Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Lying or stupid?

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a potential candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, will give a speech Monday in London and reiterate the disputed claim that Muslim immigrants have created "no-go zones" in Europe where non-Muslims are not welcome.

An advance text of Jindal's speech, circulated by his office, warns that Islamic radicals are fomenting anti-Western sentiment in "no-go zones" where they rule themselves by Islamic religious law, not the laws of their host nations.

Note the use of "disputed" as a synonym for "mistaken" (or "bat-shit crazy"). Thanks, USA Today!

Or as a friend from law school would say, stupid or both?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Personally, I'd like to see Gavin Newsom take a shot. There are many things I can't stand about him, but having the balls to authorize gay marriage when he did means a lot.

Eh. Margie Marshall's decision in Goodridge took guts. Backing gay rights in San Francisco just took some sense.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

There are undoubtedly a number of things about that guy that are ugly. I don't know how they are addressed in the movie -- Clint Eastwood seems to have moved well past his Dirty Harry days and may actually bring some nuance and tension, but Hollywood is Hollywood....

But, seriously -- is anyone surprised that a sniper who killed 160 people is a "killer"? Or that he is "hate-filled," in that he is convinced everyone he killed was bad?* Or that he has no remorse for his killings? If the latter were not true he'd have lost his mind completely.



*I understand there are some uglier hates he had, about Iraqis in general, and I'm not talking about that.

When we click the links and read the articles, we get the opportunity to learn that reports are that the portrayal in the movie of his guy is different. Conflicted and filled with doubt and thereby more heroic, allegedly.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Eh. Margie Marshall's decision in Goodridge took guts. Backing gay rights in San Francisco just took some sense.

For a politician who had obvious statewide and national ambitions? Bullshit. At the time, people were wondering if taking that stand would kill his career. No one expected so much progress to happen so quickly. Just a couple of years beforehand, California voters overwhelmingly passed an anti-gay marriage initiative. A couple of years later, they passed another one (the first was kicked as unconstitutional, the second amended the constitution).

Those who called Newsom's actions a political move had to assume that the end of his political ambitions was the job he already had, as mayor.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sidd finch

for a politician who had obvious statewide and national ambitions? Bullshit. At the time, people were wondering if taking that stand would kill his career. No one expected so much progress to happen so quickly. Just a couple of years beforehand, california voters overwhelmingly passed an anti-gay marriage initiative. A couple of years later, they passed another one (the first was kicked as unconstitutional, the second amended the constitution).

Those who called newsom's actions a political move had to assume that the end of his political ambitions was the job he already had, as mayor.

2

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

For a politician who had obvious statewide and national ambitions? Bullshit. At the time, people were wondering if taking that stand would kill his career. No one expected so much progress to happen so quickly. Just a couple of years beforehand, California voters overwhelmingly passed an anti-gay marriage initiative. A couple of years later, they passed another one (the first was kicked as unconstitutional, the second amended the constitution).

Those who called Newsom's actions a political move had to assume that the end of his political ambitions was the job he already had, as mayor.

I forgot about California's gay marriage initiative. What were you guys thinking?

Yeah, I suspect I don't appreciate how difficult it was in other parts of the country. Pretty quickly after Goodridge here, it was clear the public was split between enthusiastic support and total apathy, and protesters against marriage equality needed to be shipped in from out of state.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I forgot about California's gay marriage initiative. What were you guys thinking?

Yeah, I suspect I don't appreciate how difficult it was in other parts of the country. Pretty quickly after Goodridge here, it was clear the public was split between enthusiastic support and total apathy, and protesters against marriage equality needed to be shipped in from out of state.

Well, yeah -- the road always looks easy when someone else paves it for you. Y'all in Mass can feel free to keep following us (but if we ever start putting Reagans and Meeses and Nixons in circulation again, please stop).


eta: There were really 2 California initiatives. Prop 8 everyone heard about, because it hit the USSC. But the other one was earlier -- no long before Newsom took his stand -- and passed by a huge margin.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Well, yeah -- the road always looks easy when someone else paves it for you. Y'all in Mass can feel free to keep following us (but if we ever start putting Reagans and Meeses and Nixons in circulation again, please stop).


eta: There were really 2 California initiatives. Prop 8 everyone heard about, because it hit the USSC. But the other one was earlier -- no long before Newsom took his stand -- and passed by a huge margin.

Huh? You know he was doing that in reaction to the case that ruled Gay Marriage legal here, right?

Am I whiffing?

I usually think of you guys as just as civilized as us. And what he did would have, here, been a footnote to Goodridge.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Well, yeah -- the road always looks easy when someone else paves it for you. Y'all in Mass can feel free to keep following us (but if we ever start putting Reagans and Meeses and Nixons in circulation again, please stop).


eta: There were really 2 California initiatives. Prop 8 everyone heard about, because it hit the USSC. But the other one was earlier -- no long before Newsom took his stand -- and passed by a huge margin.

By the way, if we're going to get into a "we're gayer than you are" throwdown here, realize that half our statewide elected officials are gay, our Senate President is gay, we have gay animals in our zoo, our literati wrote about gay marriage in the 1850s, we're the home of the "Boston marriage", and, to top it all off, we have Rachel Maddow.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Huh? You know he was doing that in reaction to the case that ruled Gay Marriage legal here, right?

Am I whiffing?

I usually think of you guys as just as civilized as us. And what he did would have, here, been a footnote to Goodridge.

I either didn't know, or had forgotten. I stand corrected.

Still and all, the rest of what I say stands. Most of California is not like San Francisco, and that was even more the case 10 years ago. When Newsom took action, Ahnald was our governor, and the Dem Gray Davis had recently been recalled (killing his own national ambitions, thanks in large part, IMO, to the energy issues caused by our friends at Enron et al. I think that opinion is shared by many but you can feel free to ask Ty to research this.)

Newsom took a huge risk. Some asserted that he did this to shore up his standing among San Francisco's "progressive" voters, but I think he was absolutely correct in responding that, in this particular city, there is always a candidate who is more "progressive", more "pure", and Newsom was never going to beat that person on his or her own turf.

I actually believe that his motivation -- if not entirely, than the biggest part of it -- was simply that this was the right thing to do. And I am shocked (happily) at how quickly so much of the nation has recognized that.



This just in from my NYTimes emails..... looks like the Supremes are taking their chance to say whether they recognize it too.....

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

By the way, if we're going to get into a "we're gayer than you are" throwdown here, realize that half our statewide elected officials are gay, our Senate President is gay, we have gay animals in our zoo, our literati wrote about gay marriage in the 1850s, we're the home of the "Boston marriage", and, to top it all off, we have Rachel Maddow.

I don't question that at all. In fact, that was my point: Newsom was damn brave.

In many ways SF would be more at home in Mass than in California. But it's fucking cold there, and the girls aren't as hot.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I don't question that at all. In fact, that was my point: Newsom was damn brave.

In many ways SF would be more at home in Mass than in California. But it's fucking cold there, and the girls aren't as hot.

Gay > San Francisco > Boston > Massachusetts > California > most everywhere else > Not Gay

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Gay > San Francisco > Boston > Massachusetts > California > most everywhere else > Not Gay

Boston's reasonably gay, and Cambridge a shade gayer, but P-town and Northampton are gayer than Oscar Fingal Wilde.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I don't question that at all. In fact, that was my point: Newsom was damn brave.

In many ways SF would be more at home in Mass than in California. But it's fucking cold there, and the girls aren't as hot.

OK, I'm giving Newsom some points. Let him go for it.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Gay > San Francisco > Boston > Massachusetts > California > most everywhere else > Not Gay

Are you reaching a life-changing moment here?