"Tubes" Senator Being Investigated For Corruption 613
DragonTHC writes "Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, is being investigated in a federal corruption probe that has implicated his son Ben. Part of the case involves a fishing co-op whose members allegedly paid Ben Stevens $500,000 to get a federal bailout from his father." The other Alaskan senator, also a Republican, is under a cloud as well.
Shock horror (Score:5, Insightful)
The only unbelievable thing about this is the number of people who will claim that "this politician can't have done anything wrong, he is a good man", despite the fact he *is* a politician.
Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (Score:5, Insightful)
A little balance Keith? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about slashdot go back to, oh, I dunno... technology instead of hiring editors who are nothing but partisan shills?
Who are these guys? (Score:2, Insightful)
Reading the article would suggest that the two in question are beyond what would be considered a normal retirement age.
ZombieEngineer
Re:Earmarks are good? (Score:4, Insightful)
When Republican's mean 'smaller government' they mean 'spend less on social security'.
Let's Compare! (Score:5, Insightful)
Linked article: He's a Republican with many years of experience who is running for reelection.
Slashdot summary: Senator is being investigated in a federal corruption probe
Linked article: Senator is "facing scrutiny" from federal investigators. He is thriving on the setbacks, and political analysts say nothing has happened that would cause him to "lose his perch" yet.
Slashdot summary: The investigation has implicated his son, Ben.
Linked article: Ben's office was raided by the FBI in an entirely separate incident over a year ago, and he hasn't been charged with a crime. (Sounds like something Slashdotters would condemn...like when accused software/music pirates get raided, but are never charged with a crime.)
Slashdot summary: A fishing co-op allegedly paid $500,000 to get a federal bailout from Ben and his father.
Linked article: No mention of anything about a fishing co-op or a federal bailout.
Slashdot summary: The other Alaskan senator is also "under a cloud". It doesn't mention what this cloud is, or even give her name, but it's sure to mention that she's a Republican.
Linked article: The only mention of the other Alaskan senator is that her party welcomes the challenge from Democrats, who were unable to unseat her. There is no mention of her being under any kind of "cloud" in either this article, or her Wikipedia article.
Re:Who are these guys? (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing I can think of is kdawson saw "corruption" and "Republican" in the same post and got all excited. Especially since he made a point of making his own comment about some other random Republican.
I'm all for bashing politicians but lets not start flooding the front page with even more unrelated trash
Re:Earmarks are good? (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Earmarks are good? (Score:3, Insightful)
but if you want seriously bad, forget congress and look at the paper shufflers around them, they will do ANYTHING to increase their little kingdoms.
we need to call BS on "small government" (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the same when they say "we believe in religious freedom!" -- what they mean is "We believe in the right of Christians to discriminate against non-Christians in hiring, housing, and so on," NOT "people should be free to practice their own religion." The phrase you're looking for is "glittering generalities." No one is going to argue against freedom, just as few will argue for big government. When you actually get down to what they really believe, it's pretty repugnant at times. These phrases get thrown around because they sound good and they build a false sense of consensus.
Re:Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A Better Way..... (Score:2, Insightful)
They're called elections.
No, just kidding! That would require an informed public, which would result from an inquisitive media that is independent of the political system and advocates for the people.
Mod +1 funny.
Politicians are corrupt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who are these guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, it's only $350 million instead of $500 million? That's OK then!
$350 million for a bridge that will service an island, Gravina, that only has 50 or so residents. That's only, what, $7 million per resident who'll use it? A veritable bargain!
Yep, one heck of a good deal, especially when you consider the incredible inconvenience of a seven minute ferry ride that the residents currently have to endure.
I wonder how much of that $350 million would find its way back to the Senator and his friends in terms of campaign donations and other kickbacks?
Here's an idea. Take that $350 million, give the 50 Gravina residents $100,000 each to put a smile as big as the Joker's on their faces and then spend the other $345 million on something more worthwhile.
It's people like this guy who'll hammer the poor and the infirm for every possible penny, denounce their political opponents for wasteful spending plans and then spend 9-figure sums on white elephants like this bridge.
Re:A little balance Keith? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't Al Gore covered more given his connection with the nerd community if that is the standard? Where is the story on the indictment Congressman Jefferson's bribes involving telecommunications [washingtonpost.com] in Nigeria if the standard is hit pieces on Congressmen who've said/done something regarding technology?
Is this really what Slashdot wants to become, just another group think site that promotes the propaganda of one political party? The National Enquirer of tech news? I stopped going to kuroshin when it turned more into a political group think site than a site about technology. I've never used digg or reddit but I've heard they've gone that route as well. How I miss the old Slashdot way, way back before it was sold to Andover and then passed to VA Research. It actually used to be a site about computers, technology, Linux and the internet. Kdawson even makes me miss Jon Katz, michael, etc.
Politicians are Corrupt! (Score:4, Insightful)
But is an example of that fact going to lead to an interesting discussion on Slashdot?
Re:This will end well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This will end well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You won't find me in the libertarian corner, though. Still, what he does in his spare time is his business, not mine. I don't care about a politicians personal preferences. I care about his actions towards and for the country.
Re:This will end well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Stuff that matters? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this of interest to the Slashdot community?
Unfortunately (Score:5, Insightful)
Now of course there are exceptions to these rules, and if you are voting for someone in the major parties that's what you have to look at, is their politics not the party politics because BOTH parties are for big government and BOTH are for restricting personal freedom. You can also vote libertarian, at least assuming they'll run a candidate that isn't a complete nutjob in your area.
Re:we need to call BS on "small government" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet to hear it, Christians are a persecuted minority, defiantly worshiping God despite the oppression of the secular authorities. When 85% of the population is Christian, who discriminates against Christians? What you may have meant is that proseletyzing and evangelizing aren't welcomed in schools because many Americans, including many Christian Americans, don't want those things in schools--they think that spiritual matters belong at home or in the church, not in the building kids go to to learn the three Rs. Many American's don't want the school to push a particular faith, because they know that they may not share that faith, at least in the finer points. But instead of saying "evangelizing has been made unwelcome in schools," we hear "Christians are under attack!"
I do think that some schools went overboard in defanging the evangelicals by keeping all Christian matters out of the school. I too think that the treatment needs to be more even-handed. I'd love to see more taught about the religious aspects of American history--how Roger Williams, Isaac Backus, and other Baptists were key in formulating the separation of church and state that modern Baptists want to abandon (or deny the existence of altogether), or how Protestant Ministers were so active in the KKK, for a couple of examples. That stuff would be controversial, but people might have more perspective if they knew about it.
Even as an atheist, I do think that we have gone too far in taking historical aspects of the impact of religion on American life out of schools. But frankly the problem is, as in all countries, the fundamentalists. If that term is too broad, I do apologize. I'm aiming squarely at the biblical literalists, the ones whose worldviews are threatened by modern biology, geology, physics, cosmology, and basically everything from the Enlightenment on down. I don't mind at all if my neighbor believes that Jesus died for their sins, but I do mind if they want the school curriculum changed because they don't think that evolution or the heliocentric solar system can be reconciled with the bible. So if it makes you happy, you can blame the ACLU or a handful of atheists for taking Christianity out of the schools, but it was the nutjob minority within the Christian population that made that possible. Similarly, it's the nutjobs in the Islamic community that is making life so complicated for so many people. Personal faith is never the issue, and "being Christian" was never under attack. No one cares if you have a personal relationship with Jesus, or with Allah or anyone else.
Re:Earmarks are good? (Score:5, Insightful)
"just as bad" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this posted on slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
But you knew that, didn't you?
I am, unlike you, actually quite interested in the corruption of this government and our supposed "civil servants." Feel free to bury your head in the sand of ignorance, but don't drag me down with you.
(Sorry for feeding the troll)
Re:Earmarks are good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:let's not forget Stevens OTHER inumerable fiasc (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, Ted Stevens may be a cranky old man, but you dissapoint me by blatantly lying.
The city the bridge is being built at has over 7,000 people. The reason it does not have more is there is a land shortage. Much land is available on the island (OCEAN, NOT RIVER). However, understandably, not being able to drive to work in the morning tends to make people not want to live there. There are many locations in many states where development could only take off once a bridge was built so people could drive around. A ferry just isn't the same, and you know it.
Re:we need to call BS on "small government" (Score:1, Insightful)
No, they're a persecuted majority.
In particular, small numbers of very vocal people file lawsuits against the majority to get them to do what they want.
Re:"just as bad" (Score:1, Insightful)
Clinton was corrupt. Bush isn't corrupt, he just doesn't respect civil rights. I know, I know, liberals love to howl about Halliburton, etc. etc. But if you read about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#Iraq_con
Clinton was corrupt and had no respect for civil rights AND murdered his own citizens. Waco. Ruby Ridge. Lewinsky afraid for her life.
"Democrats, way worse then us" -- new Republican slogan for '08?
Re:This will end well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, oddly enough, most voters don't think like that it. It's really amazing. Politicians will get kicked out of office for taking hundreds of thousands in bribes, for affairs, for corrupt redirection of money to their friends, for having hired an illegal immigrant...
But if they allocate BILLIONS of dollars to bridges to nowhere, to farm subsidies so we have to endure the blight known as HFCS, to military equipment the military doesn't want, to self-glorifying make-work programs, or whatnot, no one cares.
Some of the things in the first list are bad, of course, but none of them even come close to the second list.
Re:Earmarks are good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This will end well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem isn't that he indulges himself in sexual peculiarities. The problem is that he does it himself but wants to deny the same rights to other people.
Re:let's not forget Stevens OTHER inumerable fiasc (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no way that any kind of growth stimulus among a population of 7000 justifies spending $315 million.
also a Republican ... (Score:4, Insightful)
When are the stories of democratic corruption coming to
BTW - Stevens is scum and should be tarred and feathered. But then again, so should a lot of politicians. All I know is that
Re:This will end well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. That's like saying that people who advocate morality are hypocrites unless they themselves are perfect. If he believed that prostitution was a good thing, but tried to outlaw it anyway, he would be a hypocrite. If he thought it was a bad thing, and tried to outlaw it anyway, but succumbed to it anyway, he would not be a hypocrite. But he probably never expressed an opinion on prostitution, as it's not really the subject of federal law. The idea that someone is a hypocrite because they hire a prostitute while simultaneously being against prenatal murder and homosexual marriage is convoluted at best.
The human mind is fortunately so divided that it can contemplate the ideal and the true before it itself embodies those things.
Re:we need to call BS on "small government" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:let's not forget Stevens OTHER inumerable fiasc (Score:5, Insightful)
We're talking about Alaska, right?
"There are many locations in many states where development could only take off once a bridge was built so people could drive around."
And this makes it a federal issue why? If Juneau paid back slightly less in their Permanent Fund, they could have paid for their own bridge themselves (maybe even two or three) without having to get a pork earmark in Washington.
Re:Tubes aside, why do we got nothing but crooks? (Score:3, Insightful)
We get crooks because we want crooks. We consistently vote for politicians who promise and shamelessly deliver all the pork earmarks they can get their hands on. Our biggest question on election day is "How much money can you get me?"
When you get right down to it, it's not that Stevens took a kickback, it's that he didn't share this one with the rest of the district.
Re:This will end well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about if he got elected by deluding a specific segment of voters into thinking he stood with them on "family values"?
Actually, the word is not hypocrite but demagogue -- a man who promotes principles he considers false to people he considers fools.
rj
Sorry but you are pulling the same thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Now you may consider that all ok. We don't have unlimited personal freedoms, and indeed can't since personal freedoms must be balanced against having those infringe upon the freedoms of others. However don't pretend that your particular side of politics (whatever that may be) does it out of some special moral righteousness. It's the same deal all the way around: They want to restrict you from doing what they don't like, allow you to do what they do. What falls in to those categories varies depending on the political group, but it's the same shit.
For most issues, there are plenty go good arguments both ways. Yes, believe it or not there are good arguments against gay marriage. Doesn't mean you have to buy them (I don't) but they are valid argument, not just someone screaming about "God says it's evil!" Same thing with hate speech laws. You clearly have sold yourself on the arguments for them, you'd do well to consider the arguments against them. It's never a situation of "This is good, there is no harm." All action has harm, the question is does the benefits outweigh the harm.
Re:Earmarks are good? (Score:2, Insightful)
I know plenty of white trash that take advantage of social programs. What the radical right fails to comprehend, however, is that discontinuing these programs (like WIC, food stamps, welfare, etc) might save some money today, but it'll cost a lot more later (in terms of uncompensated health care, crime, civil unrest).
I'll use the health care system as an example. I know that a lot of conservatives would rather cut an arm off than consider a Canadian-style universal health care system, and their main argument is that our tax burden would go up. To which I say this: Who the hell do you think is paying for the uninsured NOW? Just because you don't have health insurance doesn't mean you don't get hit by a bus, or cancer, or necrotizing fasciitis, or $EXPENSIVE_HEALTH_CONDITION. Billions of taxpayer dollars go into uncompensated care pools, Medicaid, and Medicare. So we're already footing the bill for it, why don't we see if maybe we can cut out the bullshit and provide preventative/managed care up front with that money?
Similarly, doing away with Welfare doesn't make poor people (and the problems they have/cause) disappear. Removing food stamps doesn't mean people stop getting hungry. Removing Medicare doesn't mean people stop getting old/deathly ill/fully disabled.
It'd be great if none of these programs were necessary. While I'm at it, I'd like a pony.
Blaming "non-whites" for causing the issue is the biggest racist cop-out you can use. Are minorities over-represented in these programs? Sure. Are they over-represented in the population that these programs are intended to serve? Sure. Does this mean that non-whites are too stupid to make a living? Hell no.
People call liberals "impractical". Kettle, it's Pot. You're black.
Re:This will end well.. (Score:1, Insightful)
We all know you reach nothing in politics with just fancy principles unless you're willing to break and rape them. You need to lie, cheat and fight your way to the top! Those at the top are all bastards.
Quit acting surprised, you know all this
Re:This will end well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason is, oddly, very free market. I've seen it more than once that large corporations can have a decisive edge over startups because they can negotiate better terms for those basic production resources (yes, even public transport), thus crippling rising competition.
Campaign financing laws (Score:3, Insightful)
With that sort of pressure, corruption is inevitable. With the exception of a few wealthy ideologues, nobody gives money to a campaign without expecting some sort of favorable legislation passed for them. No candidate can survive without this sort of favor swapping. The best you can do is to decide who you're willing to compromise yourself to.
Take Hillary Clinton for example. Back when her husband was President, she was instrumental in getting the White House back away from that horrible bankruptcy reform bill that would eventually get passed in 2005. You can read more about this in "The Two-Income Trap" because the author of the book was instrumental in convincing her it was a bad idea. The bill contains such gems as prioritizing the repayment of credit card debt before child support and alimony payments. Clinton was horrified by the bill originally and promised to defeat "that awful bill" which was "unfair to women and children."
Now a few years later after successfully running for the Senate after receiving $140,000 of campaign contributions from banking executives, Senator Clinton voted in favor of the bill when it came up unchanged in 2001 and in every other year it was introduced until its passage in 2005. This is what corruption is all about -- bills for bills.
Even the most principled politician has to hold their nose and do something terrible in exchange for getting to prioritize the issues that really matter to them. For some politicians, this eventually eats away at everything they did care about until nothing is left but the matters of power and money. For other politicians, pork spending, anti-consumer legislation, and corporate welfare were their highest principles to begin with.
This sort of thing happens constantly, and it will happen until we can somehow kill the relationship between big donations and a successful bid for office. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is dead set on the idea that money equals free speech and forgets that the point of free speech is to give all citizens a chance to air their views. With big money being thrown around like this, the voices and opinions of the little guy mean absolutely jack outside of the voting booth. This means that some issues will never be properly examined (like copyright extension) because the few powerful interests have well bribed both sides on the issue.
This is why almost all of our elections are about "culture war" nonsense. It's a distraction from the real issues about government power and the spending of our tax dollars are decided with phone calls, industry drafted bills, and big fat checks. You just wave gay marriage or video game violence and the voters look that way while the other hand is busy digging in the graft.
I'm in favor of the latest raft of public election financing draft bills. [publicampaign.org] You agree not to accept any money from private individuals, and in exchange the government matches what your opponent spends. The best part is that since they're voluntary, the Supreme Court can't knock them down without extremely tortured logic. To qualify, all you have to do is get a certain critical mass of signatures, and then you spend the entire election trying to speak to the people instead of spending (literally) 70-90% of your time begging for money. Trust me; this is what an election is really like -- candidates are just panhandlers trading dignity for much larger sums of cash than a homeless person. It's disheartening to watch.
Unti
Re:BZZZT thankyourforplaying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BZZZT thankyourforplaying... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was using "bridges to nowhere" as a metaphor for pork barrel spending in general.
Anyone who has been to the area of the proposed bridge will agree that it needs to be built. It is in Ketchikan, Alaska. Ketchikan is completely out of space. Land prices have skyrocketed because there is no land. On the other side of the proposed bridge is land just waiting to be developed. Oh, and the AIRPORT is on the other side of the "bridge to nowhere". Do you think it might be nice if they could drive to the airport instead of having to take a ferry?
Oh, I'm sure it would be nice. I'm sure the people there would LOVE it. It would also be nice if we had a great new museum in Poughkeepsie, or a soil enrichment program in Hicksville, Alabama, or the job traning center in Bethesda. Everyone thinks their own little pork project is ABSOLUTELY vital to the health of the nation. I heard the military thinks we need more military spending too. I'm sure it would make sense to ANYONE with a remote understanding of the facts.
But it's because everyone has their little corner of the world that NEEDS more free money that spending gets out of control.
A billion here, a billion there
Re:BZZZT thankyourforplaying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who has been to the area of the proposed bridge will agree that it needs to be built. It is in Ketchikan, Alaska. Ketchikan is completely out of space. Land prices have skyrocketed because there is no land. On the other side of the proposed bridge is land just waiting to be developed. Oh, and the AIRPORT is on the other side of the "bridge to nowhere". Do you think it might be nice if they could drive to the airport instead of having to take a ferry?
Based on your post, I now know that Ketchikan, Alaska has a local land development problem of their own making that they need to solve with their own money. Thanks for clearing that up.
Re:A little balance Keith? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:BZZZT thankyourforplaying... (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. But that isn't the problem. The problem is he was trying to build it with taxpayers money! Just as he does with all his pork projects.
Ketchikan is completely out of space. Land prices have skyrocketed because there is no land. On the other side of the proposed bridge is land just waiting to be developed.
Here's a brilliant idea, why don't we make the people that are going to benefit from the bridge pay for it! The developers that want to develop the land, and they'll pay the cost on to the people that buy the homes and businesses on the other side of the bridge. And if they can't make their money back then maybe they shouldn't develop it until they can?
But the far easier solution is to take some bribes and then re-route some taxpayer funds to do it "for free."
Re:let's not forget Stevens OTHER inumerable fiasc (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, such as not having been taken from the people that earned it in the first place.
Re:This will end well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
No connection between "family values" and "sanctity of marriage" and cheating on your wife with a hooker? Please. I bet my wife would have something to say about that if I tried the argument.
Some of our minds are more divided than others, apparently.
Re:we need to call BS on "small government" (Score:3, Insightful)
It sometimes seems to me that the rational voter should vote "against" the presidential candidate that espouses his values... Once in office there are powerful temptations pushing presidents to pursue policies that are the opposite of their party's positions. They will face withering criticism for being an "extremist" or "radical" if they govern according to their stated principles. They dare not go too far. On the other hand they want grand political successes... and that's VERY hard to get pursuing the traditional policy goals of their own party because they need support from the opposing party to do anything big. BUT... it's very EASY to do if you pick one or two policy goals of the opposing party... as the head of your party you can get grudging support & even apparent enthusiasm (big smiles through gritted teeth) from all but the most principled/radical/extremist in your own party, and the support of much of the opposition as well. You can have way more success pursuing your opponents goals than you can pursuing your own (or your opponent would have pursuing his goals himself). As they said "Only Nixon can go to China"
After overreaching pursuing liberal policies he didn't run on Clinton got his head handed to him in the '92 mid-terms. After that he only pursued essentially Republican policies (at least on the big things). A Republican could never have had the successes Clinton had in reforming welfare along Republican lines. It was a huge success for a conservative Republican policy... He has no comparable successes enacting liberal Democratic policies. In terms of policy Clinton would have been considered very successful *as a Republican* His reputation for success as a Democrat is purely a matter of politics (You WIN politically when you steal your opponents policies)
By the same token Bush's pursued and won the Medicare prescription drug benefit that Clinton failed to get (a HUGE spending increase Clinton wanted but gave up on) and pushed through an Education policy largely written by Ted Kennedy that won more Democratic than Republican votes. He is criticized even on these policies by his opponents but they could not gotten anywhere near as much had they pursued those policies themselves (indeed they didn't.. Clinton's similar Medicare prescription drug bill was a huge political defeat). On domestic policy the Bush administration has been a huge success for Democratic policy goals.
Now, in a million small ways each President's administration was/is true to their parties goals if only because of the dictum "personnel is policy" and their personnel in thousands of political posts are party loyalists & true believers. But for their really big policy changes (on the Domestic front at least) they were effectively (very effectively) members of the opposite party.
Re:This will end well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even without considering the failure modes of the free market, Pareto efficiency is a regressive measurement. One person owning everything and the rest of us owning nothing is still Pareto optimal. And that is the limit towards which all unregulated free markets tend. The more money one has, the more power one has to influence the workings of the market, allowing one to acquire more money, and more power in an unregulated positive feedback loop. Government operates as a negative feedback loop, keeping the market from becoming dominated by the largest players.
Libertarianism is merely disguised propaganda for the status quo. Libertarians do not want a free, fair, and equitable world, they want an oligarchy or feudal state with themselves as the landed gentry.
OT: "Pipes" vs "Tubes" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a Democrat. I can't stand Ted Stevens. But, seriously, why is everyone so upset over his comparing the Internet to a series of tubes?
I refer to my Internet connection as a "pipe". I really, really don't believe the Internet is at all like a truck. I agree that there is a limited amount of data that can fit on an internet pipe. I would like it if someone pointed out the vast amounts of dark fiber to Mr. Stevens (compare it to a really huge tube with only a trickle of water running through it, if you think it'd help), but his analogy was *correct*.
But, I think it's a bit ridiculous to be making fun of him for using "tubes" instead of "pipes". Are we really upset with him because he's uncomfortable and bad with words? Isn't our problem with him that he's nerdy?
Bad news: so am I.
Re:BZZZT thankyourforplaying... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (Score:1, Insightful)
Right, because criticizing disgusting behavior is "hate mongering". For criticizing stupid political actions and laws is "hate mongering". Typical LEFTWING rhetoric, everything is "hate" this and "religious" that. Can't defeat them with sound logic, call them names. Works like a charm on every kindergarten playground and in SanFranSicko.
"douchebag" Yup, seventh grade level epithet. Do these still work with grownups?
"serve as a bad example and a warning as to why seperation of church and state"
Except I didn't bring RELIGION into this, you did. But that doesn't matter does it. Because it is better to bash religion (which one am I again???) than actually refute or comment on the charges leveled. Since it is clear you CANNOT, you result to name calling.
You've just shown how degenerate people can't think beyond kindergarten or seventh grade levels. Thanks!
"Seriously, you're a delusional lying piece of shit and a disgrace to your nation and your species."
You saying that San Fransisco has no examples of anti military, and public exhibition homosexual fornication behavior, or is it rather you like both those attitudes and think I'm "small" for not wanting to be around it?
Personally, I don't care if gay people want to commit their acts, I just don't want to see it, anymore than you want whatever religion you think I am around.
Nice try though.
Re:BZZZT thankyourforplaying... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who is the hater here?