Up for Debate

Thursday, August 11, 2011 at 11:46pm

Outgoing Metro Councilman Jamie Hollin is, for the second time, attempting to pass legislation that would honor high school students who protested the failed "Don't Say Gay" bill during this past legislative session. Conservative members blocked his first attempt. Do you think he should've let it go, or do the students deserve official recognition for standing up for something they believe in?  

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

84 Comments on this post:

By: yogiman on 8/12/11 at 11:41

All things considered, its a shame the people in the offices we call Congress are in there for party only. It seems they think 'to hell with the nation', its just my party that counts.

As I have read in my old history lessons, every man who has sat in the President's office has made mistakes, bar none.

Carter's main screw up (in my opinion) was when he gave the Panama canal away after all of the money invested by us (the US citizens tax money) and the lives lost in building that canal.

Harry Truman's worst mistake was when he pushed so hard to develop the United Nations. I think its pretty obvious the members aren't "united".

So, all things considered, they every one made a mistake when they went in that office. And I could easily think most of them, if not all, wanted that office for the historical recognition they would receive.

By: budlight on 8/12/11 at 11:48

By: Loner on 8/12/11 at 12:35
Thank you for the primer on gaiety, Budlight. I just Googled the word "gay"...in spite of what your dictionary may claim, definition number 5 is number one....page after Google page of gay=homosexual. Google let's you know how various words and terms are actually being used currently....it stays abreast of the changes in our language.

Loner I copied it right off my google look up. Will look again.

By: budlight on 8/12/11 at 11:52

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gay

Googled it again Loner; this reference was the very first one on my page and I guess it would be most popular if it's first. Look it up; items 1-7 and the 5, 6 and 7 referred to homosexuals, and one even said "especially men". So don't fuss at me if I am reading the #1 listing on Google.

Don't worry, be happy (aka gay)!

By: yogiman on 8/12/11 at 12:01

Loner,

When I was a child and you was gay, it meant you was having a happy time playing with your friends. Homosexuality was not a known "sexual appetite" back then.

I can only remember recalling the first "gay" group I became aware of was when I went into service in 1948. It was a individual pleasure attitude then. They all kept it to themselves, but this so called president now thinks they should all be in the "open" with their "pleasures" and we should all know what whose sexual appetites are. Does that mean he is "one of them"? Sure reads like it to me.

Who in the hell would logically want to know what someone else' sexual appetite is, unless they are 'one of them'?

By: Loner on 8/12/11 at 12:04

Yogi....you just made sense.

Truman could have invited the traumatized Holocaust survivors to come here to the USA, as full US citizens and thereby head off the predictable Arab reaction to the utopian experiment in ancient homeland restoration that we now call the Jewish state - Israel.

Instead of compassion for those poor Jewish souls, Truman bankrolled their Zionist fantasies and started arming and financing them, in opposition to the Arabs who were already living there and were brutally displaced by the fanatical colonizing Jews. The Arabs, like the Israelis view friends of their enemy as their enemy too.

Truman's error started the whole ME dynamic of confusing Israel's interests with our own interests.

I think that Jimmy Carter's biggest mistake was in ordering the ill-fated hostage rescue mission....of course, his military advisers may have failed him. He bet the farm on it...had it worked, he would have probably been re-elected....he crapped out.

By: budlight on 8/12/11 at 12:05

Breaking news (hopefully breaking up Odrama's health care plans):

ATLANTA (AP) — A federal appeals court has struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the decision didn't go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional. The states and other critics say the law violates people's rights. The Justice Department counters that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power. An appeals court and three federal judges have upheld the law, and two have invalidated it. Experts say the debate ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And hopefully the Supreme Court of the U.S. will see through Odrama's drama and rule against it also. It's nutso!

By: budlight on 8/12/11 at 12:07

By: Loner on 8/12/11 at 1:04
Yogi....you just made sense.

On behalf of Yogi, thank you Loner.
He's a nice man and people on here are mean to him.

I'm out of here! Gonna do some real work - clean my house!

By: Kosh III on 8/12/11 at 12:07

fyi

The word gay was first used to refer to same-sex stuff in 1357 and has been used in that sense for centuries though usually only by those who actually were gay.
This first use was in a poem in the Provençal language and it quickly spread from there.

One interesting tidbit: in the 30s movie Bringing Up Baby, Cary Grant picks up one of Hepburn's dresses and holds it up to himself and says it makes him look gay. LOL

By: Kosh III on 8/12/11 at 12:10

Sexual appetite? How absurd. And please don't flaunt your orientation by introducing some woman as your "wife." No one wants to know what you do in bed.

I hear a Patsy Cline song in the background....crazy........

By: Loner on 8/12/11 at 12:14

Yogi, used the term, "this so called president ". Just when he was making sense, he reverts to type and questions the president's legitimacy. I do not think that Obama is gay just because he feels their pain...that's an absurd conclusion.

I doubt if Obama wants GLBT's in uniform to flaunt their "pleasures", as Yogi insinuates. That's a hateful allegation and has no merit.

The president is our Commander-in-Chief, I doubt that he is trying to deliberately sow dissent within the ranks.

By: Loner on 8/12/11 at 12:21

Budlight ignored the pages of gay=homosexual Google results and clings to some pedantic dictionary definition of the word. She's a trip!

By: Ingleweird on 8/12/11 at 12:29

@Loner:
Prison sex with Bubba is so 10-years-ago cliched. I expect higher grade (like your ganj) humor from you!

By: Loner on 8/12/11 at 12:42

Only ten-years old? I agree, Ingleweird...that's why I used that language, I figured all the shock value had been played out....apparently, the Times Tribune of Scranton, PA is still shocked by such imagery and blunt language. I could be banned if more comments there are "removed"...I just found that rag today; could be a short stay.

The posted reply to my comment "No lip ice!" was not removed...that was a pretty creative one....maybe that's what the censors wanted...more creativity. Maybe, "No knee pads!" would have been better.

I do appreciate your appreciation, Ingle.

By: Kosh III on 8/12/11 at 12:58

Funny how the avowed "conservatives" who allegedly love liberty and justice so much are always the first in line to stifle and oppress any citizen who doesn't conform to their religious or personal bias even when it requires a massive disregard and disrespect for our basic principles. Down right unAmerican.
gaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygaygay......

By: dargent7 on 8/12/11 at 1:08

The gaggle of geriatrics that say Obama has "accomplished nothing" in his career is jaw dropping. Usually coming from H.S. drop-outs, not even with a GED.
Like he just showed up at the W.H. and they gave him the keys.
Guy becomes President of the USA at age 47. Not bad.
At 47 I was waiting tables and bouncing off of waves. Also not bad.

By: Ingleweird on 8/12/11 at 1:37

Loner, are you so really so bored that you need to appeal to the readers in Scranton? I'd say you are wasting your talent.

By: bfra on 8/12/11 at 2:27

Off subject: Wilson Co is expecting 500,000 visitors and 5 million in taxes during the Fair! If it wasn't for Karl, Dozier & cohorts, Nashville could really have used that boost during the State Fair. People here can thank the ones mentioned for their downgrade, ruination of the State Fair and put our revenue loss on them.

By: budlight on 8/12/11 at 2:43

Kosh, thanks for the lesson in gay history. Wow! It's not too old to learn new things. (seriously)

bfra, of course Wilson Co is flourishing; Karl Marx Dean is not their leader. Well, Dean thinks state fairs are hokey (probably). BUT look who paid to be re-instated. He did not get elected; he bought the office and then paid the bonus for reinstatement. I'm so over Dean. It's the first time since 1989 that I've disliked Nashville and the surrounding areas. Would move to Mt. Juliet (as many others are doing) if I could sell the albatross that is mortgaged in my name.

And Kosh, I do not wish to stiffle or oppress anyone. It is my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is a "belief" just like any other. I have a right to speak what I think. If it does not agree with others, such as yourself, then you have the right to speak what you think. If it comes down to it, we should vote on it as a country and then see what the "MAJORITY" votes. Isn't that the fair way?

I bet you if just the military (entire armed forces) voted on whether or not to have everyone "come out", they would have voted it down. I know some people who are gay who say the same thing. So not everyone agrees with the big loud crying media about these things.

And by the same token, I know some married (male/female) people who say that they don't care if there is same sex marriage. So it's sort of a mixed bag.

I do believe it is biblically wrong. That's my right. You, of course, have your right. And if the entire country voted on it, then we'd know what the majority thinks, now wouldn't we?

But for now, we all do the best we can with what we've got to work with. Some of us are limited in our capacity to expand our thinking and some of us have expanded way too far. The middle of the road is sort of comfortable, now isn't it?

Just mowed 2.5 acres. Somebody please buy my house and 4.65 acres of "need to be mowed" yard.

By: bfra on 8/12/11 at 3:08

For Nemo: http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/star-trek-theme-park-beaming-down-jordan-234216739.html
===========================================================
Thought you would find this interesting!

By: yogiman on 8/12/11 at 4:25

Loner,

All of you on this site can think of me as you wish on the Obama situation. As I have posted before; time will tell.

But if you are as intelligent as you appear on this site, I simply can't understand how you can feel so sure he is in that office legally. Do you actually believe a person never looses their Constitutional qualifications to hold that office once they gain them? Wake up, Loner!

It has been considered for centuries both parents must be American citizens to be President of this nation. That was obviously considered when the Senate accepted John McCain as qualified. Barack Obama was in on that vote. But why did he refuse to answer the same questions asked John McCain?

When his mother married a man from Indonesia who adopted Barack giving him Indonesian citizenship, he still held his American citizenship? Don't think so, Loner.

When he visited Pakistan as a young man when Pakistan would not accept American citizens as visitors, what was the citizenship of the passport he held that they would accept?

It boils down to this: If Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama is legally eligible to hold that office, any person born in the US are eligible for that office whether they were born here legally to one American citizen or to an illegal alien. Or both of their parents are American citizens if born outside the US.

By the way, what do you think of Barry's thoughts of farmers being required to have a commercial driver's license to drive their farm equipment?

By: yogiman on 8/12/11 at 4:41

budlight,

If you want to "git outa Nashville" fast, you could put your home up for auction. It doesn't have to be set up as an absolute auction. You can set an acceptable price before it will be sold. You will probably have to pay a fee if it is set up that way and doesn't sell.

Most brokers can give you a pretty good idea of its value when they come out to talk to you about it.

By: Kosh III on 8/13/11 at 5:17

more from the "values" party

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/271647/18/Representative-Phil-Hinkle-meets-teen-boy-on-Craigslist

By: budlight on 8/13/11 at 6:47

By the way, what do you think of Barry's thoughts of farmers being required to have a commercial driver's license to drive their farm equipment?

Yogi, I just read where the DOT says "NO" we're not going to do that to farmers. So hopefully ODrama will not have his way on that one. It would be stupid because it said he wanted all farm workers to be licensed. One blogger wrote that it's just another way for him to take over our food supply. You know, it's getting hinky in this country.

Thanks for the idea about auction and setting an acceptable price.

By: Captain Nemo on 8/13/11 at 7:57

Kosh-

The Party of values? lol

By: Captain Nemo on 8/13/11 at 8:19

bud-

I look at several links but I could not find where President Obama said or thought that farmers should have commercial license. Please show link.

I did find where The U.S Department of Transportation said it won’t pursue new regulations.

By: yogiman on 8/13/11 at 3:14

Well, dumba..,

If you 'found' where the U.S. DOT said it won't pursue new regulations, couldn't you understand what they were talking about?

By: Captain Nemo on 8/13/11 at 3:38

I was not talking to you stupid, but if you could only read, I said that I did not see where Obama said it.

By: Loner on 8/13/11 at 3:50

Now, now...fight nice boys.

Ingleweird, I am open for suggestions as to how to better utilize my "talents"...would you like to be my agent?

By: yogiman on 8/13/11 at 4:58

What difference does it make WHERE he said it, dumba..? The point is... he said it. To help you a little on your ignorance, Barry is making a move to take the farmers farms away from them. And if you don't understand that (which I understand), it is another move to take control over the nation.

If its a deep pleasure for you to be one of Barry's boys, hang in there, he'll take care of it for you.

By: Captain Nemo on 8/14/11 at 6:50

When did he say it you stupid old fool?

By: yogiman on 8/14/11 at 7:27

dumba..,

If you are as interested in America as you show yourself to be over your love for Barry Soetoro, go to google and click in Henry Lamb. When his name shows up, click in Henry Lamb column-Renew America. Then go to his column Rural Council: It's about control.

Yes, the DOT said no at first, but unless you have been keeping track on him; he ain't give up yet. He hasn't taken of as dictator yet.

By: yogiman on 8/14/11 at 7:31

Sorry, dumba..,

I haven't got used to my new keyboard yet. In that last sentence I meant: He hasn't taken OVER as dictator yet.

P.S. But he is working on it.

By: serr8d on 8/14/11 at 9:54

The riots are the apotheosis of the welfare state and popular culture in their British form. A population thinks (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class) that it is entitled to a high standard of consumption, irrespective of its personal efforts; and therefore it regards the fact that it does not receive that high standard, by comparison with the rest of society, as a sign of injustice. It believes itself deprived (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class), even though each member of it has received an education costing $80,000, toward which neither he nor—quite likely—any member of his family has made much of a contribution; indeed, he may well have lived his entire life at others’ expense, such that every mouthful of food he has ever eaten, every shirt he has ever worn, every television he has ever watched, has been provided by others. Even if he were to recognize this, he would not be grateful, for dependency does not promote gratitude. On the contrary, he would simply feel that the subventions were not sufficient to allow him to live as he would have liked.

At the same time, his expensive education will have equipped him for nothing. His labor, even supposing that he were inclined to work, would not be worth its cost to any employer—partly because of the social charges necessary to keep others such as he in a state of permanent idleness, and partly because of his own characteristics. And so unskilled labor is performed in England by foreigners, while an indigenous class of permanently unemployed is subsidized.

We are just barely behind the Brits; our welfare state didn't get to achieve the level of dependency the English one did. Ours will be destroyed by necessity; theirs, by anarchy.

http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0810td.html

By: yogiman on 8/14/11 at 11:02

serr8d,

For the little over 200 years following our founders development of our nation, it has been great in our lifetimes. But looking into it from top to bottom today, sadly you can only see a few good years into the possible future of a nation.

I remember in my youth, career politicians were few and far between. Most of them went to DC, served a couple of terms and went home. And yes, it usually got them a few favors in their lines of work, but we had more farmers and regular men in congress before. It didn't take millions of dollars to be elected for a two year term to the House or six year term to the Senate.They used good staffs to advise them on the different issues.

I can understand to have fellow members as chairpersons of different committees, but I have never been able to understand where they, or the general people, consider any of them superior to their fellow members. However, seniority is the usual reason so many people vote for a current member. They were all elected equally. They have no superiority over their fellow members..., at least in my book.

Then, congress began to find they could set their own salaries and other benefits through their congressional vote so we now only have career politicians in congress.

Giving credit where credit is due, Barry Soetoro woke the American people up (okay, I know, he's going by the name of Barack Obama, but is he?).