never tried using a safety razor like this myself. Here in Thailand, there are lots of barber shops and I can get a shave with a straight razor, but I tend to get irritation with that also.

In general, I'm far too lazy to take the time to even attempt to get better at razor shaving. I'm nearly too lazy to shave in general, so I prefer to let my beard grow. I trim my neck down to short stubble with an electric beard trimmer, and I do shave my mustache area with an electric foil-type razor.

I find it very odd that many guys complain about beards being itchy. I leave my sideburns and jawline at about 1/4 to 1/3 inch, with goatee about 1/2 to 1 inch long. I get some itchiness if I deviate from that and actually shave, but once it is any longer than short stubble that goes away completely. As for looks, my beard isn't very impressively full, and a bit sparse in some areas (I don't really grow enough hair to connect my mustache to goatee for a Van Dyke, for example), but I still greatly prefer the way I look with beard than clean shaved.

Still, interesting to see how an old fashioned safety razor shave would be done.

Dyke, not the good kind.......

>> ^fjules:
I don't really like that woman. She looks like a dyke, sounds like a dyke..is she a dyke? Common, more feminine news anchors plz!


I think you're on the wrong site. Here, let me help you: Youtube.

>> ^fjules:
I don't really like that woman. She looks like a dyke, sounds like a dyke..is she a dyke? Common, more feminine news anchors plz!



^Super-douchey comment alert