The tranny is the *conservative*???

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Three contenders, however, stand out based on their campaign operations and endorsements. ...
Theresa Sparks, a transgender woman and former top executive of a sex-toy enterprise who
served as president of the Police Commission and now runs the city's Human Rights Commission;
...
David Latterman, a political consultant working with Sparks, agreed with Shaw that District
Six is staunchly liberal and that a shift toward the center will be slow. He said his candidate,
who has backing from business groups and Mayor Gavin Newsom, will showcase her background as a
transgender woman overseeing the city's human rights policies to keep her opponents from defining
her as the conservative in the race.

Ref: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/18/BA411FFJHL.DTL&tsp=1&aaa

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[airdvr 210]

Only in Frisco

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,991]

Not all that surprising. More and more conservatives are giving up the anti-gay (anti-GLBT actually) position now that it's becoming more accepted in society. It's easy to say that homosexuality and transsexuality are evil and wrong when no one knows any gays or transsexuals. But now that people are less afraid to be open about their sexuality, well - it's harder to tell a constituent that gays will bring the downfall of society when that constituent has gay friends and family members.

Which is a good thing in my book. Tolerance always works better in the long run.

[kelpdiver 2]

the key to understand this is to know who is being replaced in this district. Pencil necked, elitist fucktard might be a generous description of Chris Daly.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Hopefully you (and everyone else) do realize that there is a difference between homosexuality and transexual people. For a story referencing a "tranny" person, you did make a lot of references to gays.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Andy9o8 2]

Oh.
I thought it was about transmission repair.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Not all that surprising. More and more conservatives are giving up the anti-gay (anti-GLBT actually) position now that it's becoming more accepted in society. It's easy to say that homosexuality and transsexuality are evil and wrong when no one knows any gays or transsexuals. But now that people are less afraid to be open about their sexuality, well - it's harder to tell a constituent that gays will bring the downfall of society when that constituent has gay friends and family members.

Which is a good thing in my book. Tolerance always works better in the long run.

I would much rather have someone reject me for cause than to "tolerate" me. I find the sanctimony inherent in tolerance to be repellent. "You and I know that my way is the true way, and that you fundamentally suck, but I am noble enough to tolerate you."

You do not tolerate chocolate cake, gentle breezes or adulation from the masses. You tolerate bad weather, vile farts and really nasty people. To say that you tolerate something implies that there is an undesirable quality to it.

If a politician is white, black, male, female, straight or gay, I really could not care less. "Gee, that was a really bad piece of legislation, but he's a white guy who attends the correct house of worship, is married and has kids so it's okay."

Thus, I accept peoples differing preferences where it does not affect me, and reject them when they impose upon my rights, but I do not tolerate them one way or another.

If you don't accept me, fine. However, I do not want your "tolerance" under any circumstances.


BSBD,

Winsor

[rhaig 0]

Quote

I would much rather have someone reject me for cause than to "tolerate" me. I find the sanctimony inherent in tolerance to be repellent. "You and I know that my way is the true way, and that you fundamentally suck, but I am noble enough to tolerate you."

tolerance with an open mind can lead to acceptance. I've seen it first hand.

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Hopefully you (and everyone else) do realize that there is a difference between homosexuality and transexual people. For a story referencing a "tranny" person, you did make a lot of references to gays.

Might come as a shocker to you,but the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they carry the same conservative stigma even tho all trannies aren't homosexuals and vice versa, they are the same abomination to Jebus as per the RW fundy nuts. Get the obvious correlation? Thx for the semantic input, have a nice day.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Hopefully you (and everyone else) do realize that there is a difference between homosexuality and transexual people. For a story referencing a "tranny" person, you did make a lot of references to gays.

Might come as a shocker to you,but the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they carry the same conservative stigma even tho all trannies aren't homosexuals and vice versa, they are the same abomination to Jebus as per the RW fundy nuts. Get the obvious correlation? Thx for the semantic input, have a nice day.

Hate to break it to you, but it's not the RW folks making the denigrating remarks in the thread.

Thanks for the semantic ideologue input, have a nice day.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hopefully you (and everyone else) do realize that there is a difference between homosexuality and transexual people. For a story referencing a "tranny" person, you did make a lot of references to gays.

Might come as a shocker to you,but the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they carry the same conservative stigma even tho all trannies aren't homosexuals and vice versa, they are the same abomination to Jebus as per the RW fundy nuts. Get the obvious correlation? Thx for the semantic input, have a nice day.

Hate to break it to you, but it's not the RW folks making the denigrating remarks in the thread.

Thanks for the semantic ideologue (ideological) input, have a nice day.

I'm speaking normally, not aberationally. BTW, ifteh word usage gets too complicated, use less ornate language.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Might come as a shocker to you,but the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they carry the same conservative stigma even tho all trannies aren't homosexuals and vice versa, they are the same abomination to Jebus as per the RW fundy nuts. Get the obvious correlation? Thx for the semantic input, have a nice day.

Hate to break it to you, but it's not the RW folks making the denigrating remarks in the thread.

Thanks for the semantic ideologue (ideological) input, have a nice day.

I'm speaking normally, not aberationally. BTW, ifteh word usage gets too complicated, use less ornate language.

Indeed.

BTW.... from merriam-webster:

"aberationally
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above."

Might want to take your own advice.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wmw999 2,445]

Quote

If a politician is white, black, male, female, straight or gay, I really could not care less. "Gee, that was a really bad piece of legislation, but he's a white guy who attends the correct house of worship, is married and has kids so it's okay."

That's a good thing. The converse is the person who votes using race, religion, whatever as an influencing item, and considers those above the issues. For them to tolerate that which they don't like in order to examine the actual issues would be a good thing, then.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Not all that surprising. More and more conservatives are giving up the anti-gay (anti-GLBT actually) position

more likely -

more and more people of various backgrounds are giving up the democrat's imposed stereotypes of people about which political position they MUST belong to based on thin and subjective personal choices and choosing their own ways

more and more people are realizing that fiscal conservatism doesn't have to be locked in a bigotted way to social extremes that represent a tiny fraction of the right. And that the left's typical tie in of completely unrelated fiscal opinions to fringe right wing nutbags is now becoming an impotent strategy as people think for themselves.

more and more people are thinking on their own

it must really be KILLING the dems and the extreme right wing that they can no longer tell people how to think and which bias they MUST live with - and that threats of name calling on PC social issues no longer affect how people think and act in terms of protecting the tangibles in their lives

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[skyrider 0]

Only surprise here is the fools that think they can button hole conservatives are getting an Eye opener and maybe seeing how wrong they are , once again!

[billvon 2,991]

>more and more people of various backgrounds are giving up the
>democrat's imposed stereotypes of people about which political position
>they MUST belong to based on thin and subjective personal choices and
>choosing their own ways

That's great. And if conservatives are giving up anti-gay positions based on the democrats "imposing stereotypes" on them, that's good too. The important thing is that they're becoming more tolerant overall.

>more and more people are thinking on their own

Agreed - at least on this particular topic.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>more and more people of various backgrounds are giving up the
>democrat's imposed stereotypes of people about which political position
>they MUST belong to based on thin and subjective personal choices and
>choosing their own ways

That's great. And if conservatives are giving up anti-gay positions based on the democrats "imposing stereotypes" on them, that's good too. The important thing is that they're becoming more tolerant overall.

that is great -

now, why won't the libs do the same? why do they continue to cling to their own bigotry?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

>more and more people of various backgrounds are giving up the
>democrat's imposed stereotypes of people about which political position
>they MUST belong to based on thin and subjective personal choices and
>choosing their own ways

That's great. And if conservatives are giving up anti-gay positions based on the democrats "imposing stereotypes" on them, that's good too. The important thing is that they're becoming more tolerant overall.

that is great -

now, why won't the libs do the same? why do they continue to cling to their own bigotry?

Worth repeating.........

[wmw999 2,445]

Quote

more and more people of various backgrounds are giving up the democrat's imposed stereotypes of people about which political position they MUST belong to based on thin and subjective personal choices and choosing their own ways

That's true of both sides. There are bigoted and unbigoted people who are both conservative and liberal.

The gay-marriage and gay-military issues seem to be divisive ones. Results from a recent polls do seem to show more Republicans than Democrats against any recognition of same-sex unions (while they did not ask if they were against ANY recognition of ANY unions, that could be inferred from the responses on legal marriage and civil unions).

However, reviewing all the way down the page makes it clear that the opposition is waning somewhat; characterizing it as party-based is probably more harmful than helpful any more, because it alienates people as they change.

Across the board, the polls on that page at least indicate support for gays serving openly in the military. It'd be nice to see that happening.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[skyrider 0]

I'd suggest only soldiers, and those that have served get a vote on that topic....

[wmw999 2,445]

Whose army is it -- the army's, or the people's?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

Whose army is it -- the army's, or the people's?

Wendy P.

If your work decided it was a good idea for you to have to wear a micro miniskirt every day, would you want to work there?


You work for the US government, correct? I think that would be a great idea and the change to the dress code has my vote! Do you think it should be you and your coworkers that decide the dress code?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,445]

Sorry, that's not a great analogy. Setting a good example in clothing isn't the same as setting a good example in civil rights.

Was it good that Truman fully integrated the military when he did, or should he have waited until every last person who didn't want it was no longer in the military?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

Sorry, that's not a great analogy. Setting a good example in clothing isn't the same as setting a good example in civil rights.

Was it good that Truman fully integrated the military when he did, or should he have waited until every last person who didn't want it was no longer in the military?

Wendy P.

It is a fair analogy, it just doesn't fit your way of thinking.

Having someone that doesn't work where I do having a vote on what my workplace should be like is wrong.

Unless you have served or are serving, you should get no vote.

Civil rights are supposed to work for all people, not just the ones you personally feel are being oppresed and wronged.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, that's not a great analogy. Setting a good example in clothing isn't the same as setting a good example in civil rights.

Was it good that Truman fully integrated the military when he did, or should he have waited until every last person who didn't want it was no longer in the military?

Wendy P.

It is a fair analogy, it just doesn't fit your way of thinking.

Having someone that doesn't work where I do having a vote on what my workplace should be like is wrong.

Unless you have served or are serving, you should get no vote.

Civil rights are supposed to work for all people, not just the ones you personally feel are being oppresed and wronged.

I bet there would not be a whole lot of blacks serving in an integrated military today based on what you just said.

If only those people who served in the military would have got a vote back in the 1940's a segregated military and society would still exist in our country because the integration of the military was the very first baby steps that led to the civil rights movement.

It would also mean a military without women other than nurses like the "feminist" Senatorial candidate from Deleware would love to see.

You either support equality in civil rights for all or you do not..... no exceptions based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation should be made when it comes to serving this country. This country needs to support ALL of its people's rights.... PERIOD