And still you can’t respond to the real point. She arbitrarily changed a group decision made by people who had been honored before and then issued a command telling people what they could think and do if they were to participate.

You can play these little games all you want with semantics and word use, but you use it as an excuse to ignore the real issue I’d raised.

Maybe, but it didn’t turn out that way did it?

OK then:

“Also, he was chosen by a bunch of people who were past marshals, so one would think that they had some idea of what the parade was about, as opposed to ‘SF Pride board president Lisa Williams who is a member of the Alice B Toklas LGBT Democratic Club’ and “a democratic operative.” That better?

That doesn’t change my original points at all. Apparently a group of people who had been intimately involved with the Gay Pride parade for years picked the guy and then one person (describe her as you will) not only arbitrarily changed the decision, but demanded that no one connected with the parade mention the matter or the guy at all.

Did someone else ask? Have you read the memo sent out removing Manning? Don’t you think that is kind of creepy and, oh I don’t know, nasty (since she did say that no one would be allowed to think of Manning, let alone mention him, if they were in the parade)?

Also, he was chosen by a bunch of people who were past marshals, so one would think that they had some idea of what the parade was about, as opposed to a democratic party operative, that is. So that does make the removal of Manning kind of high handed and undemocratic (small d). On the other hand it does make it clear to the people who participate in the parade who really owns it and they can use that information for future reference.

That is major right wing b.s. and you should know it. No one, no one was harmed by his release of documents not to the public, but to Wikileaks and other outlets who did vet them.

Incidentally, I thought he was originally voted in as a marshal kind of you know democratically and it was then pulled not so democratically.

A member of the LGBT community acting in a way to try to shed a little light on to our dark and secret wars, why should he be honored by a gay pride parade?

I expect that someone will be found. Whether or not it is the one who did it is another question.

Still no matter how idiotic they are they seem to get what they want.

Name three.

If I may steal a line from Ms. Stein: “But there is no there there.”

Just what can I buy with them other than more bitcoins? As Tbogg says can I get a latte with them?

Isn’t the difference between bitcoins and the dollar is that the dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.? You may not think that is worth much but isn’t it more then what backs bitcoins?

I’d add that since Mitchell explains that a reason she became an activist is the conviction of her second husband for fraud and theft that is part of the story.

I had wondered how long it would be before people started to remember just what happened in 2009 and how that affected 2010. Why anyone would think that Obama would act differently this time around is beyond me.

Plus I continue to say it: Obama and Romney really want the same things, Romney is just in more of a hurry than Obama, but they both have the same destination.

They really aren’t going to let up on their anti-abortion positions. If they are connected enough they can get them if they “need” them. An ex of mine worked and trained as a nurse at St. Elizabeths in Dayton, at that time a Catholic hospital. She told me that she assisted on several D & Cs where it was discovered during the procedure that the patient was pregnant, much to everyone’s shock, I’m sure. This would have been in the late 70s.

Plus change any one?

Good god. I clicked through to the linked essay. These people are really nuts.

Seven and a half years in, with really no problems? Well you can believe what you want I guess.

I read it as saying that Obama’s argument for the kind of “let’s all come together” leadership he favors isn’t correct. That there would have been in all probability little or no blow back and they could have gone on to other things and left that done three and a half years before it was finally accomplished with a brusing legislative fight.