Well, if the PATCO workers decided to quit their jobs as a whole instead of striking, wouldn't that raise the same issues of public safety /convenience / negative trade balance / pilots and other airline workers not being paid because of no flights?
If the planes aren't flying for WHATEVER man-made reason, shouldn't ANY man-made reason that leads to that outcome be outlawed? The political outcome of any genuine concern for the issues that Duke and Patel claim is so dear to their hearts would be that it would be just as illegal for air traffic controllers to QUIT their jobs [especially as a unit], let alone go out on strike. But if resignation is not outlawed, only striking, then what's up with that? What's the real agenda?
The inconsistency that I've spotlighted here is what makes me suspicious that it's all about what Portnoy said - breaking the back of organized labor in the guise of 'safety' and whatever.
And, from a pragmatic point of view, giving the PATCO workers a raise and keeping them on the job that way would have been both safer and cheaper than training rookies from scratch.
...all of which could be taken away at the drop of a congressional hat, in which case their not being allowed to respond to that by striking makes them even more defenseless.
Why would you make that up? Oh, that's right, we're on the Internet, where NO ONE ever makes anything up!
You say that you voted for Jesse Jackson in 1988, but you really didn't know that he fully supported the PATCO strike? Why would you vote for someone who supported a strike that, according to you, endangered public safety and convenience?
This has nothing to do with paranoia and conspiracy, and you know it. You just set off my bullshit detector big time. Your arguments are dishonest, and I'm calling you out on that.
Once Portnoy and I rebutted you on the public safety argument, a more honest response would have been along the lines of "OK, so maybe no planes would have run. I see that. But what about some equally calamitous occurrences on the world and domestic financial front that would have been the outcome of the strike?" But you didn't do that, instead choosing to rationalize about "interrelated points".
And your guesses about me are characteristically wacky. I'm 48, married with two kids in the suburbs of New York. I was a film critic for AVN from 1990 - 1997. I campaigned for Jesse Jackson in 1988 by organizing "Jewish-Americans for Jackson". All told, that makes me older than you (assuming what you say is true about casting your first vote in 1988).
So, I don't need any lectures about being overly idealistic and needing to mellow and accept compromises as I get older. The PATCO workers weren't demanding socialism, just some moderate reforms. In my teens, I might have considered THEM to be sellouts to the working class for not asking for total revolution!
I think in principle it's a great thing. I do think there should be a union set up to stop women being exploited to such a degree that their lives become unbearable.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Mar 7 2007 : 1:38PM
Sheldon, as an ex-AVN guy, you should have a better understanding of the laws applicable to adult movies. Fisting was not, and is not, "illegal;" it is simply content that the industry avoided after some kind of behind-the-scenes agreement was worked out with the LAPD over what would and would not result in the theaters being raided. There is no bright-line test that can be used to determine, in advance, what constitutes obscenity; all the filmmaker can do is try to take an educated guess at what might draw a prosecution, and a determination by a jury that the content violates community standards. Hence, your assertion that "lots of porn people have made their films KNOWING it was illegal to do so" is, IMHO, unsupportable.
PATCO didn't have to guess whether a strike would be illegal; all they had to do was read the statute. The comparison you're trying to make doesn't fly (pardon the pun).
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - Mar 7 2007 : 4:27PM
Everyone in porn all is all nonformist rebel and shit until it comes to getting paid. Then all of sudden everyone starts towing the corporate line. Funny how that works out.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 7 2007 : 7:37PM
And those tactics backfired. It got the PATCO workers fired and the TWU workers double-docked, and their Union crippled. Some strategy. In the end, the workers gained nothing, and themselves set the clock back for labor, thanks to the hubris of their leaders. Power? I think the strikers and their leaders were given an object lesson in power. It's pure romanticism to suggest otherwise.
As for the screeners, I wouldn't have a problem if they stuck. The patriot act is Bullshit, the equivalent of Hitler's enabling act. (BTW, I love that Hugo Chavez picked the same name for the legislation his rubber stamp parliament passed last month.) In fact, I'd support a strike by the screeners. They get paid shit and put up with a lot. And their job really don't affect public safety all that much, the protests of the Bushies to the contrary notwithstanding. I'm not at all anti-labor. But I do strongly believe that you can't strike against the public interest.
And again, thanks for being a worthy opponent. It's fun to debate you. This other one, however, is a rude bastard.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 7 2007 : 7:44PM
Stop behaving like a two-year-old for a minute. No, you don't have to obey the law. I've broken many laws in my lifetime, as I'm sure you have. The thing is, when you break the law, you have to be prepared to take the consequences if you get caught. No one wants to hear you bitching and moaning about it when you've brought it on yourself. PATCO was repeatedly told that the strike was illegal, that they would be fired if they struck, and they went and did it anyway. So they got fired. Most of them took it like men. Why can't you?
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 7 2007 : 7:48PM
None of this has anything to do with PATCO. As both Harri and I have repeatedly stated, neither of us are fans of Ronald Reagan, It just happens that, in this one particular instance, he was right. Please stay on topic, Sheldon.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 7 2007 : 8:08PM
There's that paranoia again, looking for hidden agendas. Sheldon, your arguement is preposterous. Wheter PATCO got fired or resigned en masse, Reagan would have done the same thing: replaced them with Military Controllers until new ones could be trained. Presidents have brought in the military during strikes since Grover Cleveland. As for the cost of training those new workers, the fault lies with the union, which chose to walk away from negotiations and go on an illegal strike. It was PATCO, not the Government, that acted in bad faith, Sheldon. I'm not even going to touch this nonsense about outlawing resignations, because it's just silly. But, since you're not the most well educated guy, I'll give you a hint: It has something to do with The Thirteenth Amendment. Go ahead, click the link and learn something.
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Mar 7 2007 : 8:10PM
Oh come on when was the last time the federal government ever took away anything it created. Bureaucracies do not go on diets.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 7 2007 : 8:35PM
By your own logic, Sheldon, why should I believe you? But, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you're 48, making childish remarks like "Ooooh, we must obey the law..." having paranoid delusions about my C.V. and hidden agendas, all in the name of winning a meaningless debate on an internet Porn forum that seems to mean more to you that that wife and two kids in the suburbs, then you are in need of some serious help. I was being kind when I said you were 21 or 22, because, from everything I've seen, you appear to have the emotional development of a 15-year-old. Grow up, Sheldon.Sheldon, I know that, as a Socialist, this is going to be hard for you to accept, so brace yourself: Utopia Doesn't Exist. It's like the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus (Oh, I'm sorry, did I spoil anything there?) There is no perfect world, Sheldon. No one, and I mean No One is going to agree with a candidate on every single issue. Ain't gonna happen. If you're waiting for that to happen, you're going to be bitterly disappointed. You pick the candidate that comes closest and proceed from there. And, just as I aggreed with Rev. Jackson on most issues and disagreed with a few others, I can agree with Ronald Reagan on one issue and disagree on the rest. It's called the Real World, Sheldon. Join us sometime, when you've grown up.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 7 2007 : 8:46PM
Sorry, Tony, I was busy answering Sheldon from this afternoon. Public Interest? I'd like to say that's a matter of common sense, but we all know that Common Sense is a commodity that's sorely lacking these days, unlike Florida Citrus. I guess This serves as a decent definition.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 7 2007 : 8:49PM
Temporarily suspended during the Civil War, as authorized by the Constitution. Don't talk to me about Gitmo. Habeus doesn't apply to foreign terrorists.
[Link]
Ejac Deactivated User
851 Posts 9/04
Posted - Mar 7 2007 : 8:54PM
A few years back, Local 1199 (NY) was brought in to organize a hospital. The nurses were getting the Crown treatment and couldn't wait until the contracts were signed. Turn out was huge. Other dues payers not even related to health care were in support of them. Then, last ditch effort, the hospital administration promised the nurses that if they didn't unionize, they'd be well taken care of over and above what any bargaining collective could negotiate. A couple of years later, the nurses crawled on all fours wanting to organize again, and promised to stick together. In a civil tone, Local 1199 told them to fucking hike.
I don't know what this has to do with this thread. I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Well then let's take this for a test drive, shall we?
A predictable and I would argue neccesary function of a market economy is the concentration of capital. Without the concentration of capital there are no factories, no R&D, none of the things that produce wealth in a society.
In other words, we'd all be a lot poorer if some people weren't richer.
But the concentration of wealth produces inequities in power that can be and have often become corrosive to a democratic and pluralistic society.
And where money can be accumulated and saved for later, labor cannot be. Labor is in it essense, time, and every day a man doesn't work, his efforts are lost.
The only way that labor can be aggregated and weilded effectively a check to the power that will pool around the accumulation of wealth, an accumulation that is neccassary for our economy and society to function, is for laborers to maintain the option to withhold their labor en mass.
And because checks and balances are crucial to the proper workings of a democratic and pluralistic society, the right of workers to organize and to strike is, in and of itself, in the public interest.
Does that give workers the right to break contracts or laws without repurcussions? Of course not. Actions have consequences.
But your suggestion that there is "no right to strike against the public interest" and the "the public interest" can be determined by a judicious application of "common sense" is absurd on the face; perhaps even more absurd than the notion that porn performers will ever be able to organize into an effective union. (While we're here, Sheldon, what medical services does AIM provide that would be a part of the typical health benefits package that an efffective union could negotiate for its members?)
The Los Angeles ADA who prosecuted Seymore Butts would vehemently disagree - she considered any violation of that so-called "behind-the-scenes" disagreement to be an illegal act, and since she called the shots at the time, it is illegal (or was at the time) even if we don't think it ought to be and even if some optimisitc constitutional scholars and lawyers say it would be overturned by the Supreme Court and even if the word "fisting" does not appear on any statute. Perhaps I should have said "operationally illegal"?
Duke posts:Both Britain and the US passed "Enabling Acts" prior to 2000 that bore as little resemblance to Hitlerian laws as does the current government of Venezuela, which also passed an Enabling Law in 1999. Several Venezuelan governments prior to Chavez had used the same type of laws. Britain's Labour government used them in the 1930s, and the US used them to declare statehood for Alaska and Hawaii. For more info, Wikipedia is a good place to start.
The Nazis used their Enabling Law to establish concentration camps for their political opponents. Nothing remotely like that happened in Britain then, the US then, or Venezuela then or now.
Of course, that you would slime Chavez by unjustifiably comparing him to Hitler is par for the course for someone who dubiously refers to himself as a "union member" and a "liberal". You also imply in another post that everyone at Gitmo is a foreign terrorist, mimicking the Bush Administration line. At this point, Ann Coulter is beginning to look like a Trotskyist.
Then why did your prior posts treat obeying the law like it's sacred and 'public safety' like an idol before which we must all bow down?
My Saturday Night Live-style sarcasm is no more infantile that the typical stand-up comic. If I just cussed you out instead, would that have been more adult?
Which I've never denied.Really? So why did you earlier approve of Perv's description of the strikers as a "bunch of whiny jackoffs"?Protesting an unjust law is not the same as complaining about the consequences of breaking it. By your logic, Martin Luther King was a whiner for protesting the unjust laws of segregation, especially when he wrote his famous letters from an Alabama jail.But since you and Reagan both put "Public Safety" on such a pedestal, why would either of you care about the 13th or any Amendment? This is what you said to Hardware:You made it sound here like Reagan did what he did to PATCO because he had to, because he was a man who respected the law, when it fact he flouted the law when it suited him, which was often. That's why I brought up Iran/Contragate.
Which means he did NOT have to fire them, since he had no respect for the law in the first place. Now, what part of that don't you understand?
Because my position on PATCO is consistent with my stated political beliefs, whereas your position on this, and some other important issues (which are coming to light as this thread progresses), is a slap in the face to your stated beliefs.If you regard this debate as meaningless, then why the hell are YOU participating in it? Talk about needing serious help!
And how do you figure that posting here means more to me than my family? Just because I'm calling you out on your BS on each and every point? Don't flatter yourself - you're not that good that it takes hours to figure out how to respond to you.
To paraphrase your public safety icon, Ronald Reagan, there you go again. I posted this earlier:Edited by - Sheldon on 3/8/2007 12:19:06 AM
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - Mar 8 2007 : 8:50AM
You better believe it! Actually, Clinton did abolish welfare. The 'Welfare Reform Act of 1996,' eliminated the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) the Johnson Era program that had been known as Welfare. Clinton replaced AFDC with TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) which throws recipients off the rolls after a set time period and added a mandatory work requirement.
Perhaps you should include Jimmy Carter on the list of "mancrushees" as he has verified the democratic content of recent elections that have brought Chavez to power.
BTW, Chavez was, IIRC, the first Latin American leader ever to sponsor nation-wide Gay Pride celebrations. Dictators don't do that. (Castro, by contrast, locked gay people in prison)
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Mar 8 2007 : 2:24PM
That is simply incorrect. What a prosecutor thinks, or claims to think, about potentially obscene materials has no more legal significance, and is no more controlling, than what you or I think. Nothing is illegal under the obscenity statute until and unless a jury makes a determination that it is. The prosecutor's posturing is only relevant insofar as it may signal what may or may not trigger a prosecution.
The PATCO controllers knowingly broke the law. Seymore Butts merely chose to expose himself to a greater risk of possible prosecution than the industry as a whole was comfortable with. Two entirely different courses of conduct. (And, if memory serves, the obscenity case against him fizzled out, and he ended up plea-bargaining to Disturbing the Peace, or Wearing Bad Shirts, or something.)
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 8 2007 : 3:16PM
Despite some word twisting by Sheldon, I've never denied the right of workers to organize and to strike, nor have I denied that labor keeps a check on some of the worst tendencies of capital. But that does not mean that the right of workers to strike is, in and of itself, in the public interest. Not by a long shot. For all the good that labor does (and it does a lot of good) strikers, no matter how many are represented, no matter how broad the issues, represent, by definition, a private interest when compared with society as a whole. And as long as they're striking against Capital, that's fine. More power to 'em. Off the Rich. But, you see (and here's where you get it wrong) the PATCO workers, and, for that matter, the TWU workers, weren't striking against Capital. They were striking against the Government. We the People. Now I'm not saying that all strikes by public employees are wrong. As I said above, if the airport screeners went on strike, I'd support them. They have a lousey job for shit pay and put up with a lot of crap. And they don't demonstably affect the public safety one way or another. I'd support a teacher's strike, because Lord knows they put up with a lot for a little. But when a handful of strikers tries to tie up the country in knots (or New York City, or the economy,) yeah, that's a strike against the public interest. There is a difference.
Click to expand
Jose Padilla is a US citizen...
Click to expand
...Who shouldn't have been hanging out with terrorists. Period. Did his case get bungled by Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and that Mini-Nazi Alberto Gonzalez? Without Question. But I have no sympathy for terrorists or their adherents, so it's kinda hard for me to get worked up over it. Actually, Tony, the remarkable thing is not that one Terrorist/sympathizer got locked up without Habeus Corpus under the Bush regime, it's that a whole lot of us who oppose Bush, myself included, haven't been locked up indefinately. Oh well, he's got almost two years left to try.
You said "there is no right to strike against the public interest" and then went on to assert that the public interest can be assertained by the appliction of "common sense". That's moronic.
More over, the wiki article you linked to offers a definition of "public interest" so plastic as to easily include the aggregation of wealth, and conversely the right of labor to organize and strike.
At a certain point, whether or not any action a group take is legal or illegal is immaterial. On July 4, 1776, the signing of the Declaration of Independence was an act of high treason. 200+ years later it has proven to be a visionary act of courage, and a bold step forward in the history of mankind. Though you've obviously made up your mind, a more circumspect soul might reasonably argue that the jury's still out on whether the PATCO strike was an ignominious or courageous defeat.
Since when does respect for the law require respect for the guilty?
You're clearly a smart guy, Raoul, but you've lost your way on this one. (But not on Sheldon. He's an idiot.)
The excutive branch shall also, through the judicious application of common sense determine when and where it is in the public interest to reveal the identity of CIA operatives.
Like many before you, you are vastly over estimating the value of having "film critic for AVN" on one's CV.
None the less I would have thought it beneigth you, Raoul, for you to lay special claim on sentiments or judgements regarding the issues that orbit 9/11 merely because you "lived through it".
I am not without some degree of sympathy. Having "lived through it myself", not everything I've thought our said has been lucid, or truly reflected what I believe in. Possibly that explains why a smart guy like you confuses wishing to live in a society with those who govern are bound by the same laws as those they govern, and where one's fellow citizens value their freedom as much as they value their security with having "sympathy for terrorists".
Don't waste any more of your energy on Sheldon. "Film critic for AVN" was the high point of his career, and that was nearly a decade ago.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 8 2007 : 5:08PM
I said I'd like to say common sense but we all know that Common Sense is a commodity that's sorely lacking these days, unlike Florida Citrus. (BTW, howis that citrus, Tony?)The Wiki article was meant to be a quick, neutral definition, and, in retrospect, I probably could have found better. Perhaps the "public intrest" is intangible, contextual, like Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography: "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it." Well, as I see it, as I said before when a handful of strikers tries to tie up the country in knots (or New York City, or the economy,) yeah, that's a strike against the public interest. And yes, there is a difference between a srike against Capital and a strike against the public interest. And while you're right that history judges events differently than the contemporaries, I think that, after 26 years, the verdict is clear.As I said, did Padillia's case get bungled by Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and that Mini-Nazi Alberto Gonzalez? Without Question. Clearly, they should have followed the law, tried him as an American Citizen, found him guilty and flung him into a dank, lightless cell next to John Walker Lindh. But again, after 9/11, I have no sympathy for terrorists or their adherents. I lived through 9/11 in New York. I had friends die in the towers, and other friends, firefighters, who will never be the same. I had a family member who, like many New Yorkers, joined the Marines in response to 9/11. He was killed in Bush's stupid, illegal and stratigically imbicillic war in Iraq when his helocopter was shot down over Anbar. So, after all that, it's hard for me to get worked up over it if a terrorist wannabbe gets his rights violated. Was it wrong. Sure. But I don't lose any sleep over it.Clearly.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 8 2007 : 5:18PM
How did we manage to derail this thread from a Union of Pornstars to the rights of terrorists? I can see the PATCO diversion, but not Gitmo. Must be Sheldon's fault.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - Mar 8 2007 : 5:20PM
There are a couple of real doozy's here, but I'm going to be as brief and to the point as possible.
1. It was the US that backed a coup against Chavez not the other way around. He remains wildly popular throughout Latin America and especially so among the poor and dispossed in Veneuzeula.
2. Look man, Sheldon and I have a lot in common--beginning with the fact that we both lost whole branches of our families in the Holocaust. Your evidence to support Hitler/Chavez comparison is very thin, don't confuse a social democratic state with a police state. I'd hate to say it, but here it's more than just the weakness of your argument that's offensive.
3. Watch some of the news reports this week of Bush's trip to Latin America. His new policy is to out Chavez, Chavez. By that I mean that Bush has suddenly dropped 15 years of imposing the neo-liberal policies of structural adjustment and privatization on Latin America. And is now spreading the money around qua...promises of generous foreign aid to any South/Central American gov't that will take US bucks in an attempt to counter Chavez's growing popularity and influence. Unfortunately, the US smartened up just a little too late. Oh and BTW...Reagan's old nemesis Daniel Ortega is back in power in Nicaragua too, thought I'd throw that in there just for fun!
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 8 2007 : 5:44PM
Chavez attempted to seize power in a failed 1992 coup, long before Dumbass tried to have him ousted. Look it up.There's way too many parallells. And there's no difference between the original camps (which, before the Nurenburg laws, were solely for political prisoners) and Stalin's Gulags, or Castro's prisons. The evidence is there. Don't overlook Chavez's dictatorial acts because you like his socialist rhetoric. And don't confuse my pointing out the parallels between Chavez's Venezuela and the Third Reich with Anti-Semitism or Holocaust Denial. I'm sorry if it got taken that way. There was a character here named "Arnold" not too long ago and I ran him off the board for that. He actually started this thread.Who are you kidding? Bush hasn't smartened up a bit. Seriously, I don't see the trip as even being necessary. Outside of Morales and correa, who are already within Chavez's orbit, no one else is chomping at the bit to join him. Not Kirchner, not Batchelet, not any of them. As for Danny Ortega, I always liked him. He used to make me laugh, watching him bedevil Ronnie so. Remember, I told you, I only agree with Reagan on that one issue.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 8 2007 : 5:47PM
Edited by - Raoul Duke on 3/9/2007 12:10:01 AM
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Mar 8 2007 : 6:35PM
Giving something a different name is not the same as eliminating it. Do you also think that food stamps have been eliminated just because they have been replaced by Vision cards? It is still the same concept with a different name. When all programs such as Vision, federally assisted low income housing, federally assisted child care, federally assisted (fill in the blank social program here) are done away then you can tell me that someone has eliminated welfare. Until then you are living in ideologyland while I reside in reality.
And Chavez is buddy buddy with Castro. He also understands the concept of p.r. Good point though I should have added Carter to the list of socialist left wing regime circle jerkers.
You have beautiful flesh. GIVE IT TO US! 9 Posts 1/07
Posted - Mar 9 2007 : 2:54AM
Some more thoughts:
- Yes, general strikes can derail the economy, as PATCO threatened to do, but that's the whole point of a strike. Otherwise, what kind of a bargaining chip does labor have? Only the threat of reduced profits and other economic fallout can force management to bargain, whether it's the federal government or Starbucks. Or Vivid Pictures.
- As for Theodore Roosevelt, our nation's founding imperialist, of course he would make it illegal to strike against the government. As the head bully, he was certainly no friend to labor. PATCO dared to stand up against this unjust law, and they were roundly punished for it, along with everyone else who works for a living.
- Unions, for all of their flaws, are far more democratic than the corporations or the federal bureaucracies that enable them. If the elections are not transparent, then reorganize within the union - and use "wildcat" strikes to undermine the power of the union bosses.
- All of this, needless to say, is applicable to the porn industry. All of these issues of exploitation, low pay, no health care, dangerous conditions and a lack of respect can only be resolved if the performers stand together and organize themselves. If Sasha Grey can be an organizer, more power to her!
- All of the infighting on this thread is unfortunately typical of the left. If a "liberal Democrat" and a "socialist" argue so heatedly on the legality of a one-union strike from a quarter-century ago, then how can a viable social movement ever be built? This is exactly what the bosses want us to do...
Actually, it has indeed been "controlling" in the sense that, on a day-to-day level, most porn producers / directors won't insert any fisting scenes into their product. "We can't do that stuff - it's illegal" is the typical response I've gotten when I've asked them that over the years.
You omitted what I posted subsequent to your excerpt from my post, in which I offered to alter my wording to "operationally illegal" (as opposed to statutorally illegal). Butts knowingly did something that was operationally illegal and that he knew was going to bring down the wrath of the local authorities.
Regardless of whether the PATCO strike was legal by open statute or whether Butts' action was illegal by implication, the state responded in a heavy-handed manner, treating the 'provocateurs' like lawbreakers. And if folks are going to get on PATCO's case because they've got a 'fetish' for being law-abiding, then they've got to be consistent and condemn Adam Glasser. And Nina Hartley, who was arrested in 1993 in Las Vegas for violating its Infamous Crimes Against Nature statute (she participated in a girl/girl act on stage).
the unknown pervert wrote:Renaming stuff was not actually what Clinton did.
Work requirements were made into a condition to receive federal money, which destroyed the whole point of what LBJ did on this matter in the 1960's.
One reason why the Republicans went bugfuck over Clinton is that he was coopting major points of their agenda.
Supporting gay rights is not "p.r." unless you think civil rights don't matter much. It's not easy for any Venezuelan President to go up against the powerful Catholic Church.
Carter supported Somoza, the right-wing dictator of Nicaragua, the Shah of Iran and other right-wing dictators during his Presidency. Some "socialist left wing circle jerker"!
I sympathize with your lament. But heated arguing per se is a good thing in a democratic movement. On the other hand, the dishonest 'credentialing' of Duke is not. It's no different that women who claim to be feminists but want abortion outlawed. So-called 'pro-life feminists' also droned on about how this was that one issue where they agreed with Reagan.
The PATCO strike is not just one issue - it was a defining issue for progressives. And as this thread has continued, Duke came out against the NYC Transit Worker's strike and likened Hugo Chavez to Adolf Hitler, which puts Duke to the right of the Wall Street Journal, whose editorials are 'merely' content to call him a dictator. And if you disagree with him, he'll label you a Utopian and compare you to a Confederate . And those are just his "good" points!
Chloe Temple Interview
Posted - Mar 7 2007 : 10:04AM
