View Full Version : McCain's choice - interesting turnabout
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
[
14]
15
kitana
09-06-2008, 08:23 AM
I'll stop with my assumptions when you can stop following me around. You have nothing to say towards me that does not involve....words like "cunt" "your fucking family" "kiddo" "demacraps" etc.
ACT LIKE AN ADULT or at least have some class....if you can't- don't make posts to me anymore....I do not care what you have to say....it's trash.
Thank you~
Cussing has NOTHING to do with being "adult" or not, rofl. If that is all there is to it, then I know quite a few toddlers that should have their own places already. *snort*
I am not following you around, stop acting like you are that important to me. I reply to the threads that interest ME, not so I can "cyberstalk" you.
Anyone who judges someone over the internet based on a few "naughty words", and tells them to get class, needs to rip a page out of their own play book, IMO. If you have to call someone on their class, maybe you should check your own.:P
kitana
09-06-2008, 08:26 AM
As a former Marine, I must say.... an argument over what Marines fight for isn't relevant here.
As an interested observer, I must say the notion that someone is disqualified to opine here because of being Republican is really the most basic form of attempted suppression of free speech. If you want to talk about "McSame," then you give license for someone else to talk about "Mr. Messiah."
Exactly! Thank you Jay.
Zia_Abq
09-06-2008, 09:38 AM
As an interested observer, I must say the notion that someone is disqualified to opine here because of being Republican is really the most basic form of attempted suppression of free speech. If you want to talk about "McSame" then you give license for someone else to talk about "Mr. Messiah"
Got to say I also agree with this statement.
We don't have to like or even respect the other sides political views or comments but as long as they are behaving within the acceptable site posting rules, we have to respect their right to express them just as they have to respect the right for us to express ours. If they are not following site rules then seek out mod intervention.
Otherwise it is just best to ignore those we can't stand and want to lash out at. From first hand experience I admit it may be easier said than done but it really should be the goal.
sapphiregirl
09-06-2008, 02:49 PM
As a former Marine, I must say.... an argument over what Marines fight for isn't relevant here.
As an interested observer, I must say the notion that someone is disqualified to opine here because of being Republican is really the most basic form of attempted suppression of free speech. If you want to talk about "McSame," then you give license for someone else to talk about "Mr. Messiah."
Was that to me? If it was, please go back a read my post again. I never told anyone Republican NOT to post to me.
I don't have to read any posts by anyone who refers to MY family as "my fucking family" etc...and that goes to any poster.
People like kitana are exactly why I don't like message boards. There always has to be someone who just wants to be PLAIN nasty. That is her only intention towards me and she makes it hard to follow posts that I am getting something out of here with her BS.
Why are you on a stripper board with obamablognuts if you are a Republican? To keep my friends close and my enemies closer }:D
Seriously though, I never considered my political affiliations when I joined SW 5 years ago. I just clicked the Blue ribbon publicly declaring male status and started posting.
It's a liberal lifestyle and you are always downright nasty to liberals. I agree it's reasonable to assume that to work as a stripper (or be an avid customer of strippers for that matter) you have to hold socially liberal views. But as evidenced by several members here, including myself, strippers and strip club customers can be both socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
But to your more important point, do you really believe I treat people in a nasty way? I mean, I try really hard to be an amiable fellow.
At least I know when democrats are winning...Republicans are pathetic. I'm sorry, I don't understand this statement. Are you saying you know when Democrats are winning because Republicans are pathetic or did you intend this to be two declarative sentences.
PS...His name is Barack Obama. He wants a chance to be President not the Messiah~
Well, it is the media who has declared him the Messiah, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time." I admit I have difficulty accepting his deity. To me, he is just good ol' Barry who likes to get down with the common folks.
FBR
sapphiregirl
09-06-2008, 03:44 PM
Back on topic....Why doesn't Sarah Palin give any interviews and why is she giving the same speech over and over? We all know she is a hockymom and McCain is a war hero...lol
I think McCain was wrong about getting the Hillary Voters though....they may be women but they are not stupid women.
------------------
Palin: wrong woman, wrong message
Op-Ed piece written for LA Times
By Gloria Steinem
September 4, 2008
Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.
But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.
Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."
This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.
Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.
So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.
Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.
So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.
Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.
Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.
And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.
This could be huge.
eagle2
09-06-2008, 06:18 PM
also, for what it's worth, the latest Rasmussen poll results are interesting ...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama _mccain
(snip)"Palin Power: Fresh Face Now More Popular Than Obama, McCain
Friday, September 05, 2008
A week ago, most Americans had never heard of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% hold an unfavorable view of the self-described hockey mom.
The figures include 40% with a Very Favorable opinion of Palin and 18% with a Very Unfavorable view (full demographic crosstabs are available for Premium Members). Before her acceptance speech, Palin was viewed favorably by 52%. A week ago, 67% had never heard of her.
The new data also shows significant increases in the number who say McCain made the right choice and the number who say Palin is ready to be President. Generally, John McCain’s choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden.
Perhaps most stunning is the fact that Palin’s favorable ratings are now a point higher than either man at the top of the Presidential tickets this year. As of Friday morning, Obama and McCain are each viewed favorably by 57% of voters. Biden is viewed favorably by 48%.
There is a strong partisan gap when it comes to perceptions of Palin. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans give her favorable reviews along with 33% of Democrats and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party.
She earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that Obama continues to lead McCain among women voters while McCain leads among men. The Friday morning update—the first to include interviews conducted after Palin’s speech--showed the beginning of a Republican convention bounce that may match Obama’s bounce from last week.
Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans believe that most reporters are trying to hurt Palin’s campaign, a fact that may enhance her own ratings."(snip)
For the most part, outside of Alaska, the entire country's views on Sarah Palin are based on how well she was able to give a speech someone else wrote for her.
Melonie
09-06-2008, 07:12 PM
in regard to Gloria Steinem's op-ed, as well as the universally negative comments about Palin from other feminist figures ...
(snip)"American feminists have always had a tough sell to make. To the rest of the world, no females on earth have ever had it as easy as middle-class American women. Cosseted, surrounded by labor-saving devices, easily available contraception and supermarkets groaning with food, their complaints have always seemed to have no relationship to reality.
Education was there for the taking. Marriages were not arranged. Going against social mores had no serious consequences. Postwar American women (excluding those mired in poverty or the odious restrictions of race) have always had the choice of what they wanted to be. They simply didn't decide to exercise it until it became more fashionable to get out of the home than to run it.
Sarah Palin has put the flim-flam nature of America feminism sharply into focus, revealing the not-so-secret hypocrisy of its code and, whatever her future, this alone is an accomplishment. As she emerged into the nation's consciousness, a shudder went through the feminist left—a political movement not restricted to females. She is a mother refusing to stay at home (good) who had made a success out in the workplace (excellent) whose marriage nevertheless is a rip-roaring success and whose views are unspeakable—those of a red-blooded, right-wing principled pragmatist.
The metaphorical hair stood up on the back of every licensed member of the feminist movement who could immediately see she was a monster out of a nightmare landscape by Hieronymus Bosch. Pro-life. Pro-oil exploration in Alaska, home of the nation's polar bears for heaven's sake. Smaller government. Lower taxes. And that family of hers: Next to the Clintons with their dysfunctional marriage, her fertility and sexually robust life could only emphasize the shriveled nature of the one-child family of the former Queen Bee of political female accomplishment.
Mrs. Palin's emergence caused a spasm in American feminism. Caste and class have always been ammunition in the very Eastern seaboard women's movement, and now they were (so to speak) loading for bear. Sally Quinn felt a mother of five had no business being vice president. Andrea Mitchell remarked that "only the uneducated" would vote for Mrs. Palin. "Choose a woman but this woman?" wrote Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer, accusing Sen. McCain of using a Down's syndrome child as qualification for the VP spot.
The hypocrisy was breathtaking. Only nanoseconds before the choice of Mrs. Palin as VP put her a geriatric heartbeat away from the presidency, a woman's right to have a career and children was a shibboleth of feminism. One always knew that women with views that opposed those of official feminism were to be treated as nonwomen. To see it now out in the open was the real shocker.
The fact that this mom had been governor of a state was dismissed because it was a "small state," as was the city of which she had been mayor. Her acceptance speech, which knowledgeable left-wing critics feared would be effective, was dismissed before being delivered. She would be reading from a teleprompter. The speech would be good, no doubt, but written for her.
Had she been a man with similar political views, the left's opposition would have been strong but less personally vicious: It would have focused neither on a daughter's pregnancy, nor on the candidate's inability to be a good parent if the job was landed. In its panic, the left was indicating that to be a female running for office these days is no hindrance but an advantage, and admitting that there is indeed a difference between mothers and fathers that cannot necessarily be resolved by having daddy doing the diaper run.
All the shrapnel has so far been counterproductive. The mudslinging tabloid journalism—is Mrs. Palin the mother or grandmother of her Down's baby?—only raised her profile to a point where viewers who would never dream of watching a Republican vice-presidential acceptance speech tuned in.
Watching the frenzied reaction was déjà vu from my years as a political columnist in Margaret Thatcher's Britain. Modern history's titan of female political life suffered a similar hatred, fuelled to a large extent by her gender. Mrs. Thatcher overcame it magnificently, but in the end, the fact was that she was female and not one of "them"—a member of the old boys' club of the Tory establishment—played a significant role in bringing her down."(snip)
from
eagle2
09-06-2008, 07:31 PM
in regard to Gloria Steinem's op-ed, as well as the universally negative comments about Palin from other feminist figures ...
(snip)"American feminists have always had a tough sell to make. To the rest of the world, no females on earth have ever had it as easy as middle-class American women. Cosseted, surrounded by labor-saving devices, easily available contraception and supermarkets groaning with food, their complaints have always seemed to have no relationship to reality.
Contraception is not easily available to all females. Betcha it wasn't easily available to Sarah Palin's daughter. Conservatives would like to make access to contraception even more difficult.
eagle2
09-06-2008, 07:50 PM
Government endorsement of it violates the law, not mentioning it as one possible theory, which was what my post stated. Just like the government cannot endorse a religion, it doesn't have to pretend they don't exist.
Mentioning it as one possible theory does violate the law. In public school high school science classes, they do have to pretend religions don't exist.
Jay Zeno
09-06-2008, 08:04 PM
Government endorsement of it violates the law, not mentioning it as one possible theory, which was what my post stated. Just like the government cannot endorse a religion, it doesn't have to pretend they don't exist. I missed this. Creationism is a scientific theory like Joshua making the sun stand still is a scientific theory. To approve it for public teaching as a "scientific theory" is to be either anti-science or ignorant in your approach, neither of which are really admirable bases from which to mandate education.
Zia_Abq
09-06-2008, 08:34 PM
Back on topic....Why doesn't Sarah Palin give any interviews and why is she giving the same speech over and over? We all know she is a hockymom and McCain is a war hero
Because her weakness would be glaringly obvious to everyone if she were to do a show like Meet the Press for example.
The reason she keeps giving the same speech over and over is because that is all she haa to say. They don’t have anything else to offer so they say nothing else.
Keep in mind that not long ago one of their top campaign said they wanted to make this election about personality and NOT issues.
The fact they are already out of speech ideas tells me that they have limited to no vision or ideas and certainly no creative thinking abilities. That is not a good sign for people who want to run the free world. It’s short sighted at best and ignorant at worst. Not what we need in a Prez and VP. Not at all!
sapphiregirl
09-06-2008, 09:27 PM
Because her weakness would be glaringly obvious to everyone if she were to do a show like Meet the Press for example.
The reason she keeps giving the same speech over and over is because that is all she haa to say. They don’t have anything else to offer so they say nothing else.
Keep in mind that not long ago one of their top campaign said they wanted to make this election about personality and NOT issues.
The fact they are already out of speech ideas tells me that they have limited to no vision or ideas and certainly no creative thinking abilities. That is not a good sign for people who want to run the free world. It’s short sighted at best and ignorant at worst. Not what we need in a Prez and VP. Not at all!
Well....you know this was coming...haha
One Hockey Mom's Vote
Posted by Katekilla (http://babble.ning.com/xn/detail/u_17d2ay1j3ldu) on August 29, 2008 at 11:02pm
View Blog Posts (http://babble.ning.com/profiles/blog/list?user=17d2ay1j3ldu)
Sarah Palin, we barely know you. (Though we will soon enough – I’m already sick of her shrill inflections and “gee whizzes” after only one speech.) But of the things we do know – that she’s a “pro-life” hunter, calls her husband the state’s “first dude,” brings her baby to work with her – the item I find most compelling is this: She’s a hockey mom.
I’m a hockey mom, too, having spent the last nine winters ferrying my now-15-year-old daughter to and from one frigid ice rink after another. I’ve been there, rising in the dark to guide a warm child into a cold car, both of them balky and cranky in the pre-dawn hours, then hurtling down the highway in a mad dash only to spend the next two hours huddling in a sports facility warm room under fluorescent lights, sipping Dunkin Donuts with the other pathetic hockey parents, all of us looking at least a decade older than we appear to those who see us in the hours after nine a.m. It’s a bonding experience, the same way prison must be.
And yet for years we’ve been sorely overlooked, overshadowed by the more popular and telegenic soccer moms – hey, it’s easy to look good when your kid plays an outdoor sport during daylight hours! You can’t blame a hockey mom for feeling ignored, invisible, and underappreciated.
So I figured, when Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and it was revealed that she’s a hockey mom, too, that we must have more than a thing or two in common. And that must be what McCainn figured, too. Women like me – white, 40ish, married with children – are considered to be one of this election season’s swing demographics. Granted, I was never a Hillary supporter, though I would have voted for her if she had won the nomination. But even though I’m a solid Obamaniac, I wanted to see what Palin would have to offer a voter, a mother, a hockey mom like me.
Let’s start with the things we don’t have in common:
1. Palin doesn’t believe global warming (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/palin-buys-climate-denial_b_122428.html) has been proven.
2. Palin is in favor of teaching creationism (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html) alongside evolution in public schools.
3. Palin believes abortion (http://www.naral.org/elections/election-pr/pr08292008_palin.html) should be illegal, even in cases of rape and incest, except in limited cases in which it might be necessary to save the life of the mother (presumably so she can go on to have more children!).
4. Despite saying she has many gay friends, Palin does not support gay marriage (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4635147.ece).
Even on just one cup of cheap hockey rink coffee I can figure out that Palin would never gain my vote. And I’m guessing other mothers, whatever sports they ferry their small charges to and from, will mostly share that view.
Still, it turns out that I was right; we do have a few things in common:
1. Neither one of us has any foreign policy experience, but seriously, we are willing to learn.
2. We both have kids.
3. Through forced experience, we both have learned how to wake up at ungodly hours, wash and dress in total darkness, and attend to whatever needs doing, from finding lost shoulder pads to fitting new mouthguards, all while charging up lonely highways to points north (or at least, points cold).
All of which leads me to ask, if Palin’s candidacy falls through, could we round up another crew of hockey moms and find another one? Maybe a pro-choice, global-warming-and-evolution believing one? Trust me, there are more than a few of us out there.
Perry
09-07-2008, 03:58 AM
She's anti-abortion, AND she doesn't want us to have birth control?? Not even for married people? Not even condoms?
What a strange woman. She'd like a country full of desease and infanticide aparantly. Maybe she should move to an existing one instead of trying to bring the US to that.
Djoser
09-07-2008, 08:31 PM
Re: logic of ultra-conservative presidential candidates affecting or not affecting stripclubs.
Fact: Ultra-conservative presidents in the last 15-20 years have packed the US Supreme Court with hardline Justices such as Rehnquist.
Fact: The US Supreme Court just put a major dent in the rights of stripclub industry professionals, with the case of nudity in Daytona.
So if you are a member of a forum for strippers, and you support candidates who want to ban books mentioning sex, and teach creationism, and who will appoint more Justices if elected, you might want to think about logic.
If you are a customer and want to see granny panties all night, if you are really lucky and have to drive a few hundred miles maybe, keep voting for people like Palin.
Oh and I'm sure she'd be really proud to see people defending her here. Can you see the headlines?
"Palin proudly accepts endorsement of stripclub addict. Vows to reward loyalty..."
CKXXX
09-07-2008, 08:41 PM
^^^lololol...FABULOUS!! Well said!
Jay Zeno
09-07-2008, 09:16 PM
Fact: Ultra-conservative presidents in the last 15-20 years have packed the US Supreme Court with hardline Justices such as Rehnquist.And Scalia. And Thomas (Well, Bush I wasn't really an ultra-conservative President). But for Rehnquist, there was O'Connor (both Reagan). And for Scalia, there was Kennedy (both Reagan). And for Thomas, there was Souter (both Bush I). Not exactly a sweep for ultra-conservatives.
Palin bothers me, but that aside, my experience as a strip club customer and the theoretical effect that Supreme Court appointments might have on that isn't the highest priority for me in voting for President. (Mayor or County Commissioner might be another thing.)
eagle2
09-07-2008, 09:36 PM
And Scalia. And Thomas (Well, Bush I wasn't really an ultra-conservative President). But for Rehnquist, there was O'Connor (both Reagan). And for Scalia, there was Kennedy (both Reagan). And for Thomas, there was Souter (both Bush I). Not exactly a sweep for ultra-conservatives.
Kennedy was only appointed by Reagan because he wasn't able to get his original choice, Robert Bork, appointed. If Reagan had been successful, conservatives would have complete control of the Supreme Court.
Djoser
09-07-2008, 09:37 PM
Ah but I view Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas as fruitcakes, who shouldn't be within miles of any judiciary building, in a republic which has any concern for civil liberties--and thus the continuing existence of the adult industry. If they weren't in there, Daytona stripclubs would not be suffering, numerous friends of mine would not have been arrested a few months ago, etc, etc.
And the precedent set for Mayors and County Commisioners everywhere to begin or continue enforcing all those atavistic laws prohibiting nudity and lapdancing, that are still in the books in most localities in the USA.
I view(ed) both Bushes as ultraconservative. Anyone who willingly allies themselves with Family Values proponents threatens my industry.
Jay Zeno
09-07-2008, 09:56 PM
I'm speaking of what-is's, not what-might-have-beens.
Respectfully, Djoser, I'm sure there are people who consider Justices Breyer and Ginsburg as fruitcakes. KInda depends where the politics are. As for Bush I, he enacted the Americans for Disabilities Act, increased unemployment benefits, renewed the Clean Air Act, and to seal his political doom, agreed to raise taxes - not exactly ultraconservative actions there. I agree that he was an electoral wimp in kowtowing to the religious right.
Richard_Head
09-07-2008, 10:05 PM
And Scalia. And Thomas (Well, Bush I wasn't really an ultra-conservative President). But for Rehnquist, there was O'Connor (both Reagan). And for Scalia, there was Kennedy (both Reagan). And for Thomas, there was Souter (both Bush I). Not exactly a sweep for ultra-conservatives.
Palin bothers me, but that aside, my experience as a strip club customer and the theoretical effect that Supreme Court appointments might have on that isn't the highest priority for me in voting for President. (Mayor or County Commissioner might be another thing.)You seem to be forgetting about the lower courts (U.S. district courts, U.S. appeals courts), those have also been stacked with conservative judges. These courts will have a much greater impact on strip clubs than the supreme court.
Djoser
09-07-2008, 10:07 PM
"...he was an electoral wimp in kowtowing to the religious right."
See, to me that's the worst of all. I see it as directly influencing my future, and the future of the stripclub industry.
If I had stayed in Daytona instead of coming here, I would probably have been arrested as well. They did a clean sweep of my last club up there.
I would have moved to Orlando long ago, but the thriving stripclub industry of Orlando, booming in the 80's and 90's, was wiped right out by Jesus Freaks on the very late 90's. Instrumental in this Crusade was the vice-governor of Jeb Bush, a big honcho amongst the republicans in Orlando--I met the motherfucker years ago.
As far as the clubs go it's now a ghost town, dancers have been coming to Daytona to work, even to the Keys, ever since.
The Religious Right is well aware of the progress made, and each new victory in their War On Sex is well publicized within their circles.
Jay Zeno
09-07-2008, 10:08 PM
No, Richard. I was just responding to the Supreme Court comment. I didn't go free-lancing into other courts.
Richard_Head
09-07-2008, 10:16 PM
No, Richard. I was just responding to the Supreme Court comment. I didn't go free-lancing into other courts.Ok, I think it's a fair point to bring up though. Don't you think it would be something a strip club employee or customer should be aware of before they vote?
kitana
09-08-2008, 12:22 AM
Was that to me? If it was, please go back a read my post again. I never told anyone Republican NOT to post to me.
I don't have to read any posts by anyone who refers to MY family as "my fucking family" etc...and that goes to any poster.
People like kitana are exactly why I don't like message boards. There always has to be someone who just wants to be PLAIN nasty. That is her only intention towards me and she makes it hard to follow posts that I am getting something out of here with her BS.
Excuse me?!
If you have a problem, PLEASE take it to PM's with me, instead of trashing me on the public forums.
We disagree, big deal; it happens every day with various people across the country and world.
I haven't called you a fifty cent thunder cunt, so I fail to see exactly how I have been particularly nasty towards you at all personally.
And no offens,e but if you do not like message boards, why do you continue to post incessantly? I post cause it's fun, and hopefully I see a different side of things, and gain more knowledge and intellect.
kitana
09-08-2008, 12:23 AM
Contraception is not easily available to all females. Betcha it wasn't easily available to Sarah Palin's daughter. Conservatives would like to make access to contraception even more difficult.
Actually it is VERY easily accessible, it's called the Health Dept. They have condoms free, and BC at a very cheap rate.
I am fiscally conservative, and I feel that BC should be available to everyone at any time for ANY reason.
bem401
09-08-2008, 06:34 AM
my experience as a strip club customer and the theoretical effect that Supreme Court appointments might have on that isn't the highest priority for me in voting for President. (Mayor or County Commissioner might be another thing.)
Right, the Supreme Court rules whether the lower courts ruled properly. I'm not familiar with the Daytona case but I'd bet a local law was enacted and was battled all the way up to the SCOTUS, where they determined everyone was in line with the rules for enacting that law, so the change in law passed muster, regardless of who agrees or disagrees with it.
People unhappy with this decision should focus their attention on the locals who enact the laws. To say " I can't vote for McCain because his VP is conservative and if he dies, she'll be Pres, and then if a Justice dies, she'll get to name a replacement, and then if that replacement is confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate, and then my local gov't might try to enact a law against SC's, and appeals might be heard all the way to the SCOTUS, and that Palin-appointee might rule ( against all logic ,as I see it) that everything was done properly" is a little bit much for me. Courts should not be allowed to legislate from the bench.
Richard_Head
09-08-2008, 08:14 AM
Right, the Supreme Court rules whether the lower courts ruled properly. I'm not familiar with the Daytona case but I'd bet a local law was enacted and was battled all the way up to the SCOTUS, where they determined everyone was in line with the rules for enacting that law, so the change in law passed muster, regardless of who agrees or disagrees with it.
People unhappy with this decision should focus their attention on the locals who enact the laws. To say " I can't vote for McCain because his VP is conservative and if he dies, she'll be Pres, and then if a Justice dies, she'll get to name a replacement, and then if that replacement is confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate, and then my local gov't might try to enact a law against SC's, and appeals might be heard all the way to the SCOTUS, and that Palin-appointee might rule ( against all logic ,as I see it) that everything was done properly" is a little bit much for me. Courts should not be allowed to legislate from the bench.Those lower court judges are also appointed by the President though (at least at the U.S. district court and U.S. appeals court levels). Bush has already loaded them up with conservative judges. I think it should be something that is considered when voting.
bem401
09-08-2008, 08:27 AM
Those lower court judges are also appointed by the President though (at least at the U.S. district court and U.S. appeals court levels). Bush has already loaded them up with conservative judges. I think it should be something that is considered when voting.
But the problem as described starts with local legislatures and has to work its way through the local courts before it even hits the federal courts. Any impact a VP nominee could have on the eventual enforcement or non-enforcement of a local law is many many steps down the road.
Regardless, the judges are supposed to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite legislation. If the town I live in enacts a law supported by the populace that I oppose and they do so constituionally, I have little or no recourse.
Richard_Head
09-08-2008, 08:46 AM
But the problem as described starts with local legislatures and has to work its way through the local courts before it even hits the federal courts. Any impact a VP nominee could have on the eventual enforcement or non-enforcement of a local law is many many steps down the road.
Regardless, the judges are supposed to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite legislation. If the town I live in enacts a law supported by the populace that I oppose and they do so constituionally, I have little or no recourse.I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. I wish people would take their local elections as seriously as the national elections but it just doesn't happen, which means if a case does need to go through the federal court system it will likely stand no chance if they are going up against a conservative judge appointed by Bush (or god forbid Palin). As for interpreting the constitution, yes that's supposedly how it works, the key words there though is "interpreting the constitution", I'm not entirely sure a conservative judge will have the same "interpretation" as most people.
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 08:47 AM
Sarah Palin supports helicopter hunting of wolves ? Well, so much for voting for MCCain. Wolves are beautiful animals vital to any health eco-system and ANY hunting of them is both barbaric and just plain DUMB !
I'm an independent. I tend to vote Republican because I tend to vote my wallet and usually Republicans support LESS spending and lower taxes. Yes, yes, Bush, DeLay, Hastert, Pataki, et.al. raised fiscal irresponsibility to new heights ( or plunged it to new depths ). You'll get no argument from me on that score.
I support limited SECULAR government that stays out of the bedroom and the boardroom.
This time around I'm voting for Obama. Yes, there are some things about him I do not like and I don't agree with all of his policy positions but the Repoublicans DESERVE a sound political thrashing and a few years in the political wilderness might do wonders and promote the necessary reform and catharsis they so desperately need.
A Dem. Pres. and a Dem. Congress will remove any excuse for policy inaction. I've already taken steps to go negative and ride out the tax increases and other economic meddling that is sure to come.
Jay Zeno
09-08-2008, 08:50 AM
Ok, I think it's a fair point to bring up though. Don't you think it would be something a strip club employee or customer should be aware of before they vote?I think often - but not always! - Democrats are more likely to allow stripclubs than Republicans. The far right-wingers don't want to see you sin. The far left-wingers don't want to see you exploit women.
The local and state courts are usually the ones to take these cases. I'm not thinking of how a local stripclub case would become a Federal case for a Federal judge unless there was racketeering alleged, and let's not get into if we support that. But the local case, once appealed, then goes through the state system. At some point, it may get appealed from the state to the local U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if there is U.S. Constitutional grounds involved. Then it makes its way to the Supreme Court. I'm not concerned with the President shutting down stripclubs.
My concern with appointing Federal judges has more to do with how they support the powers of the police, the rights of the defendant, the letter of civil law, how strictly they uphold statutes, and so on. It's can be a terrible balance. Give the police too much power (hazards of conservatism), and individual rights are threatened. Give the accused too much leeway (hazards of liberalism), and public safety is threatened.
Djoser
09-08-2008, 09:54 AM
Regardless, the judges are supposed to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite legislation. If the town I live in enacts a law supported by the populace that I oppose and they do so constituionally, I have little or no recourse.
The problem, of course, is that there are atavistic laws on the books all over the country. Getting a blowjob from your wife in your kitchen is illegal in many, many places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_Supreme_Court_candidates
"Furthermore, the current court has been sharply divided on a number of high-profile issues, including abortion rights, affirmative action, the extent of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, eminent domain, gay rights, the separation of church and state under the Establishment Clause, sovereign immunity, and states' rights. The number of close votes in cases involving these areas suggests that a change of one or two key justices could completely shift the thinking of the Court on such issues."
So if some SC Justice appointed by one of our wonderful past, present, or future Presidential supporters of Jesus' Family Values decides to 'interpret the constitution' as meaning that nudity isn't allowed, that dancers must wear booty shorts, and that tipping a dancer equals prostitution, etc., the industry receives another blow.
Look, friends of mine went to jail because Reagan, Bush, and Bush appointed conservative justices, it's quite simple. Sure, laws on the books in Daytona were cited as the reason, but those laws are probably on the books in most of the cities most of our members live in.
The more encouragement Family Values Jesus Freak politicos get, like when they see a whacko like Palin legitimized by being chosen by the Republican Presidential candidate, the less dancers there will be, and the more desperate they will become when atavistic laws are enforced.
Want to have anal sex with your wife? Want a lapdance? Want to see a woman taking her clothes off on a stage? Not if some people have their way, and the Law is on their side.
All the fucking idiots in Daytona who like going to stripclubs, and voted for Reagan and Bush and Bush, are getting what they deserve when they look at those granny panties or wonder why there aren't very many dancers on the lineup. But the rest of us deserve the freedom to work outside of medieval strictures, or maybe to enjoy ourselves as customers.
Richard_Head
09-08-2008, 10:01 AM
The local and state courts are usually the ones to take these cases. I'm not thinking of how a local stripclub case would become a Federal case for a Federal judge unless there was racketeering alleged, and let's not get into if we support that. But the local case, once appealed, then goes through the state system. At some point, it may get appealed from the state to the local U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if there is U.S. Constitutional grounds involved. Then it makes its way to the Supreme Court. I'm not concerned with the President shutting down stripclubs.I still think it's a fair question to bring up on a strip club message board. A very quick google search brought up the following strip club cases that found themselves in federal court:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20070416/ai_n19012908
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/08/18/appellate.html?sid=101
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/A1E06CD6D08697B08525727300691951?OpenDocument
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2007/05/26/court-gives-houston-strip-clubs-a-reprieve/
http://resources.vlct.org/u/lrn_07_05.pdf
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200203/27_druleyl_stripperruling-m/
http://www.topix.com/us/federal-court-11th/2008/02/supreme-court-hands-victory-to-daytona-beach-in-strip-club-fight
http://blog.mlive.com/advancenewspapers_news/2008/05/appeals_court_upholds_strip_cl_1.html
http://www.supremedicta.com/2008/06/us-attorney-fights-to-keep-permits-for.html
Djoser
09-08-2008, 10:18 AM
Holy shit, nice work, RH...
The climate that encourages McCain picking a whacko like Palin also needs to be considered.
This isn't just about picking someone who won't ever do anything unless McCain croaks. This is about the moral/political climate in the entire country right now.
You have very large numbers of people in the USA today who want stripclubs shut down, and adult-oriented businesses wiped out. Keep voting for politicians who support Family Values, and who ally themselves with the religious right, and watch those people acquire more and more power to shut down stripclubs.
You'll have to drive further and further for that lapdance. And gas is getting more expensive all the time, lol...
Jay Zeno
09-08-2008, 10:41 AM
Didn't look at it thoroughly, but it appeared that some of those came out of a mix of Republican and Democrat jurisdictions.
Nice work, Richard. Sure, it's fair to bring up. I don' t see where I'm arguing about it. A point was brought up about SCOTUS that I thought needed clarifying to be really accurate.
bem401
09-08-2008, 10:44 AM
The climate that encourages McCain picking a whacko like Palin also needs to be considered.
What makes her a whacko? The fact she disagrees with you? Its not like she has proposed doing anything radical. I disagree with just about everything Obama espouses but I don't call him whacko even though I think some of his proposals are far-fatched.
You have very large numbers of people in the USA today who want stripclubs shut down, and adult-oriented businesses wiped out. Keep voting for politicians who support Family Values, and who ally themselves with the religious right, and watch those people acquire more and more power to shut down stripclubs.
I find it improbable there is some sort of master plan nationally among the right-wingers to abolish stripclubs, but I do think people have the right to determine the types of businesses that inhabit their towns through zoning ordinances. I own a home in a town that bans fast food establishments, so it makes things inconvenient in that regard. One friend can't put siding on his house. Another has no liquor stores in his town. Its the way the local populace wants it to be. Otherwise, they'd elect politicians who'll do things the way they want. I can totally understand why people on this board would be concerned about anything that threatens their livelihood, but I don't think the nomination of Sarah Palin means the beginning of the end of adult entertainment.
G-Real
09-08-2008, 10:53 AM
I find it improbable there is some sort of master plan nationally among the right-wingers to abolish stripclubs, but I do think people have the right to determine the types of businesses that inhabit their towns through zoning ordinances.
lemme take you back to the 1930s and prohibition...., also brought to your by Christian fundamentalist conservatives.
Djoser
09-08-2008, 10:55 AM
What makes her a whacko? The fact she disagrees with you?
The fact that she would call you a degenerate scumbag for being a member and posting here. But don't let that stop you from defending her...
Its not like she has proposed doing anything radical.
Teaching creationism in schools isn't radical?? Getting books like Huckleberry Finn banned from libraries?
I can totally understand why people on this board would be concerned about anything that threatens their livelihood, but I don't think the nomination of Sarah Palin means the beginning of the end of adult entertainment.
It's not the beginning. It's just another step on the way. Ask anyone who has ever been busted for prostitution for taking a dollar in their garter.
Jay Zeno
09-08-2008, 10:58 AM
What makes her a whacko?Frankly, I think espousing creationism (religion-based) in schools as a scientific theory is whacked.
bem401
09-08-2008, 10:59 AM
lemme take you back to the 1930s and prohibition...., also brought to your by Christian fundamentalist conservatives.
So you're telling me there is presently a nationwide coalition of conservatives waiting for Sarah Palin to get elected, replace McCain and appoint justices who will ban adult entertainment nationwide?
I think most people, conservatives or liberals, are of the opinion that they don't care for SC's but as long as they are not in their neighborhood, they won't get too worked up about it.
bem401
09-08-2008, 11:12 AM
Frankly, I think espousing creationism (religion-based) in schools as a scientific theory is whacked.
Well I would too if she proposed throwing evolutionary theory out the window at the same time. However, I believe mentioning that some people might believe God had a hand in this is OK.
Related question : Is it possible to consider one's self a devout Christian and feel that Intelligent Design or Creationism are bogus? It would seem to me the two are mutually exclusive.
And DJ, exactly where did she call SC people degenerate scumbags? I think you're putting words in her mouth based on what you think she might think. I'm not implying she approves of them but surely you must have sources to back up your statement.
Hello_Kitty27
09-08-2008, 11:32 AM
Frankly, I think espousing creationism (religion-based) in schools as a scientific theory is whacked.
I totally agree with you, and I had this same argument with my overly religious father....BUT Sarah Palin would like it taught ALONGSIDE evolution. I don't feel it's wrong to teach multiple theories, b/c when it all comes down to it, there is no right or wrong answer. We simply do not know.
Back to the matter at hand, if she had wanted to teach religious based creationism ONLY in public schools, I'd think she was quite the whackjob.
But my understanding is she wants many different theories to be taught in schools.
Hello_Kitty27
09-08-2008, 11:34 AM
And DJ, exactly where did she call SC people degenerate scumbags? I think you're putting words in her mouth based on what you think she might think. I'm not implying she approves of them but surely you must have sources to back up your statement.
Took the words right from my mouth. I have seen nothing from her related to strip clubs. Has she done anything to get any shut down in Alaska? They are generally federally protected under the First Amendment and are seen as a freedom of expression. They're not going anywhere.
G-Real
09-08-2008, 11:42 AM
I totally agree with you, and I had this same argument with my overly religious father....BUT Sarah Palin would like it taught ALONGSIDE evolution. I don't feel it's wrong to teach multiple theories, b/c when it all comes down to it, there is no right or wrong answer. We simply do not know.
Back to the matter at hand, if she had wanted to teach religious based creationism ONLY in public schools, I'd think she was quite the whackjob.
But my understanding is she wants many different theories to be taught in schools.
ugh......ok creationism is myth, there is nothing NOTHING based in fact or evidence. All we have is the bible that tells us a story.
meanwhile science is about seeking the truth, observations, creating a hypothesis and seeing if it comes out true or not. There is evidence that organizms have changed, and mutated. Heck dieseases do this all the time in order to survive, then we have to go make a anew anti-virus to destroy the sickness.
I also high doubt Palin wants all theories taught in school she just wants Christianity taught in school. If we brought up other religions, like tribal south-american/african religions; she would not want anything to do with that.
Furthermore Creationism is a "theory" brought to us by religion, therefore as Seperation of Church and State it does not belong in the class-room.
bem401
09-08-2008, 12:01 PM
ugh......ok creationism is myth, there is nothing NOTHING based in fact or evidence. All we have is the bible that tells us a story.
Myths are are things like Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster. Creationism is not a myth. It is a theory which really can't be proved one way or the other. Nothing more, nothing less. It is something people of faith ascribe to. I presume you are not a person of faith. Me, I'm sort of on the fence.
I also high doubt Palin wants all theories taught in school she just wants Christianity taught in school.
And you know this because......?
If we brought up other religions, like tribal south-american/african religions; she would not want anything to do with that.
Well, if those religions suddenly became prominent in our culture, maybe they'd be deserving of some mention when it came to thoeories on man's origin. Right now, we have Evolutionary Theory and the Intelligent Design spin on it.
Hello_Kitty27
09-08-2008, 12:04 PM
ugh......ok creationism is myth, there is nothing NOTHING based in fact or evidence. All we have is the bible that tells us a story.
meanwhile science is about seeking the truth, observations, creating a hypothesis and seeing if it comes out true or not. There is evidence that organizms have changed, and mutated. Heck dieseases do this all the time in order to survive, then we have to go make a anew anti-virus to destroy the sickness.
I also high doubt Palin wants all theories taught in school she just wants Christianity taught in school. If we brought up other religions, like tribal south-american/african religions; she would not want anything to do with that.
Furthermore Creationism is a "theory" brought to us by religion, therefore as Seperation of Church and State it does not belong in the class-room.
I do totally agree with you about sepearation of church and state, etc, etc ...BUT in some of these supposed scientific cases, they are nothing more than a theory as well. Please also note that creationism doesn't have to be geared towards one specific religious group. In many cases, it is taught very broadly, as in a "higher power" and I've never seen it referred to as "God" (and this was from my brother's catholic school science book).
She does in fact support creationism to be taught ALONGSIDE evolution. Here is the article I get that from:
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
Trust me, I'm not entirely a fan of hers, BUT people are so quick to judge JUST BECAUSE of her personal views, but she seems to be quite logical about some things (definitely not the abortion thing, which bothers me). Some people are being incredibly quick to attack her as some power-hungry crazed right wing extremist dead set on world domination...but in fact (some of) the points they are making are baseless and uneducated.
Djoser
09-08-2008, 12:17 PM
Well I would too if she proposed throwing evolutionary theory out the window at the same time. However, I believe mentioning that some people might believe God had a hand in this is OK.
Yeah, and mentioning some people think the earth is being carried on the back of a giant turtle is OK, too--in a comparative world religion class, where such utterly nonsensical theories of world creation belongs.
Or maybe that aliens visited the earth 50,000 years ago and gave us a little helping hand. A lot of people believe that, too, we better make sure Junior understands it could have happened!
In a science fiction class, where such fantastic explanations for humans doing anything special belong.
Not in a science class, where scientific theories supported by experimentation and physical evidence belongs. Bibles are not considered physical evidence, BTW.
And DJ, exactly where did she call SC people degenerate scumbags? I think you're putting words in her mouth based on what you think she might think. I'm not implying she approves of them but surely you must have sources to back up your statement.
My sources? Any one of her speeches that harps on her Family Values philosophy will do.
Strippers are well known for giving lapdances to married men, BTW. Family Values proponents hate this more than anything else.
What do you think she would say about your membership here on Stripperweb? 'Family entertainment', this ain't.
Any woman who wants to ban Huckleberry Finn is going to call you a degenerate scumbag, spending hours each day on a pornographic website. Oh and this is pornography, to a Jesus Freak. There's pictures of naked women just a mouse click away from this page, where you are defending people who want that made a prosecutable offense.
Oh, here is your government at work, BTW:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/
Thanks for supporting the people that make this possible.
Djoser
09-08-2008, 12:20 PM
They are generally federally protected under the First Amendment and are seen as a freedom of expression. They're not going anywhere.
Yeah, my friends that got arrested in Daytona for trying to take their clothes off were being federally protected, alright!
Hello_Kitty27
09-08-2008, 12:32 PM
Oh, here is your government at work, BTW:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/
From the above linked site:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has stated, “This much has been categorically decided by the Court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 23 (1973)."
So .... this was a website created based off of case law from 1973 against obscene material. This case was held in Orange County CA. I believe they were just as free loving and democratic at that time, as they are now. Certainly not right wing conversatives. They didn't have websites at that tmie obviously, and I don't see anything wrong with being able to report things that someone finds offensive. Just because someone finds something offensive and reports it, doesn't mean it gets shut down or anything.
Here's the case in question against "Obscenity":
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=413&invol=15
While the Judge in this case was conservative, he was very objective and open minded and widely respected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger
(Disclaimer...I'm rushing off to school, I tried my best to find the accurate case and judge, please let me know if the links are incorrect)