I've been around DU for some time and I have seen virtually every single republican referred to as gay at some point or other. It's offensive, hurtful and obnoxious but most of all it is inaccurate. It is also against the rules.
Please stop making the GLBT community feel unwelcome at DU by making these references.
OK...this article is written in 'high legalese' but in a nutshell it basically states that because the recent CA Supreme Court ruling established that gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marry any attempt to change this is actually a 'revision' to the state Constitution, not simply an 'amendment'. Revisions are only possible through a state constitutional convention or through the state legislature and then subject to voter approval.
The rest isn't that long and it really is worth it to read the entire article if you can wade through the jargon.
Read the rest of the article here
Source: LA Times
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- As talk swirled this morning over when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton should end her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, her campaign chairman predicted the party would have a presumptive nominee in June and, if it's not Clinton, she would campaign for Sen. Barack Obama.
The comments by Terry McAuliffe seemed aimed at persuading superdelegates and Democratic Party leaders that Clinton would not hurt party unity by pressing her campaign through the final June 3 primaries in Montana and South Dakota.
"She can win the states we need to win in the general election," McAuliffe said on NBC's "Today" show. "Until there is a nominee with the number of necessary delegates, why should she get out?"
Here in Charleston, Clinton told several hundred supporters in the marble-lined dome of the state Capitol that pressure is growing from party leaders and pundits for her to drop out of the race.
Read more: www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campai...
Looks like that's it for this race.
Posted by LeftCoast in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Fri Mar 07th 2008, 01:55 AM
I'm switching my support to Obama.
It pains me to do this. I like both candidates, but have favored Clinton for various reasons up till now. I still like Hillary. I still think she's a good Dem, but I have always viewed myself as one of the 'reality-based' liberals. After really going over all the numbers I simply see no way for Clinton to win the nomination.
After today, I can see that she has clearly moved into a negative campaign mode. I'm not as bent out of shape by that as many, but there is no point in it since she can't win. All it does is hurt the party and I don't want to see that happen.
You won't see any rw bs from me about Clinton and I'm still going to call people on it if I see it, but for what it's worth I'm 'officially' now on Team Obama. We need to wrap this up and get down to the business of making the republicans a permanent minority party again.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to extend my hand to some of my fellow Clintonistas to come on over and make the switch too. I think it is time, but I won't blame you if you can't bring yourself to do it just yet.
Which brings me to my final point. To those Obama supporters who have been particularly...let's just say hyper-partisan, just a suggestion. If you tone down the hate-rhetoric a bit and stick to issues such as delegate math you will make it easier for us to make the switch. As they say, you catch more flies with honey...
Thanks for hearing me out!
But I admire your effort!
It seems like just about every issue gets boiled down to my team/tribe/nation/group is perfect and the other is evil. The question may be over sports teams, politics, world events or whatever, but it just seems like rational discussion is overwhelmed with brain-dead, black and white thinking.
This seems to be at the heart of a number of health-care related discussions I've been seeing lately. I'm curious what people think about this.
The impeachment-trial procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives.) The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."
Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant wouldn't be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.
In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.
From the Wiki on impeachment
How can you possibly get Joe Lieberman + 15 other republicans to vote to convict?
I just got it. Early birthday present.
Coolest toy I've gotten in a while.
NASA Sits on Air Safety Survey
By RITA BEAMISH, Associated Press Writer
Monday, October 22, 2007
(10-22) 07:06 PDT MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. (AP) --
Anxious to avoid upsetting air travelers, NASA is withholding results from an unprecedented national survey of pilots that found safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than the government previously recognized.
NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million safety project, through telephone interviews with roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years. Since ending the interviews at the beginning of 2005 and shutting down the project completely more than one year ago, the space agency has refused to divulge the results publicly.
Just last week, NASA ordered the contractor that conducted the survey to purge all related data from its computers.
The Associated Press learned about the NASA results from one person familiar with the survey who spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them.
Read the rest here
Every time I think I can't be shocked...
Welcome to the first weekly installment of the Good News Roundup!
All too often it seems like we get overwhelmed by bad news. Good things happen to though. This thread is intended as a place to post and discuss all of the good news that has happened in the last week.
I'd like to encourage everyone to post any good news - whether it's political or personal - here. I'll start:
Just 39% Believe Iraq Report Will Honestly Present Petraeus Views; 35% Say It Will Not
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
General David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, will be issuing a formal progress report on the situation in Iraq next week. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 45% of American voters expect a positive report while 24% expect the opposite. Thirty-one percent (31%) are not sure.
However, just 39% believe the report will honestly and accurately reflect the General’s true assessment of the situation in Iraq. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it will not while 26% are not sure.
As with all polling questions on the topic of Iraq, there is a sharp divide along partisan lines. Republicans, by a 62% to 14% margin, expect a positive report. Democrats are evenly divided with 34% anticipating a positive report and 31% with the opposite view. Forty-two percent (42%) of those not affiliated with either major party say the report will be positive and 25% of unaffiliateds say negative.
By a 58% to 22% margin, Republicans expect the report to honestly reflect the views of Petraeus. Just 25% of Democrats share that assessment while 43% say the report will not accurately reflect what Petraeus thinks. Unaffiliateds are evenly divided.
Judge strikes down part of Patriot Act
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A provision of the Patriot Act that requires people who are formally contacted by the FBI for information to keep it a secret is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero sided with the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the lawsuit and argued that an FBI letter requesting information -- called a National Security Letter -- is effectively a gag order but without the authorization of a judge.
The FBI tells people who receive the letters to keep them secret, but recipients can challenge the secrecy order in court under a 2006 congressional amendment to the NSL law.
The law says judges must defer to the FBI's view that secrecy is necessary, undermining the judiciary's check on the power of the executive branch, the ACLU said.
Conservative ‘Club’ Clipped by Big FEC Fine
Citizens Club for Growth Inc., a highly visible conservative activist organization, agreed to pay a $350,000 penalty to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for failing to register with the agency as a political committee and report its contributions and expenditures.
The group, which has recently undergone a reorganization, is one of a number of groups that organized with the Internal Revenue Service under Section 527 of the tax code primarily to conduct “issues advocacy,” but have drawn loud criticisms for running independent advertising during political campaigns that appeared clearly aimed at persuading viewers to vote for or (more often) against a candidate — a form of electioneering communication that comes under the regulatory purview of the FEC and the fundraising limitations under federal campaign finance laws.
The Club for Growth has been involved in dozens of congressional campaigns, and received considerable attention during the 2004 Republican Senate primary contest in Pennsylvania when the group sought to discredit the incumbent, GOP moderate Arlen Specter, as insufficiently conservative. Then-Rep. Patrick J. Toomey, the Club-backed candidate who came within 2 percentage points of upsetting Specter, is now the president of Club for Growth.
The agreement announced Wednesday would end a pending court case between the two parties, and if the deal is approved, it would be the largest civil penalty the FEC ever collected after an enforcement case has moved to litigation.
Please keep kicked by contributing your own good news and comments!
Happy Friday everyone!
It feels like the prevailing mood here is disappointment. We always seem to be disappointed in something. Sometimes it’s our Party, other times the MSM. Usually both.
Often the disappointment is directed at our own community. I can’t exclude myself from this category. Some people might have noticed my own, often expressed disappointment at the behavior some DUers whenever homosexuality becomes the topic du-jour.
Others here have been disappointed by the ‘lies’ and ‘spin’ by supporters of one (D) candidate or another.
We could probably sit here till the sun comes up listing all the myriad disappointments, but that doesn’t sound like much fun. It’s also really negative and I wonder if it’s not the reason we regularly lose popular members of the community.
Doesn’t anyone else get tired of it? What can we do to change it. Should we even try?
I know things are pretty ugly right now. Not to mention downright scary in some instances. But does having a culture of disappointment (if we do have that) help?
I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to stop being disappointed, but I wonder if there is a way to address our unhappiness in more positive ways.
Thoughts? Comments? *crickets*?
I'm a total Sci Fi hound. I learned to read by devouring my mom's old Sci Fi novels. At six and seven I was reading A E van Vogt and Heinlein. I love the modern writers too. I also love Sci Fi shows and movies. I can only think of one (Andromeda) that I really just can't get into. It has all the things that would seem to make a show I'd be a total fan of. 1) A source of cash (is that the producer?) who seems content to throw money at a show that can't be getting high ratings for years on end. 2) Fairly decent special effects. 3) The desire by the writers to have a long-term story arch with characters that develop.
So why don't I like it?
Well, despite all the plusses going for it, the writers seem stuck on some really outrageously lame story lines. OK, so I have to admit, the concept of entire planets linked up in some sort of HOOOGE spaceship zooming around was pretty cool, but to have it piloted by carnivorous egg-implanting imbeciles kinda ruined it for me. Kevin Sorbo's spaceship is rather cool, as is the concept of the it's split AI. But, after seeing Romy the Robot get broken, taken over, or whatever I found myself sort of rooting for the disaster.
Sorbo (our captain) is nice to look at but he seriously needs to consider Zoloft.
Such a tortured hero. All heroes need flaws to make them interesting, but unlike Kirk who was impetuous and womanizing, the captain of Andromeda's flaw is that he's so fracking self-righteous. His torture seems mostly self-inflicted, though his universe is regularly beset by an inordinate number of calamities. That only he can solve.
Actually, I didn't start this post as a criticism but more as an exploration of why I don't care for Andromeda. I'm also curious to speak to fans about why they like it. There must be at least a few.
I'll freely admit, I haven't watched all the episodes and I've only caught the show intermittently. Perhaps that's one reason for my dislike.
Chinese city stews over rising cost of beef noodles
A global surge in food prices hits the popular dish
By Don Lee, Times Staff Writer
July 28, 2007
But behind the stewing in Lanzhou is a global surge in food prices that is driving up the cost of such things as a latte at a Starbucks in L.A. and a tortilla in Mexico. Food prices worldwide have risen 23% in the last 18 months, according to the International Monetary Fund, partly because of soaring demand for corn to make ethanol.
With farmers shifting to grow more corn, they are producing fewer soybeans and less wheat. That's pushed up prices of grains that feed livestock and poultry, lifting the price of meats, eggs and other goods. Milk in the U.S. costs 10% more than at the start of the year.
In China, meat and poultry prices have increased 20% from a year earlier; eggs are up 28%. Besides higher grain prices, an outbreak of "blue ear disease" at pig farms cut into pork supplies, while growing incomes continue to bolster demand for meat, particularly along China's prosperous east coast.
Even the price of cheap instant noodles is up; Chinese media said this week that it would rise this week 20% to 40%, in part because the cost of palm oil, a major ingredient, had nearly doubled in the last year. Palm oil prices have been driven up by rising demand for biofuel in Europe and strong demand from food sectors in countries such as fast-growing India.
Wiki on Peak Oil
This article is describing exactly what Peak Oil predicted. Even though I knew it was coming, I honestly didn't expect to see it quite this fast.
On the positive side, at least high fructose corn syrup will be too expensive to shove into everything we eat soon.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
FL GOP tries to close state pension system to new workers, yet take THEIR pension at 2X accrual rate
FL GOP denies $51 billion federal Medicaid to poor, yet order cheap health care for themselves
Happy Mother's Day
I love DU2!
Florida Senate President Don Gaetz (R) ran company now accused of Medicaid fraud (Rick Scott redux)
Mediterranean diet cuts risk of heart dis-ease
By No Elephants
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Today's Featured Forums