Obama 2012

At some point you just have to give up and marry a woman from a country where "feminism" means high heels and stockings. It is quite likely English will not be her native language. After that...who cares?

People need to relax... Activist groups really need to stop worrying about something so silly and overthinking it!

----

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/05/31/14203391.html
A urinal shaped like a woman’s wide-open mouth has been flushed out of the men’s room of a Hamilton eatery following a nearly year-long public outcry.
The glossy, red-lipped loo at The Honest Lawyer restaurant sparked a letter writing campaign that attracted almost 1,100 people, including Ontario’s NDP leader and Hamilton’s mayor.
Some people argued the “Kisses! urinal” — manufactured by Bathroom Mania! in the Netherlands — was art or just a joke.
The Woman Abuse Working Group, a coalition of 24 organizations, disagreed and led efforts to oust what it considered to be an offensive water closet.
Lenore Lukasik-Foss, chairwoman of the group, said Monday she’s “shocked, excited and thrilled” that it’s gone.
“It’s not a joke to pee into a woman’s mouth,” she said.
The group was concerned about women’s safety and the message the urinal, which had been there since the restaurant opened in February 2007, sent to men in the bar.
“They’re drinking and maybe hoping to connect with a special person and then they’re going to the bathroom and peeing into a woman’s mouth,” said Lukasik-Foss, who’s also director of the Sex Assault Centre.
“Granted it’s sort of a cartoonish version, but still it’s clearly a woman’s mouth.”
Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, who had sent a letter to owner Greg Sandwell asking him to consider the outcry from women’s groups, said she was pleased it had been removed.
“It was something that was causing a great deal of concern around the Hamilton area,” said Horwath, who represents the riding in which the restaurant is located.
“I’ve been to the Honest Lawyer with many different people, including men, and nobody ever gave me the heads up.”
On its website, the manufacturer says “’Kisses!’ transforms a daily event into a blushing experience.”
It also adds: “This is one target men will never miss.”
While the designer defends the urinals as sensual art, a customer complaint led a McDonald’s outlet in Amsterdam to remove them in 2006. The fixtures were also removed from a public washroom near Austria’s national opera in Vienna in 2006 after complaints from politicians.
Virgin Airways apologized and ditched plans to install a pair at its lounge at New York’s John F. Kennedy airport in 2004 after the National Organization for Women called them “degrading.”
Meike van Schijndel said in an email from Holland that she devised the design for an art school project, and lots of men and women like the “cartoonish looking mouth.”
“The thought that this urinal only represents a man peeing in a woman’s mouth never even occurred to me while making it,” said van Schijndel.
“Luckily for all those women who feel offended, they will never run into a ‘Kisses’ at a restroom.”
Sandwell could not immediately be reached for comment.

People need to relax... Activist groups really need to stop worrying about something so silly and overthinking it!

----

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/05/31/14203391.html
A urinal shaped like a woman’s wide-open mouth has been flushed out of the men’s room of a Hamilton eatery following a nearly year-long public outcry.
The glossy, red-lipped loo at The Honest Lawyer restaurant sparked a letter writing campaign that attracted almost 1,100 people, including Ontario’s NDP leader and Hamilton’s mayor.
Some people argued the “Kisses! urinal” — manufactured by Bathroom Mania! in the Netherlands — was art or just a joke.
The Woman Abuse Working Group, a coalition of 24 organizations, disagreed and led efforts to oust what it considered to be an offensive water closet.
Lenore Lukasik-Foss, chairwoman of the group, said Monday she’s “shocked, excited and thrilled” that it’s gone.
“It’s not a joke to pee into a woman’s mouth,” she said.
The group was concerned about women’s safety and the message the urinal, which had been there since the restaurant opened in February 2007, sent to men in the bar.
“They’re drinking and maybe hoping to connect with a special person and then they’re going to the bathroom and peeing into a woman’s mouth,” said Lukasik-Foss, who’s also director of the Sex Assault Centre.
“Granted it’s sort of a cartoonish version, but still it’s clearly a woman’s mouth.”
Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, who had sent a letter to owner Greg Sandwell asking him to consider the outcry from women’s groups, said she was pleased it had been removed.
“It was something that was causing a great deal of concern around the Hamilton area,” said Horwath, who represents the riding in which the restaurant is located.
“I’ve been to the Honest Lawyer with many different people, including men, and nobody ever gave me the heads up.”
On its website, the manufacturer says “’Kisses!’ transforms a daily event into a blushing experience.”
It also adds: “This is one target men will never miss.”
While the designer defends the urinals as sensual art, a customer complaint led a McDonald’s outlet in Amsterdam to remove them in 2006. The fixtures were also removed from a public washroom near Austria’s national opera in Vienna in 2006 after complaints from politicians.
Virgin Airways apologized and ditched plans to install a pair at its lounge at New York’s John F. Kennedy airport in 2004 after the National Organization for Women called them “degrading.”
Meike van Schijndel said in an email from Holland that she devised the design for an art school project, and lots of men and women like the “cartoonish looking mouth.”
“The thought that this urinal only represents a man peeing in a woman’s mouth never even occurred to me while making it,” said van Schijndel.
“Luckily for all those women who feel offended, they will never run into a ‘Kisses’ at a restroom.”
Sandwell could not immediately be reached for comment.

That confirms what I always say: women should not be allowed behind the wheel.

I so agree Let my Fiance go....this waiting is for the birds

Well the homophobia in most people doesn't really come from people being gay per se, it comes from those who are the loud and vocal one of the "gay community." -- Have you ever seen a Gay Pride Parade? - That's what the majority of so-called homophobes worry about is that Gay = Flaming/eccentric. While that's not the case and not what your 'average' homosexual is like, those people are the ones who are "loud and proud" and make the normal people seem non-existent.
It's the same case with any activist group. Be it things like PETA, the KKK, the Black Panthers, Fringe Socialists, Fringe Anarchists, etc. - Those people make the one's actually arguing good points seem like small voices amongst a group of wackos.
The gay community need more people who are much more calm/normal (like Ellen Degeneres for example) in their representation before the rest of society will calm down on the presence.

Well the homophobia in most people doesn't really come from people being gay per se, it comes from those who are the loud and vocal one of the "gay community." -- Have you ever seen a Gay Pride Parade? - That's what the majority of so-called homophobes worry about is that Gay = Flaming/eccentric. While that's not the case and not what your 'average' homosexual is like, those people are the ones who are "loud and proud" and make the normal people seem non-existent.
It's the same case with any activist group. Be it things like PETA, the KKK, the Black Panthers, Fringe Socialists, Fringe Anarchists, etc. - Those people make the one's actually arguing good points seem like small voices amongst a group of wackos.
The gay community need more people who are much more calm/normal (like Ellen Degeneres for example) in their representation before the rest of society will calm down on the presence.

No, but maybe stupid will be reduced with 1 testicle.

I would find it best to leave this alone as many here are being hypocritical in their posts and acting innocent when they are not.

I would find it best to leave this alone as many here are being hypocritical in their posts and acting innocent when they are not.

That's exactly the question. Unless you have served you have NO IDEA the impact this will actually have on serving officers. As stated you live with these people every day. They are your family. You trust them with your life. They're not just "co-workers" they are the most important people in your life for several years. There must be 1000% trust and respect.
If people start coming out there will HAVE to be separate sleeping quarters and showers. Security will HAVE to be increased because I can guarantee you that there will be a lot of assaults on openly homosexual men.
I asked my Marine what he thought about all this. He said if they weren't killed, they'd be beaten to an inch on their life. That he has no issue with homosexual men but he DOES take issue with being forced to shower and sleep with someone who may or may not find him sexually attractive.
Now there's where I stopped him. I told him that not EVERY gay guy checks out every guy, just like not every woman checks out every man and vice-versa. BUT he said, the difference is, a gay guy is like a girl (to straight guys obviously), in that the association of an "opposite sex" is there. If women don't sleep or shower with men because of sexual tension or other reasons then neither should a gay guy or gay girl shower with "straights". No guy wants to be all "blokey" with a gay guy, they won't be able to relax, it won't be the same. This is in fact going to INCREASE segregation. It will increase bad blood if the segregation doesn't occur.
I mentioned to my Marine someone's argument that there's likely gays in the Marines already and he said "more than likely" but there's a difference between KNOWING a guy is checking you out in the shower, and not knowing. That he would prefer to pretend that all the guys in his shower are straight and there's nothing suss about it so it doesn't make them uncomfortable or uneasy (just like it would if a girl was in the shower with them).
It's going to get VERY bad before it gets good. I agree with "Paul and Vanessa", sexuality shouldn't be an issue but you get a bunch of testosterone charged men alone in a deserted place, missing home, missing their women and sex comes up. It's human nature and it would be stupid to stop people from expressing themselves in that manner simply to keep the peace.
So that leads to, why can't a gay guy express he misses his man? Why can't he talk about that sort of stuff and feel safe and supported? He should be able to be himself without fear of backlash but at the same time, if I was a gay guy in the Marines I wouldn't admit it. No way in hell would I admit it. My life and safety is more valuable than my need to express my sexuality... and if I joined an occupation where I knew that my "silence" would be necessary then I'd be prepared to deal with it. It's stupid to think that the homosexuals in the Armed Forces aren't aware of WHY they need to keep quiet. The WORLD needs to change a lot more before it can be pushed through to such a straight and testosterone charged environment. The Armed Forces is not a place to start the revolution.

I know you're surely not talking to me.
Because pretending to know a damn thing about me is a sad mistake.
I've not once bashed anyone for being gay. I've not once said anything against someone of a different orientation once in this thread.
This isn't about "my stance" on gays as I have not once perpetuated that in my posts. You haven't a damn clue what my stance is on the subject, so don't pretend you do.
If you have some sort of rebuttal, make it about what I'm actually saying and take me up on that. Don't try and pretend to know me though. That's ridiculous.
So I would suggest you actually read what I'm saying about how SOME PEOPLE do feel about the situation and how that doesn't fit in to every day life for a lot of them.
We're not talking about someone's life style choice. We're talking about the damn military and the job they have to do and how important it is that distractions of any sort not get in the way of duty. While there are plenty who are accepting of people's lifestyles, there are plenty in the same boat who aren't. That is reality. That's not illusion, that's not a myth, that is the honest truth. The only thing going in the favor of this repeal today is the fact that things are a lot less communal than they once were once you get outside of BCT.
This issue has nothing to do with "gay rights."
The hypocrisy and the bullshit of the whole thing speaking of "party hacks" is that most on the far-left have no intention of EVER joining the military. Most gays who are fighting for this have no intention of EVER joining the military. It's just one more 'barrier' that is seen in the that needs to be torn down, that has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle. -
This isn't about partnerships, marriage, unions, or whatever. This isn't about wanting to hold hand and kiss in public and not be shocked at people's reactions. Stop pretending like it is. This is just one more thing to say, "we will not shut up." and has nothing to do with real/actual rights.
What the hell does it matter for someone to be gay and serve in the military? It doesn't matter a damn thing. - What does it mean to be 'openly' gay and serve in the military? It matters a lot when you are found out about by your redneck/homophobic service members who will taunt you, tease you, and possibly do things worse to you.
We are not at a point in this country, in this society, that people have become fulling accepting to the overwhelming vast majority. The prop 8 vote in California should prove that. The numerous other states where the people vote on this should prove that.

It's sad that so many people have so little knowledge of what the role of the military is.
The Military excludes people for all kinds of reasons things like tattoos with nudity or depicting a pot leaf.
For being over weight, for being too short, for poor eye vision and a host of other conditions.
The main question has always been will this change make the service perform better? Will it have negative effects?
SOmetimes Changes can bring about both good and bad but ...the god outweigh the bad such as when Blacks were integrated with the rest of the service, though there were conflicts they were out weighed by logistics and other improvements.
THe question is, how do kissing Marines, improve the Corps?
Sure Homos have always served in the military and one would suppose that some have even performed exceptional in their duties.... but the same can be said of Child molesters or drug addicts as they too have served. MAny of these taking-points are meaningless to the question; Do homosexuals or any other person in a fringe lifestyle have a "Right to serve"?
The clueless relate the military as a 9-5 job where you can keep your private life at home..... for many troops their home life is the military as you eat, bunk, work, recreation with the same guys in your unit.
This change will bring about a title wave of questions, every thing from barracks to bring a date to the Ball, to Gay-clubs on base to cross dressing and transgender rights?
Will Gays be tested for AIDS more often..... as they still are hundreds of times more likely to be infected?
..... in a profession where blood is both spilled often..... and sometimes required for transfusions this is not something a civilian bean counter would even consider.
Also, Can Gays marry if in a state which allows, will they get base housing and pay?
These situations / questions are endless.... yet amusing.
But really the one question I would like to have input on is.... "what improvements will this bring to the armed forces"?

no, not a joke! all they have done is prolong the inevitable

Most people are blind to reality when it comes to this sort of thing.
They'd rather sit back and pay for someone to take up space in a prison cell for horrendous crimes and "hope" that one day they can be rehabilitated, OR they somehow believe it's better to make them sit there for life and 'think about' what they did wrong.
I don't agree with the Chinese on a lot, but let's make it simple; You do horrendous crimes of murder or torture of another, then you get shot and your family is charged for the bullet.
There's people out there willing to do such things. Hell, I'm sure there's individuals such as this guy who fight against themselves not to commit such acts against another because he doesn't want to go to jail or end up dead. Find those people who need to 'feed' that need to violence and destruction.
Personally as stated above, I'd shoot the #######.

First, yes. He should have the same inflicted on him that he did to "the animal". I guarantee that if someone risked having done to them what they did to someone else then they would think more than twice before doing it. I would have no issue living in a society where it was "eye for an eye" because maybe people would start treating people like they wish to be treated and stop being #######.
As for your "gay people" suggestion, no-one specified "gay people" except you. Sodomy is not only a "gay person" thing so please stop trying to cause trouble.

Not really a joke here.
You have completely removed an imbecile who feels the need to torture other creatures from this society.
It's one less piece of trash to deal with on a daily basis.

Let's be honest, Bush got the blame because "he doesn't like black people" as so eloquently put by Kanye.
The failures of Katrina were at the hands of the scum mayor, the scum governor, and corruption all around by the leadership of that state.
The army core of engineers knew of the problems with the levees, yet nothing was done about it before hand....

Let's be honest, Bush got the blame because "he doesn't like black people" as so eloquently put by Kanye.
The failures of Katrina were at the hands of the scum mayor, the scum governor, and corruption all around by the leadership of that state.
The army core of engineers knew of the problems with the levees, yet nothing was done about it before hand....

If there was ever an argument for immigration and border control, it's the EU. - Still trying to figure out what idiot came up with that idea. Probably the same ones who want a "One World Government"

"do as I say, not as I do."

http://www.wfaa.com/news/health/Safety-Concerns-about-Medical-Imaging-94857154.html
Medical imaging, including X-rays and CT scans, let doctors see what's happening inside the body in great detail. More than 70 million such images are snapped annually, often with life-saving results.
But, with newer technologies, have come more powerful doses of radiation.
There are now growing concerns over safety.
Fran Gosnell is basically home-bound because of permanent internal injuries from cervical cancer treatment.
"Too much radiation," she explains, "And it wasn't regulated as it should have been."
Gosnell says her bladder, colon, and a major vein were damaged by radiation, more powerful than it was supposed to be.
In high therapeutic doses, experts know there is increased risk of dangerous side-effects.
But now, the FDA is investigating overdoses from diagnostic radiation. Diagnostic radiation is the same energy used in mammograms and X-rays.
In Los Angeles, more than 300 patients suffered radiation poisoning, after having CT scans.
"The effects won't show up for 20 years," says one victim. "I'm only 51. That means what I'll start having problems at age 70?"
There is very little oversight of radiation dosing. A facility typically monitors its own machines.
Experts say a single session in a CT scanner is like having 400 X-rays.
While one scan isn't a worry, multiple scans in a short period of time for some people, might be.
"There is a great potential for over-exposure to radiation, specifically in CT," says Texas Health Dallas medical physicist Messica Clements. "Exposure to radiation can increase your chance of cancer by 1 percent. So one in every 100 people could have an increased chance."
Clements monitors the scanners at Texas Health Dallas for accurate dosing to make sure patients aren't exposed to any more radiation than absolutely necessary.
In fact, medical radiation may cause 29,000 new cancers a year and 14,500 deaths, according to research published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Young people are at highest risk, partly because they have many years ahead to develop disease. Larger patients also have higher risk because more radiation is required to image their internal organs.
Doctors say short of radiation poisoning, which can result in lost hair and visible burns, there's no way for a person to know when they've been exposed to too much radiation.
"Much of the work on radiation sickness, radiation dosage, actually came on studies right after the second world war, related to the atomic bomb blast," explains Baylor radiologist Mark Fulmer. "Extrapolating data from an atomic bomb explosion to having your yearly chest X-ray in your doctor's office is kind of a hard, or not necessarily the right parallel to draw."
The best way to calculate even theoretical risks, say radiologists, is to compare imaging doses to radiation people soak up every day from the sun.
According to the FDA, a chest X-ray has the equivalent of 10 days of ordinary background radiation, a mammogram, three months.
An abdominal CT scan is like three years.
Despite that, radiologists say patients are often demanding.
"Radiation is always brought up," says Texas Health Dallas radiologist Dr. Douglas Baker, "And you still have some patients who insist on having exams done."
The potential for side effects is so real that North Texas medical centers are spending millions on new technologies that reduce exposure.
At Texas Health Dallas, there's a Flash CT, which scans faster and with less radiation.
Baylor Medical Center has a radiation safety committee.
"We presume that we might be inducing cancers from CT," says Baylor medical physicist Angela Bruner. "We're not sure yet, it depends on how it hits the body, but we want to do the right thing now to reduce that, so we formed this committee to do so."
For those who are worried, doctors suggest patients keep medical records of prior scans and ask questions before agreeing to medical imaging that might not be necessary.
"It's important that patients discuss this with their doctor," says Dr. Baker, "Ask, 'Why is this exam being performed? How is the information from the exam going to improve their health care? Are there alternative exams that don't require radiation, such as an MRI or ultrasound that can be performed instead?'"
There is no doubt that radiation for imaging and treatment can be lifesaving.
For Fran Gosnell, it has also been life-altering.
"I want them to be very aware of what they're getting into," says Gosnell, who wants others to hear her warning and know that what you can't see, can hurt you.

Right, but there are more "acceptable", more politically correct forms of profiling that may not be institutional but do result in certain people loosing out. In my experience some of the people who are the most vocal against things like racial profiling, are very quick to judge and VERY intolerant of people who may seem to come from a different perspective. It's a form of hypocracy I've experienced first hand and it has impacted my life negatively.
Examples of the sorts of "profiling" I'm referrring to: Southerners are stupid, ignorant, or racists. Fat people are lazy and have no self control. Openly religious people are close-minded and intolerant. People living in trailor parks are ignorant and dishonest. Americans are stupid and arrogant.
I was almost denied a job because the person who was hiring saw from my work experience and education that I was from the South. He openly admitted this. The school was desperate, so they finally gave me an interview. He marvelled at my speech and apparent intelligence. He had already commented on my ability to write, and I gathered from one or two comments he made over the next few years that he had assumed I had not actually written what he saw in my application.
Throughout the years I worked at that school, I was told on numerous occasions by people from New England that the South "gave them the creeps." "Southern women are two-faced around men." "Southerners are racist." The last from someone whose daughter said that the one time she got in trouble at her school she had to stay in detention with the Black kid. THERE WAS ONLY ONE BLACK KID IN HER SCHOOL!!!!! But her mother thought Southerners were racist. Don't get me wrong. I liked these people and we remain friends, but if I faced that, imagine how wide-spread it is and how many people don't get beyond the geography of a person's birth. Yet we never hear anyone decry this. It is not "institutionalized."
That's one small instance and those are just a handful of the comments I've heard in my life. I could list some of the comments I've heard about
Americans, religious people, and on and on and on. I've read many on this forum by people who have been appalled at this sort of topic - racial profiling.
My point is that, while we should not tolerate institutionalized racism, we must all be aware of our own weaknesses, myself included. The man in the mirror and all that.
And I contend that ALL people are guilty of this on some level. Those that think they aren't are the worst offenders.

thought i'd pass this along. limited quantities per location.
http://getspicychicken.com/