caeron

Um, I know how Scientology works. I just don't agree with you. The fact that we both know about Xenu says that it has leaked and they aren't keeping the secrets very effectively, are they? Heck, Xenu has its own wikipedia entry! So why nothing about curing homosexuality? The only thing I find currently are scientology public statements that they don't care about someone's private sexuality. I think the whole secrecy thing is to mimic the mystery cults of old. Hidden wisdom is always 'cooler'. Even if the hidden wisdom is dumb as shit.

If Scientology currently thinks it can cure homosexuality, I'm sure it would say so. It wouldn't need to have that reported in some 'expose'. I would argue that all religions are 'for profit', and don't find anything worse about scientology than all the other imaginary man in the sky faiths.

You miss my point. I looked and could find nothing current from scientology on this. THe last stuff is decades old. With the catholic church and the like you can find stuff they said from last week. So I dispute the assertion that the they're actively anti-gay. Second, he's a famous scientologist. I cannot find anything that has him as a 'ranking' member of the group. I'm fine with outting people who actively work to undermine the community or attack us. This fails on both counts. I can't find evidence that they are currently anti-gay. Nor can I find evidence that even if they were that He has a say in the matter.

60 year old stuff? Seriously? 60 years ago, NOBODY thought being gay was ok. Using this as your cover for saying it is ok to out Travolta is ridiculous.

Try google. Scientology doesn't have that view currently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Scientology And on what basis do you equate Travolta with being a cardinal?

What they talked about 30 years ago and what they talk about today isn't the same thing. And even if true, this is equivalent to outing someone because they're a catholic. My googling doesn't show Travolta as a ranking member of the church hierarchy. And the stuff on being anti-gay seems out of date too. Not mind you, that I'm a fan, but I think there's no justification for outing.

I'm with Tampa Yankee. The position of the scientology on gays isn't fully clear, and calling him a bishop isn't accurate either. John has done nothing to the community to warrant outing. I absolutely believe in outing folks like Larry Craig, but to compare John to these enemies of our community is frankly bullshit.

Yeah, just looking at him, you know he wanted to pull a train with the high school football team.

No chance of that. The electorate has the memory of a gnat. The only difference I see between the parties is one what they want to spend on, and that one of the parties wants to ensure we're second class citizens.

The whole concept of the bill of rights is that the will of the majority is not supreme. FSM help us if it ever becomes supreme.

I think he lost because the republicans controlled the messaging. A fiscal stimulus in a huge recession and requiring people to buy health care insurance from private companies is hardly radical. But the republicans very effectively painted it as radical, and the democrats couldn't message their way out of a wet paper bag. I think Obama's problem was that he _was_ the type of politician that he said he would be. The Republicans beat him up, but he didn't return the favor soon enough and often enough. In our sharply partisan political world, he needed to deal with the world as it was, not as he wished it were. The publically televised health care debate was moronic. The suggestion that all debates would be in the open was moronic. Deals get made behind closed doors. I think he was naive. Time will tell if he learns his lessons. I think the Republicans are in for a tough road. They've won enough that I think people will hold them accountable, but not enough that they can drive their agenda. We'll see how it plays out. Maybe someday we'll have a republican party that isn't thrall to the religious right and I'll be able to vote for one who actually believes in fiscal responsibility and individual liberties, including sexual ones.

Of course. Do you really want tyranny of the majority in this country? Go read some history of Athens to learn what happens when you have no checks on the will of the majority. You use the word accountability, but really it is a thinly veiled threat that the majority will remove you if you do your job and make an unpopular ruling. The Supreme Court has decided any number of things incorrectly in my opinion. I've never thought that that should give me a reason to recall them.

Boehner's writing checks he can't cash. He doesn't have the votes to repeal the healthcare legislation. He can keep up the congressional gridlock, but for now that ship has sailed.

I agree. One of the key roles of the court is to protect the minority from the majority. If the court can be brought to heel by the majority, it fails in that critical purpose.

I won't get into it in this forum, but I think this is not true. The republican machine is much, much better than the democratic machine and they controlled the message. People were seriously talking about death panels when the proposal was just to give people a chance to honestly consult about the end of life wishes. I think that was symptomatic of the whole debate on healthcare.

You lost me at "I"

I agree. I wish we'd elected hillary.

Juan was a reporter, not a commentator. His job was to be neutral and report the facts. He got fired because he didn't respect that job requirement. At least some news organizations still strive for objectivity. I was listening to Rush rant about this earlier today and he read an internal letter about the firing which said that Juan had been crossing the line repeatedly while told not to. The New York Times is liberal. NPR, at least to this listener, isn't particularly. The problem is that most people that scream about the liberal media think Fox is a little too far left. Your mileage may vary, but I don't see anything wrong with a news organization telling its reporter to shut his or her mouth and respect the need for objectivity.

Good for Google. We need to get over our 'soak it to the corporations' attitude. All it does is drive businesses away.

I hate it, but I agree with you. Laws need to be defended or chaos reigns.

Four Aces, Sounds like a great plan to me. I'm bored out of my mind at my job, but hard to walk away from ~$200k a year with no plan to replace it. I'm envious of those who find better options.

I think cats not being loyal and affectionate is a myth that dog lovers like to tell. We have cats, and we can't keep them off us. They follow us around the house, they're always very loving and affectionate. Cats. Because they're as good as a dog and you don't have to take them for walks.

Personally, I found the list very hot. I had to go beat off after reading it!

Ow. I experienced this in high school and I can relate. Poor kid.

He's an attention whore. Those kind of people don't care what it takes to get the attention. If it requires you to be a major asshat, then so be it.