LowerCaseRepublican

lol, thinking its disgusting for two naked men to be in bed together, is normal. Whats abnormal are freaks like you, who think its okay. Who is to say what is socially deviant and what's not? Homophobia is the irrational fear of feelings of love for members of one's own sex and therefore, the hatred of those feelings in others. Heterosexism is the moronic belief in the inherent superiority of one pattern of loving and thereby, it's right to dominance. Yep. You guessed it. It's the same old s*** and it smells an awful lot like the stench of sexism, specieism, and racism:: Group A claimst to have the natural right to dominate and/or exploit Group B. Gee, what else is new? Well, it's a different pile this time, in the sense that Group B isn't necessarily defined by race or sex, but specifically by sexual orientation...a definition that offers a wide variety of social penalties to anyone perceived as gay or lesbian. So we learn to fear the appearance of homosexuality and spend a great deal of our lives locking ourselves in rigid "acceptable" gender based roles, stifling our self expression, and "proving" our heterosexuality to our friends, families, peers, and co-workers. So what do we end up with? Well...a whole culture of paranoid heterosexuals, ranging in homophobic diversity from tolerance (as if homosexuality is a phase..) to acceptance (as if homosexuality is something to be accepted or rejected) to pity, and finally, to outright repulsion. That's what we end up with. Is that what we want? Do we really want to spend our lives trying to prove our sexuality? Stop living in fear, for f***'s sake. Stop the gay bashing. Love who you want and how you want. Also, you might want to read up on different styles of theory in sociology. According to sociologists that deal with homosexuality and queer theory...a person must be in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship that uses sex only for procreation and only uses the missionary position. If you deviate from any of that criteria, you are deemed queer. /stirs up the anti-gay paranoia sentiment on this board.

I go to UIUC and the entire campus is not bummed. At least not where I am in Urbana.

Where are Baggs and CK et al here? C'mon guys, I'd like to see you talk about this. I'll serve your crow in a very delicious way.

I don't know how many have read many studies in sociology, but it's been proven that the most staunch homophobes are usually the ones that are usually homosexual.

Actually our gas prices were really high because of the labor problems and general strike in Venezuela...but that's a different topic for another time. But I guess the billions that Halliburton is going to be making fighting the oil fires etc. (a contract awarded to them without there being a competition for the lowest bid....something VERY illegal) should be lucrative for Cheney and his oil pals. Hey Apu, do you know how many companies in the world have the ability to fight these type of oil fires? There are obviously many of them because the EU is bringing charges against the US in the World Trade Organization proclaiming that Halliburton getting the contracts without competition is illegal. Also, there is a Congressional investigation into Halliburton and the war contracts.

11-6 Doing quite well. When the Royals start having to play major league teams (i.e. not the Tigers) we should take over first place quite easily. Secondly, I knew it was a mark. I saw the SnR boards and what Heather posted over there. The fact was that I wasn't tired last night so I stayed up and posted.

It's just weird that I have been admonished by moderators here for less than this blatantly racist hate speech that LDF is spouting. He is a racist hatemonger and it sickens me that people can get away with that sort of head up the ass logic of "Yay, there are dead US/UK soldiers and dead Iraqi toddlers so I can have my oil prices lowered!"

Here's a very fitting picture for you LDF. I think it really captures your essence really well:

Damn, CW! That is some major league burninating!

I love it when the conservative myths like the "spat upon vet" fall apart on scrutiny and dissolve when faced with the facts.......enjoy! Spat on our soldiers returning from Vietnam is a great story, but like many right-wing myths it is simply not true. Jerry Lembcke, an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross College, did an exhaustive search in the process of writing his 1998 book, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam. He found not a single case of a returning Vietnam veteran spat upon by antiwar activists. The relation between Vietnam veterans and the peace movement was generally good, since the antiwar people saw the mostly working class vets as just as much victims of the war machine as the Vietnamese peasants. We should remember that in that war, as many as 550,000 GIs went AWOL or deserted. A Harris Poll in 1971 showed that only 1% of the veterans encountered hostile reactions when they came home, and they did not think the antiwar movement was hostile to them. There are practically no reports of spitting during the war itself (1965-75). The first reported instance occurs during an International Day of Protest featuring "Veterans for Peace in Vietnam." Here it is the war supporters who are spitting on the pro-peace veterans. In 1965, World War II veterans who were taking part in an antiwar demonstration were reviled as "cowards" and "traitors." Lembcke was not able to find a single photograph, news story, or FBI report of veterans being spat upon (remember, the FBI did obsessive surveillance of the peace movements). He tried to track down individuals who said they had been spat upon or witnessed it, but they "dissolved on scrutiny" and others "betrayed lack of authenticity"—which, I assume, means they lied. So what is going on here? Vietnam veterans did not come home in bulk at the end of the war as WWII vets did; they dribbled back after their usually one-year tour of duty. As the war progressed, thousands of WWII and Vietnam vets turned against the war. The Nixon administration launched a campaign to differentiate between "good" (pro-war) vets and "bad" (antiwar) vets. Spiro Agnew, who would soon be hounded out of office as a felon, led the charge. Overnight, conservatives changed the debate from "our objectives in Southeast Asia" (anti-communism, democracy) to "supporting our men who are fighting the war." (Everyone will remember a similar shift during the Gulf War.) The single image of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran became the perfect myth of the Nixon-Agnew strategy to discredit the antiwar movement. What solidified the image of the reviled, spat-upon, and eventually crazed Vietnam veteran was the movies. It started in Jane Fonda's Coming Home, where a returning vet is verbally accosted as he returns home: "We don't want your rotten war!" Trouble is, peace activists quietly picketed soldiers going to Vietnam, not returning. But it was the 1977 movie Tracks in which we got the good pro-war veteran and the bad antiwar activist, Mark, who repeatedly spits on his opponents. Hollywood's role in creating the myth of the spat-upon veteran had begun. And the end result was Rambo, the crazed Vietnam veteran: "But somebody wouldn't let us win. I come back and see all these maggots at the airport. Protesting me, spitting, calling me a baby-killer. Who are they to protest me? Huh?" It's called the manufacture of consent. It is going on now and it's very scary. by Gabrielle Bernard

Actually our gas prices were really high because of the labor problems and general strike in Venezuela...but that's a different topic for another time. But I guess the billions that Halliburton is going to be making fighting the oil fires etc. (a contract awarded to them without there being a competition for the lowest bid....something VERY illegal) should be lucrative for Cheney and his oil pals.

"The beauty of war"? What in the blue hell are you smoking? War is the most evil social construct created by human beings. I really don't see how flag waving nationalism to whip people into a frenzy in order to end the lives of other human beings really translates to being something beautiful and worth celebrating. What about the $0 that Bush put in the new budget to rebuild Afghanistan? What a humanitarian George W. Bush is!

LMFAO

I avoid a lot of the main stations and don't watch TV all that often except for low budget cartoons and the White Sox. Too busy between classes, homework, reading, and activism to watch too much television.

I don't eat at McDonald's. (Very easy to do after I read about their food preparation and labor practices in Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation"...and there is only one on campus and the food is very s***ty) I don't watch CBS or ABC. I usually only watch Adult Swim, SportsCenter, and baseball/hockey games on ESPN/2. I have a pair of Merrells instead of Nikes and I am just about to buy a pair of new green shoes from this independent store. I try my best to avoid companies with bad track records in labor/preparation, etc.

Pyromaniac.

Dead Kennedys "Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/midd...ast/2929411.stm Story straight from the BBC. Do you think the US and UK militaries will ever get tired of lying? --------------------------------------- One feature of the war in Iraq was the speed and immediacy with which many events were reported by the media. Some of these turned out to be not quite what they seemed, others are still surrounded by confusion. Was this the fog of war, effects-based warfare, propaganda, or error? BBC News Online takes stock: Scuds Coalition account: On day one of the war, 20 March, military spokesmen for the US and UK announce that "Scud-type" missiles have been fired into Kuwait. This was significant because Iraq was banned from having Scuds or other missiles of a similar range under UN resolutions. Clarification: Three days later US General Stanley McChrystal reports: "So far there have been no Scuds launched." Umm Qasr falls Coalition account: The fall of Umm Qasr, an Iraqi town and port near the border with Kuwait, is announced and reported several times in the first days of the war - the first of these on 20 March. On 21 March Admiral Michael Boyce, UK chief of defence staff, and Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, report that the town has fallen to coalition forces. Other reports: Various media outlets report heavy fighting in Umm Qasr on 22 and 23 March. Basra uprising UK military's account: On the evening of 25 March British military intelligence officials report a "popular civilian uprising" in Basra. Major General Peter Wall, British Chief of Staff at Allied Central Command in Qatar, confirms that it appears an uprising has taken place, but that it is in its infancy and British troops are "keen to exploit its potential". The officials say Iraqi troops in the city turned mortar fire on their own civilians in an attempt to crush the unrest. British journalist Richard Gaisford, who is with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards just outside Basra, says British troops are bombarding the mortar positions in an effort to support the uprising. Other reports: Also on 25 March Arabic television stations report no sign of an uprising and that the city is quiet. Iraqi officials deny reports of an uprising, calling them "hallucinations". Further UK account: On 26 March, deputy commander of British forces Major-General Peter Wall says the uprising is "just the sort of encouraging indication we have been looking for". But he adds: "To avoid any excessive optimism at this stage I should say we don't have any absolutely clear indication of the scale and scope of this uprising or exactly what has engendered it." Conclusion: There is still no independent verification that an uprising occurred in Basra. Tank column Initial reports: On the evening of 26 March reports emerge that a column of 120 Iraqi tanks and armoured vehicles are heading south out of Basra. Major Mick Green, of the UK's 40 Commando, is quoted by the Mirror newspaper as saying: "We have no idea why this column has come out at the moment. Their intentions or motives are totally unclear but they have adopted an offensive posture and do not want to surrender, so we have attacked them." Later reports: Newspapers and news bulletins the next morning carry accounts of fierce fighting and a large battle. Clarification: Later on 27 March, a British military official is quoted as saying: "It was 14-0." This is understood to have meant that the Iraqi column consisted of only 14 vehicles. The official put the initial reports down to "the fog of war" and an erroneous radar signal. Market explosions On 26 March an explosion at a market in Baghdad's Shaab district kills at least 14 civilians. The BBC's Andrew Gilligan visits the scene. "What seemed to be two missiles landed in a busy shopping parade. The nearest military building, civil defence headquarters, is I have to say at least quarter of a mile away," he reports. The cause of the blast is still disputed. Iraqi account: Following the first blast, at Shaab, Iraq claims that coalition forces are targeting Iraqi civilians. US account: Initial briefings from US officials say coalition aircraft targeted nine Iraqi missiles and launchers in Baghdad during 26 March. Officials say Iraqis have placed the missiles in a residential area less than 100 metres (300 feet) from homes. Later in the day, the Pentagon insists that they did not target the market area in Baghdad. Major General Stanley McChrystal of the US joint staff says he did not know whether the explosions were caused by a stray US weapon or perhaps Iraqi anti-aircraft missiles that fell back to earth. A US military spokesman at coalition Central Command says: "Our early intelligence report provides no conclusive evidence that we have caused the damage in the civilian marketplace. One possibility and high probability is that it was caused from the fallout from the regime's anti-aircraft fire." Other reports: The BBC's Andrew Gilligan says that explanation is "unlikely because we simply haven't heard any anti-aircraft fire in the city for the past four days". On 29 March, an explosion at a market in the Shula district of Baghdad kills more than 50 civilians. US account: A US Central Command spokesman in Qatar suggests the likely cause was Iraqi fire. One issue likely to be examined in both market bombings, the New York Times reports, is the relatively small size of the craters, in the case of the attack at Shula they were closer to the kind associated with mortars, artillery shells or small bombs, than to the kind of craters commonly caused by American bombs or missiles in Baghdad. Other reports: The British Independent newspaper reports on 2 April that its correspondent in Baghdad, Robert Fisk, has found a 30-centimetre-long piece of shrapnel at the site of the Shula bombing showing the serial number of the bomb. The newspaper says that the number identifies the cause of the explosion as a US anti-radar missile manufactured in Texas by the Raytheon company and sold to the US navy. UK Government account: On 2 April UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says of the first bombing, in the Shaab district: "It is increasingly probable that this was the result of Iraqi - not coalition - action." On 3 April the UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon says that the there is no evidence that the market bombings were caused by coalition missiles other than evidence provided by the Iraqi regime. He says that there are Western intelligence reports that Iraqi officials had "cleared up" the site of the Shula bombing "to disguise their own responsibility for what took place". Conclusion: Coalition officials say both bombings are still under investigation. Executions UK account: At a press conference on 27 March with the US president at Camp David, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair says that Iraq has executed two British soldiers whose bodies were shown on Arabic television. "If anyone needed any further evidence of the depravity of Saddam's regime, this atrocity provides it," he says. "It is yet one more flagrant breach of all the proper conventions of war." Iraqi denial: Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf says that Mr Blair has "lied to the public" about the soldiers. "We haven't executed anyone." Later reports:: The British prime minister's spokesman later said that there was no "absolute evidence" that the UK servicemen had been executed. Chemical weapons find On 27 March, George W Bush says that US forces have destroyed a camp in northern Iraq belonging to Ansar al-Islam. Washington's assertion that there was a link between Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network and the Baghdad regime rest mainly on the alleged links between Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda. US officials have consistently maintained that the discovery of the poison ricin in London was linked to this camp. UK officials have denied this. US account: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers says on 30 March: "We attacked and now have gone in on the ground into the site where Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda had been working on poisons. We think that's probably where the ricin found in London came from." Other reports: In London on 31 March two newspapers, the Mirror and the Sun report that the American finds at the Ansar al-Islam site offers proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The Sun argues that this justifies the war against Iraq. Later US account: On 1 April US Brigadier General Vincent Brooks says coalition troops are yet to find any banned weapons in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld insists Iraqi weapons of mass destruction will be found in areas in and around Baghdad and Tikrit. Capture of Iraqi general British account: On 30 March British forces involved in clashes in Basra say they have captured an Iraqi general. UK Group Captain Al Lockwood says the general is being asked to co-operate with UK forces in the planning operations against Iraqi resistance in Basra. Other reports: Qatari television network al-Jazeera interviews Lieutenant General Walid Hamid Tawfiq, an Iraqi commander in southern Iraq. He insists that no general has been taken prisoner by the British. UK retraction: The UK Ministry of Defence retracts earlier claims on the capture of a general. It is believed that a captured officer was mistaken for a general. Checkpoint deaths Late on 31 March, US troops open fire on a civilian van that fails to stop at a checkpoint. Seven Iraqi women and children are killed, according to US officials. US account: US officials say the driver of the car failed to stop after warning shots were fired over the car and then at its engine. Soldiers fired at the passenger cabin "as a last resort". US soldiers at checkpoints were said to be jumpy after a suicide attack at a checkpoint had killed four servicemen. Pentagon officials insist that the correct procedures were followed, and that soldiers had acted in "the appropriate way". Other reports: William Branigin, a reporter with the Washington Post embedded with the US Third Infantry, witnesses the shooting and has a different account. He says that 10 people were killed, and no warning shots were fired. He reports that after the shooting Captain Ronny Johnson, the commander at the checkpoint, yelled at his platoon commander: "You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!" US forces, according to William Branigin, offered the survivors of the incident financial compensation. Cluster bombs Iraqi account: Officials in the Iraqi capital say that US forces have been dropping cluster bombs on civilian areas in Iraq. First reports of the use of cluster bombs in the war appear in the Western media on 3 April. Coalition denial: US and British officials deny the use of cluster munitions. British military spokesman Colonel Chris Vernon said: "We are not using cluster munitions, for obvious collateral damage reasons, in and around Basra." Later UK account: A military official in London tells BBC News Online: "We have used them elsewhere." He said they were an effective weapon of warfare, for example to target a convoy of military vehicles, but were only used in the open far from built up areas. UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon defends the use of cluster bombs in Iraq on 4 April, saying they are legal and not using them would put British soldiers at greater risk.

I was making a "Support our troops, Bring them home!" sign for a Support the Troops rally tomorrow and I caught something on the news about JJ and NASCAR, didn't get all the details though.

Bombing Mr. Johnson by Terry Jones, a founding member of Monty Python I'm Losing My Patience With My Neighbors, Mr. Bush. I'm really excited by George Bushs latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr. Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr. Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I,m sure Mr. Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr. Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know from very good sources that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don''t act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr. Johnson will be finalizing his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr. Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want! And let's face it, Mr. Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr. Johnsons garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way. Mr. Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr. Johnson's wife and children as Mr. Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr. Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating rogue states and terrorism. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr. Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves. Perhaps Mr. Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr. Bush to eliminate all Muslims? It's the same in my street. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who quite frankly look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up. Like Mr. Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks,no, 10 days to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say ~Thank you" I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

But we liberated them, right?

That's why there weren't so many fans out there tonight, haha

Hey Southsider, sorry I haven't gotten to your questions. I've had a lot of stuff going down here at school. I just found out that I have to speak at a campus rally so I've been spending a lot of time into preparing a speech, etc. I promise when my schedule frees up a little bit and I have time to sit down and actually type for a while, etc., that I'll get to them. It's difficult being a college student with less than one month before final exams, 2 papers due, and a whole bunch of peace activism events.

What about the only 1000 people that showed up in Baghdad and the evidence that the US was bussing people in to fill the city up when the US tanks took down the stadium. What about the new war on Syria? You gonna support that even though the CIA has no evidence that they sold nightvision goggles to Iraq and no proof they have WoMD?

uh ho, dont let facts get in the way of demonizing a president CK What happened to the Al Qaeda terrorists that were supposedly there? What happened the weapons of mass destruction that we KNOW are there? If we KNOW where they are, then we should be able to find them. Finding a guy who did stuff in 1985, while good...the guy's base of operations to set up the terrorist attack was Tunisia. Why don't we invade them? Here's a tidbit from the Calgary Sun..."The U.S. Justice Department has said it has no grounds to seek Abbas' extradition, as there is no outstanding warrant against him." That's about the terrorist they caught. Or how about the $0 in the budget for Afghanistan? Or how about the cutting of vets' benefits by the Bush administration? How are them apples for supporting the troops?