Other
See other Other Articles
Title: SanFag Fudgepacker Pride Parade celebrates 40th anniversary
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GJIA1G0&show_article=1
Published: Jun 27, 2010
Author: SUDHIN THANAWALA
Post Date: 2010-06-27 07:18:38 by Happy Quanzaa
Keywords: queers, fags, faggots, dykes, butches, fudgepackers, carpet munchers
Views: 157068
Comments: 167
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco's 40th annual gay pride weekend drew thousands to Civic Center Plaza, with even more expected Sunday for a parade, a Backstreet Boys concert and comments from U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Organizers kicked off the event Saturday in front of City Hall where thousands converged as vendors sold barbecue and burritos and DJs spun tunes on a large stage. Advocates for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community shared booths alongside corporate sponsors. "It's part political, it's part a party," said Darryl Groom, 55, explaining the elements that brought him and his partner, Tobey Tam, 41, to San Francisco from Cape Coral, Fla. San Francisco's gay pride festivities have come a long way since the first parade in 1970, as has the LGBT movement, organizers and historians say. The first pride parade had about 150 to 200 people, said Gerard Koskovich of the GLBT Historical Society. "Barely anybody noticed," he said. "I've seen pictures of it." The following year, there wasn't even a march, he said, just a gathering in Golden Gate Park. Today, the march attracts tens of thousands of people, and a growing number of those are not in the LGBT community, Koskovich said. "That homophobia that says, 'Eek, I'm not going to hang out with these people,' has turned into, 'Boy, these people throw a great party.'" San Francisco Pride Executive Director Amy Andre said the fight for equal rights for lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender people has also come a long way since the first pride celebration in 1970. At the time, gay sex was a crime in California. This year, a prerecorded address will be delivered by Pelosi and The Backstreet Boys will perform. Andre said this year's theme, "40 and Fabulous," is partly intended to celebrate the movement's progress. "But we're also reflecting on the fact that we still have a long way to come for equal rights," Andre added.
A member of the Mike's on Bike rides his
bike nude down Market Street...
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-56) not displayed.
.
.
.
#57. To: A K A Stone (#29)
BUT!!!!!!...never forget this........whining delivered MAIL!!! Sarah has nothing on her:)
Death to everybody who does not get outta my way. Below is positively the most hilariously BS overflowing comment from the resident obamunist spent-condom EVER:) "This is WHY I left the GOP in the mid 90's. ." Dwarf
Hey smart ass. I just gave you the rules. Just because you can be an asshole and leave it blank doesn't mean I condone that. It is for people who write their own articles. Got it?
That explanation was previously found where?
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Didn't you listen. Let me tell you again. The titles are descriptions of articles. You can put whatever you want as long as it gets past the editor (me). You cannot alter the content of the article. It is not complicated, except for liberals. Quit whining, it is so liberal.
It doesn't matter. You know it now.
Then I suggest you change the posting screen. How hard can that be?
Just for the record. I wasn't calling you an asshole. I just mean in general people who post articles should put the link.
Got it. So far: Anyone posting shit you agree with can violate copyright laws but I can't. Any other serendipitous rules you'd care to share? Or do you need to consult with Tull?
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
For me. Impossible. I'm not a programmer. Look no one is going to get banned for not putting the link. Unless it is a deliberate pattern. It is just the honor system.
First off. Copyright laws is limited to a 10 mile jurisdiction. Secondly there is no violation of any copyright law for describing an article in your own words. If I think it is fair it will stay. If it offends me I may remove it. If it is an article that offends me with the original title. I will probably let it stay. There are all kinds of articles people post here that I believe are pure bullshit. But I let 99 percent of them stay. You like to argue a lot.
Never been a problem for me. I always put in the link.
You like to single me out a lot. Everyone here is in an argument at any given time. And what you've stated is 100% incorrect. Copyright reach extends within the jurisdiction of the US and is even enforceable beyond water's edge under some treaties. There's a whole body of common law dedicated to it.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Yeah, and the constitution doesn't protect free speech for corporations.
Yeah I do. It is because you like to argue a lot about the rules.
Correct. Only people have rights. Read Madison. He specifically states that corporations are dangers to liberty. He makes the case that they exist as an entity NOT as a person. There was no such thing as corporate "rights" until the late 19th century when they started buying politicians. Do you know what Panama came into existence?
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Can you link me to the rules?
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
I'll take your word for that. It is not something I go around checking. Only when someone brings it up.
No. There are no written rules. I make judgements based on what I think is right. It would be impossible to write a set of rules and follow them consistently all the time. They would be riddled with mistakes and exceptions. Just remember I am a conservative and I consider liberals the ones with targets on their heads.
Myth: The protections of the Free Speech Clause properly apply only to individuals, not corporations. Justice Scalia dispatched with this argument nicely in his concurring opinion by pointing out that the First Amendment has long been extended beyond isolated individuals to groups and associations whose members gather for a wide variety of purposes ranging from political to commercial. The Democratic party, the Sierra Club, and the New York Times aren’t individuals, but their speech nonetheless falls under the umbrella of First Amendment protection. But the formalistic obsession with whether a corporation should have the legal status of a “person” with a “right” to free speech quite misses the substantive issues at stake, which concern how the principle of free expression should be applied to the political speech of certain types of social groups. In particular, is there something uniquely harmful and/or unworthy of protection about political messages that come from corporations and unions, as opposed to, say, rich individuals, persuasive writers, or charismatic demagogues? Which brings us to our next point: Myth: A deluge of corporate and union speech will corrupt the democratic process. The very idea that political speech in an open democracy can be “corrupting” rests on fundamentally illiberal assumptions about individuals’ capacity for reasoned deliberation and self-government. The First Amendment was designed to allow all speakers to put their messages out into the public debate, be they rich or poor, vicious or virtuous. The underlying principle is that over the long run, a society of free individuals is best equipped to evaluate the merits of political arguments for themselves, and that a distrustful government cannot ban speech out of the worry that its citizens will be unduly swayed by it. Rich individuals and talented polemicists have always been permitted to put out quantities and qualities of speech that may exert a disproportionate influence on society, but political opponents and voters have always been trusted to evaluate these speakers’ arguments for themselves, respond with counter-arguments, and ultimately make up their own minds about the truth of any matter of controversy. Especially with the explosion of diverse viewpoints and avenues of expression that have come from the Internet media revolution, it simply defies common sense to think that any corporation or union could ever hope to so overwhelm the political debate as to prevent dissenting voices from being heard and reasonably contemplated by the electorate. Of course, this freewheeling political dialogue may be messy, imperfect, and prone to abuses, but the First Amendment makes it constitutionally preferable to censorship targeted at disfavored groups. http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/49322/defending-i-citizens-united-i/anthony-dick
The supreme court just bitch slapped that nonsense. Only people can talk so they are the only ones who could possible have free speech. People are free to contract as they see fit. They are allowed to peacefully assemble. Just because they form a corporation doesn't mean they lose any rights. Do they also lose right to trial by jury? What about the fourth amendment? And on and on and on.
Chuckles...for an "originalist", Scalia doesn't know his Madison. He - and you - should start with #10 and the danger of factions claiming the same rights as individuals.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Nope. The SCOTUS is as much a statist body as the other two branches. There is nothing that can be found contemporary to the creation of the USCON and the first amendment that put the "commerical" under the penumbra of the Speech clause.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
You're a broken record war. Also I have a suggestion for Neil. Neil if you could some day make two new functions for your pinguinite software. One function would be called blind. The host could blind users from seeing comments from other users. Another would be bind. It would prevent certain posters from interacting with each other. Just an idea I've had for a while.
When the right is claimed as a body created in law rather than an individual endowed with natural rights, the body, created by law and thus can be destroyed by law, has no rights other than those endowed by its creator, i.e., the legislature.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Isn't that what the filter is for?
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Kind of. Except I could say. Hmm war and tull are always at each others throat and it is getting old. I will blind them both. Or bind them. Bozo is chosen by the user. Bind or blind would be chosen by me.
I put Tull on bozo. I put the disrupters from LP on bozo too. I had Boofer on bozo to until he called me a pussy for doing so. IN some cases, irony wins.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
How did you know that if he was on bozo? Something is not adding up.
I usually check pings before signing in. You see the activity from the ISP. It's easily verified.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
I should clarify that a bit too...some people I have bozo'd and threads I have ignored that I might be pinged to, I don't read. I couldn't tell you the last time I read e_type's. Liberator's or Ibluafartsky's responses to me. And some people I have bozo'd I see comments made about me when copied and pasted to others. The "pussy" comment I actually read tho and I knew that if I took him off and responded that Boofer would start lying about filtering me...he's very predictable. He did that at LP. Claimed to have me filtered and my bozo number never changed. Like here. He screwed up when I was suspended. He didn't know I could log in. He said that he took me off but when I checked the number, it hadn't changed.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
What does the word 'optional' mean in asshole Stone's little world? Robin reminded me about your techniques earlier this week.
Sure you do, Goldi-Jr, sure you do.
I had Boofer on bozo to until he called me a pussy for doing soHN How did you know that if he was on bozo? Something is not adding up. A K A Stone posted on 2010-06-27 21:40:52 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Ooooooooooppppppssssss!!! AKA you had it right in dumping the lying fakery of dwarf. IMHO the place will benefit it you chose to cull the DU rubbish from time to time......what's GO65 add here?....debate....dialog??? C'mon....everyone knows dwarf and GO are 2 legged obamunist campaign yardsigns tirelessly and annoyingly shilling for almost 2 years after their punk "won" the "election". If one of us even remotely posted on one of their DU/olberdork/nothingtonpost type sites we'd be run out in a New York minute even if we were blazingly polite. Anyway.......lost on this pig fake dwarf is the common sense / logical capacity to even see the comedy of his own "claim". JMHO:)
Death to everybody who does not get outta my way. Below is positively the most hilariously BS overflowing comment from the resident obamunist spent-condom EVER:) "This is WHY I left the GOP in the mid 90's. ." Dwarf
Because all "Progressives" are JACKASSES by whatever name they name themselves. The Democratic Party picked a very appeopriate symbol for themselves because that is what they ARE!!!
Unless they are logged in, the server can't reliably tell who's who, so I think this one wouldn't have any practical effect. They could simply reply to a different comment number. Again, I don't see this as reducing undesired interactions.
I always put in the link unless the article I post is a 00-Hotherp or Marshal Hotherp report or song (something I write myself). Why can't the "Progressive" JACKASSES.
Maybe you should just give up the site. It sounds like you can't handle the pressure certain posters put on you to manipulate discussion here.
Making the world safe for United Fruit.
Just a thought. You are right.
Fuck you. Maybe I can just delete you instead.
Fred if you want make a set of rules. If they are good I will use them. If I had a set of rules war would be gone.
Comments (97 - 167) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou're jealous of Sarah. Is she everything you wish you were but aren't. Pretty, SMART, ambitious, decent,caring.
#58. To: Skip Intro (#55)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#58)
#60. To: war (#52)
Let's face it...neither you nor Tull have ever come any where close to overcoming any of my points in our discussions. Tull had to ban me and you had to overreact as a moderator and "suspend" me for a "violation" no more egregious than those committed by the same posters day in and day out.
#61. To: war (#59)
#62. To: A K A Stone (#58)
Hey smart ass. I just gave you the rules. Just because you can be an asshole and leave it blank doesn't mean I condone that.
#63. To: Skip Intro (#55)
#64. To: A K A Stone (#61)
(Edited)
#65. To: Skip Intro (#62)
Then I suggest you change the posting screen. How hard can that be?
#66. To: war (#64)
Anyone posting shit you agree with can violate copyright laws but I can't.
#67. To: A K A Stone (#65)
Look no one is going to get banned for not putting the link.
#68. To: A K A Stone (#66)
(Edited)
You like to argue a lot.
#69. To: war (#68)
#70. To: war (#68)
You like to single me out a lot.
#71. To: A K A Stone (#69)
(Edited)
#72. To: A K A Stone (#70)
#73. To: Skip Intro (#67)
Never been a problem for me. I always put in the link.
#74. To: war (#72)
Can you link me to the rules?
#75. To: war (#71)
#76. To: war (#71)
#77. To: no gnu taxes (#75)
#78. To: A K A Stone (#76)
(Edited)
The supreme court just bitch slapped that nonsense.
#79. To: war, pinguinite (#78)
#80. To: A K A Stone (#76)
(Edited)
Just because they form a corporation doesn't mean they lose any rights.
#81. To: A K A Stone (#79)
The host could blind users from seeing comments from other users.
#82. To: war (#81)
Isn't that what the filter is for?
#83. To: A K A Stone (#82)
#84. To: war (#83)
I had Boofer on bozo to until he called me a pussy for doing soHN
#85. To: A K A Stone (#84)
(Edited)
#86. To: A K A Stone (#84)
(Edited)
#87. To: A K A Stone (#58)
Just because you can be an asshole and leave it blank doesn't mean I condone that.
#88. To: A K A Stone (#74)
No. There are no written rules. I make judgements based on what I think is right.
#89. To: A K A Stone (#84)
#84. To: war (#83)
#90. To: A K A Stone (#19)
The Fed EXPOSED!!! The FARO RESERVE BANK!!!
#91. To: A K A Stone (#79)
The host could blind users from seeing comments from other users.
Another would be bind. It would prevent certain posters from interacting with each other.
#92. To: A K A Stone (#66)
The Fed EXPOSED!!! The FARO RESERVE BANK!!!
#93. To: A K A Stone (#79)
One function would be called blind. The host could blind users from seeing comments from other users. Another would be bind. It would prevent certain posters from interacting with each other. Just an idea I've had for a while.
#94. To: Pinguinite (#91)
#95. To: mininggold (#93)
#96. To: Fred Mertz (#88)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]