Please please please make sure all you Californians vote Yes on Prop 2.
You will still have your meat, but the animals might suffer a little less.

http://www.yesonprop2.com/

Report  
BarleyPat (October 6, 2008)

But the more they suffer, the better they taste.

Report  
ElVaquero (October 6, 2008)

agreed.

FUCK! :(

Report  
LinoleumMagazine (October 6, 2008)

lol!

Zing!

Ashlee Simpson? Well, wait, I see your point.....

She's a front, he is cornholing Jared Leto. He pays her to play his wife.

Report  
Holy_Balls (October 6, 2008)

That's the second time I've seen the word 'cornhole' used in context today. Is that word coming back? If so, next time I take a shit, I will say I'm going to make creamed corn.

Report  
dual-a-corn (October 6, 2008)

Ugh. You just made me cough up my grilled cheese...

ohhhhhhhh i get it!

What? Fall Out Boy did something right??

I think my head just ergmsploded.

This ban already happened once about 8 years ago, but it was recently overturned by the California Supreme Court. I don't know if there is a winning side.

Report  
HeyBarmold (October 6, 2008)

I've been doing some polling for my statistics class, and theres been a huge shift in opinion since 2000, i've got almost 60% voting no, and 10% undecided. I'm thinking it'll pass with no problem.

Unless people are closet bigots who vote yes in the booth.

hahaha Not at all... but he said it's ok for gay people to visit each other in the hospital, so that totally makes up for it!

Get to da fight for proposition 8

I have the same problem with yes and no. Chris Hansen is always like have a seat and so on.

Report  
veganboyjosh (October 6, 2008)

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6954/1188994406433346a87dgi3. jpg

It's not confusing. "No" means you don't want to repeal the bill that allowed gay marriage.
They make more than 50,000 a night on tour in merch, most likely.

Report  
the_other_scott (October 6, 2008)

right but the wording on the ballot isn't quite that simple.

I am. Last call is typically 2 all week and 3 on Saturday, some places a little later. Smoking ban is in full effect, you can't smoke anywhere. All bars let you dip out but no venues do so smoke all you can before you go in. They're very strict. I like Pete's Pizza. Don't bother with the thin crust crap. Bar quality will depend on what neighborhood you're in.

I used to live in Chicago. Last call is typically 2am. Smoking ban includes all bars now (I think). My favorite Chicago bars are the L&L Tavern and the Old Town Ale House. I don't remember which place has the best pizza, but make sure you get stuffed pizza...oh how I miss stuffed pizza, Old Style and chicago dogs.

Welcome!
-Last call: For most bars, closing time is 2AM everyday and 3AM on Saturdays, so last call's usually a half hour before. There are a handful of bars with 4AM permits (5AM on Saturdays), including the punk bar Exit (exitchicago.com)
-Smoking ban: Can't smoke indoors. Be glad you're here in October - stepping out for a smoke in mid-January is a bold move.
-Bars: Oh my, we got 'em. Too many, actually. What kind of bars are you into? Dive bars? Good beers? Live music?
-Pizza: Highly contested, but personally I like Lou Malnati's or Giordano's the best (for deep dish, which I assume you're asking about).

Eat lunch here: http://www.hotdougs.com/
Eat dinner here: http://www.kumas-corner.com/
Drink here: http://www.gingermanpub.com/

-Scott

Report  
MN_punkmaster-skaman (October 6, 2008)

Thanks for the tips.

Report  
AstronautJones (October 6, 2008)

why am i not surprised that you know your way around chicago's best eateries?

oh yeah, because you're a big fat fatty.

Report  
red_eye_inc (October 6, 2008)

Those are super famous places, anyone who's ever even heard of Chicago knows them. They're also very, very good. I can't fully recommend the Gingerman, though. Maybe if you're in the area, but it's certainly not a destination.

Not Chicago pizza! It's just soggy bread with junk on it.

Report  
jamespastepunk (October 6, 2008)

Please die.

Report  
acris (October 6, 2008)

oh no sister, YOU DID NOT JUST GO THERE

it was basically a bullshit cop-out that ended up making a bit of sense.

he was saying "we'll leave it up to religion to define what marriage is, but the government should grant these unions the same rights"

Report  
24HourPriapism (October 6, 2008)

i suppose when you say it like that, it DOES make a little sense, but i still groaned when he busted the old "between a man and a woman" line...

Report  
Autosuggestion (October 6, 2008)

It doesn't really make that much sense when you look at the role religion, as a non-specific practice, plays into it as well as the history of marriage and the State.

It's an intellectually lazy way of appealing to some voters without turning off others.

Biden's a whore.

Report  
LookingForCorpses (October 6, 2008)

I completely agree with that.

I don't think any of the candidates, no matter what they believe, can actually SAY they support gay marriage because of the large amounts of votes they would lose. Think about it, Obama would lose far more votes than he would gain if he said he supported gay marriage. It's a shitty situation on their part, but I can see why they do it.

Bah. Politics.

I agree, man. I thought the same thing. I do think that maybe a guy like Biden would say that he's for gay marriage if it wasn't for the fact that he's lose the vote of close-minded trailer trash douche bags... but I was watching the debate and thinking "OK, so gay people should be allowed to have all the rights that married people have, but it can't be called marriage?"

And I definitely agree that the "between a man and a woman" thing is just an outdated way of thinking. As a society, we need forward thinking... not people quoting a book that was written thousands of years ago or refusing to update the Constitution even slightly.

Report  
LookingForCorpses (October 6, 2008)

Since when has the constitution stopped being updated? It happens quite a bit.

Report  
skaboom (October 6, 2008)

Quite a bit? There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution ever, in 221 years. Ten of those were the Bill of Rights, passed in 1791, and the 18th and 21st amendments (on prohibition) cancel each other out.

In other words, over the last 217 years, the constitution has made a total of 15 permanent changes.

Report  
Craig-TheRebelCounty (October 7, 2008)

Thanks for the support, man. I didn't check back soon enough to defend myself haha

Report  
Autosuggestion (October 7, 2008)

Yeah... and all those times it was amended (not counting Prohibition, because as you noted it was repealed), it has been to extend rights and liberties to the American people, not restrict them.... such as to give people of color or women the right to vote or end slavery, etc.

The Constitutional amendment urged by President Bush (called the Federal Marriage Amendment) would be the only one that would single out one class of Americans for discrimination by ensuring that same-sex couples would not be granted the equal protections that marriage brings to American families.


Report  
Craig-TheRebelCounty (October 7, 2008)

skaboom basically said what I needed to say, but THAT'S the part of what I said that you had a problem with? Did you do a literal fact check on every word of my statement on gay marriage? Besides, I said we need people who are willing to update the Constitution... not that it's never been done... or that it CAN'T be done. I think most of what I said went over your head.

Report  
Autosuggestion (October 6, 2008)

But would those close-minded trailer trash douche bags you're speaking of vote for Barack Obama anyway?

It wasn't quite a minority, 61% of voters originally banned in 2000, and the supreme court overturned it 4 to 3. Now, times have changed since 2000 and i see this one crashing pretty hard, as all the conservatives here have moved to Colorado.

I'm pro gay marriage, but it is not a small minority of reactionary morons, by a long shot.

Nice

hiiyooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Fat chicks are SO gay!

California usually sends you a pretty thick book explaining everything about a month before the election.

www.vote-smart.org

Vote Smart is a great non-partisan source for all sorts of information on elections from the national to state and even local level.

He plays a pretty good straight dude, that's why. I question it every time I see that guy in those Old Spice (I think?) commercials when he's decked out in women.

Anyone willing to play a character named Doogie Howser has to be gay.

You should watch more Family Guy.

how much money are animal welfarists putting into such a silly bill? this will only make the state think "Well, we've done our part for animals for the next 10 years," and leave animal protection in a still-decrepit state.

I mean, all that proposition does is give them slightly more room in a cage after 2015. So I guess that even though these animals are being tortured and slaughtered, we're going to give them more leg room in about 6 years? Seems kind of like there are many other issues that should be taken into consideration, and that all of this supporter money could go to better initiatives.

Also, Professor Francione (one of the most respected animal rights theorists) has a good write-up on the situation here:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=165

Report  
LinoleumMagazine (October 6, 2008)

Wow. That's interesting. He makes a very valid point. Now I don't know what to think... I'm still all for less suffering, and we all know that meat consumption isn't going to change signifigantly anytime soon. But it's probably true that all that money could be used in a different way and possibly make more of a difference.
Fuck, I'm all confused.

p.s. that kill counter on the left of the page is mind-blowing.

Report  
DarrenMcLeod (October 6, 2008)

Glad to see that you actually read it and processed it. I expected a very swift "that guy is an extremist idiot!!!!" response without giving it any thought.

Francione is a pretty smart dude. He's written some good articles and books on a number of animal rights issues, in case you're interested in checking out more of his work.

Report  
LinoleumMagazine (October 6, 2008)

Yeah, thanks. I'll have to check his stuff out. I always like as much info and as many different opinions as I can find.

They broke up? I thought they were doing a winning, no marketing, no touring, no interviews, no hype, no sales approach to their records now.

Report  
Holy_Balls (October 6, 2008)

I think they took a break or something. That dude who wears a mask or facepaint is in and out of that band more times than a penis is in and out of a vagina during sex.

Report  
dual-a-corn (October 6, 2008)

So, from my experience, that means twice?

Report  
fox82 (October 6, 2008)

Yeah, a 'hiatus', I believe bands call them these days. It's breaking up until you run out of coke money.

NEWS FLASH: Upon news of Limp Bizkit gettting back together, stock in Dickies and Adidas just skyrocketed.

Report  
Holy_Balls (October 6, 2008)

And red hats.

I didn't know they broke up.
-Dante

Report  
HeyBarmold (October 6, 2008)

If I don't hear it on the org, i assume it didn't happen.

Oh thank god

hahah i didn't believe you until i checked it out for myself... sure enough, they are genuinely excited

i can't lie, i was bumpin Three Dollar Bill Y'all back in the late 90s

Report  
Holy_Balls (October 6, 2008)

They were also mad that Swayze dropped off of a Metro Station tour. One time I saw 40+ replies of Chiodos praising. That site is turning in to a toliet. Shit.

Maybe some gay people are religious and would rather be married under their own church than call it something else?

Report  
the_other_scott (October 6, 2008)

that's kind of the point though, why would you want to be part of a religion that didn't accept you?

Report  
dlangl4 (October 6, 2008)

How could that point possibly matter?

If someone is gay and religious, and wants to be married under their church, then where does the rational "why would you want to be part of a religion that doesn't accept you" come into the equation. I don't see how it does at all.

If I had to guess, religious gays probably agree with their religion on most issues except the gay issue. This is no different than anyone who is religious but doesn't 100% agrees with their church's beliefs. Ok, so they believe in their religion minus the anti gay part, and they still want to be married under that religion. It makes perfect sense. You saying, "Well why would they want to?" adds or counters nothing to this.

Unless I'm missing something?

Report  
the_other_scott (October 6, 2008)

its not one issue. you're believing in a church that thinks you are a sinner because of who you love.

Report  
dlangl4 (October 6, 2008)

Why does that matter is what I'm asking. If they want to believe in that church despite the church looking down on them, what difference does it make?

On a side argument, are the other members in the church sin free? I try to avoid analogies, but in this case the list could go on and on. Rapists are looked down upon by most religions, yet I'm sure many rapists are religious and want to be married in a church of their religion. Same goes for thieves, corrupt politicians, whatever.

If your only point is that it is stupid/illogical/whatever for gay people to believe in a church that looks down on homosexuality, then I don't see how that fact is relevant to the issue of whether or not gay people should have the right to get married.

I got married and not one mention of god or jesus or the lord was every uttered by the person who married us. That was our choice and we couldn't be happier. You don't have to have religion to get married, that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

Report  
BarleyPat (October 6, 2008)

same here

most gay people practice some form of religious faith

It's not a religious thing.

It's an antiquated legal and financial relationship with another human being that has much more to do with the normalization of gender roles and the economic reinforcement of the capitalist class structure by familial conglomeration of wealth than anything like love, affection, or religion.

Up the punx!

(partially kidding, but yeah, not a religious thing)

Report  
Guy_Incognito (October 6, 2008)
That's a pretty cynical view. I'm pretty sure my parents got married so they could put together a stable family that would serve as a decent platform for the success of their offspring.

The "Familial Conglomeration of wealth" is just a common sense survival tactic. People organize themselves into groups to give themselve an advantage in life. Families are a very powerful organizational unit in that their whole purpose is to guarantee the success of the offspring. I don't see how this is a bad thing.

People without strong family ties suffer horribly during bad times because they have no one to back them up, bail them out, or otherwise support them. I know that anyone in my family both above and below me would be taken care of if something bad happened.

It's interesting that there is a group of people that want to break all of societ

show rest of commentThat's a pretty cynical view. I'm pretty sure my parents got married so they could put together a stable family that would serve as a decent platform for the success of their offspring.

The "Familial Conglomeration of wealth" is just a common sense survival tactic. People organize themselves into groups to give themselve an advantage in life. Families are a very powerful organizational unit in that their whole purpose is to guarantee the success of the offspring. I don't see how this is a bad thing.

People without strong family ties suffer horribly during bad times because they have no one to back them up, bail them out, or otherwise support them. I know that anyone in my family both above and below me would be taken care of if something bad happened.

It's interesting that there is a group of people that want to break all of societies roles and groups in order to have a perfectly egalitarian society. I think they'll be suprised to find how quickly people will find new ways to reorganize themselves into supportive groups if you break down the old owns. They are definitely fighting against the natural order of things.

The only people that hate the concept of family are those who never had a decent one.

And just so there is no extrapolation of what I said above, I'm 100% for gay marriage and have no qualms about calling it the same thing as straight marriage.

I think the religion part is pretty funny really. According to the state of CA. my wife and I are legally married but, her church says we are not because I refuse to become Catholic.

Marriage isn't necessarily religious anymore. To most people it's just two people agreeing to be together until they die (or change their minds). It signifies intense love, and not giving that to homosexuals mildly infers that they are not capable of that "normal" love and cannot function as "normal" married couples do.

It's not a religious thing, it's a constitutional thing for most people. Most people who have a problem with courts passing things like this is that it's not a court's decision to make. It should be put out for the popular vote, which it is not. Religions are jumping on it as a chance to overturn it, but the actual reason for the vote has nothing to do with them.

Report  
Cheesetits (October 6, 2008)

Oh please, you know full well who makes decisions about these things. It's not a bunch of atheists, that's for sure.

If 2 gay people get married, it doesn't make you a sinner, even if you are religious-as-fuck.
It also is UN-AMERICAN to Govern with religious views.
Its called prejudice. That's the only reason to oppose. Fundamentalist bigotry.

Exactly

It's actually NOT taking away your liberties. It's a debate on granting more liberties. Liberties that do not currently exist.

Report  
SloaneDaley (October 6, 2008)

I said restrict AND take away, the liberty to pursue your own happiness is being restricted here.

Report  
LookingForCorpses (October 6, 2008)

Pursuit of happiness is a very subject term. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but there could certainly be a case made for this not falling under that.

Report  
BMXpunk (October 6, 2008)

A person's pursuit of happiness is only subject when it is defined by someone else.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 6, 2008)

one could argue that those liberties (natural rights) are inherent in the first place, and thus they had taken away our liberties when they didn't allow gay couples to marry

you're arguing under the assumption that government - that the State - is what grants us liberty.
the State doesn't grant us liberties, we have natural rights whether there is a State or not.

Classic.

nice

10/10

Flawless

Made my fucking day!! laughed soo hard.

Hahafuckinghahahaha oh man

Worlds are colliding.

ur late man
some body posted the "stoked" comment one per story please.

Hitler also did some cool things, like the Autobahn and being a vegetarian. You can still hate him though.

While civil unions are a step in the right direction under current federal and state law, they do not afford full and equal rights. There are 1,049 federal rights that are only conferred with marriage. Additionally, at the state level, a civil union is only recognized in the state where it occurs, while a legal marriage, and all the rights that go with it, is recognized in all the states.

Report  
kpave (October 7, 2008)

Huh thats pretty unfair

Even if you adjust it to be proportionate, it's still a lot more than most other people have donated.