You dispute that Daniel Ellsberg is an historical authority on ending imperialistic wars?

I rest my case. You’re a moron.

Do you even know who nominated Manning?

Do you even know who is leading the fight in SF to have his name re-included as a Grand Marshal?

Joey Cain, that’s who. Joey Cain served as President of Pride for many, many years. He’s rumored to have been the lover of Harry Hay, by some, although I’ve never heard him make that claim.

No one is more gay than Joey Cain. No one is more Pride. No one is more SF. And he’s the one fighting for Manning to be honored: always has been, continues to be. If the “Support Network” wants to catch Joey Cain’s wave, they’re welcome to.

But, as I said, get the facts. You don’t know any of them. I’ve proved it here. And by parroting right-wing militaristic talking points about ‘the selection’ that you’ve gotten from other Obamabots like yourself who think Saint Obama (blessed be his name in these precincts) was RIGHT when he said Manning “broke the law,” you’ve illustrated what side you’re on: the fact-free, pro-war, pro-Obama, anti-gay side.

Welcome to it.

The facts of how the nominees were chosen for this particular Grand Marshal slot are very clear. The facts of how the ballots, containing all four names, were sent out by Pride to all the Electoral College (a group of former Grand Marshals created about five years ago to choose Grand Marshals and other awards, to avoid the embarrassment of Great Big Gay Ally Dianne Feinstein having been given The Pink Brick award for her statement from her front porch the very day after John Kerry lost the presidency that “The gay marriages Gavin did in February were too much, too soon!”) and returned by a majority of them, with Manning getting the most votes. And facts are well known about the the staffer (since fired, but not talking, so what kind of a severance did HE get for being the scapegoat, anyway, Pride?) who tallied the votes, made the announcement, called the local paper, which printed it up.

And then the MIlitarists and Serving Lesbians and Gays (no T serving in our military, oh, no, we’ll “pick them up later” like the L&G&B always promise to their T brothers and sisters but hardly ever actually do) raised hell and called the Log Cabinettes and the Corporate Sponsors, these facts are somewhat in evidence.

And the President of Pride slandered Manning in withdrawing the honor, characterizing the choice ‘a mistake’ and warned all within reach of her voice that Pride would never honor Manning, or what he did, or how he did it, or even think it was worthwhile or valuable.

But did Mr Bogg discover any of these facts? No, he did not.

Mr Bogg relied on Saint Obama’s (blessed be his name in these precincts) characterizations of Manning’s actions: “HE BROKE THE LAW”

And, you know, we can’t honor LAWBREAKERS at Pride.

Speaking of which, I don’t see anyone here, any of you non-SF, non-gay folks organizing that Manning Parade. So if we gays in SF who think, maybe, we’d just like to move the Bradley Manning Support contingent that’s marched in the damn parade every year for the last three up to the front, and say “Grand Marshal” on a sash worn by National Hero Dan Ellsberg, well, sooooooorrrrrrryyyyy. We’ll just wait, instead, for the Manning Parade y’all are no doubt organizing at this very minute.

Write what you know, Bogg. Not what you don’t. Bassets, Shakira’s ass, Snow in NYC (!) and Saint Obama: those are your specialities. Not Manning. Not Pride. Not San Francisco. And not gay shit.

This comment, as well as your entire post, proves you don’t have the facts.

Not only is the post fact-free, you’re full of shit generally.

Manning didn’t ENDANGER American servicemembers. As Daniel Ellsberg has said repeatedly, Manning SAVED American lives. Because of the release of the Collateral Murder video and other atrocities being revealed in the documents he allegedly released, the Iraqi government wouldn’t agree to a Status of Forces Agreement without being able to prosecute US servicemembers in Iraq for future atrocities. Saint Obama (blessed be in name in these precincts) said, “No way” and brought all the troops home. Thus saving at least some of their lives, unless you believe the 10,000 or 30,000 planned residual forces would have some Magic Obama Mojo that would protect them from death while serving in Iraq.

But, generally, you don’t get an opinion on this matter. You’re not gay, you don’t live in SF, and you’re hopelessly uninformed about the topic of the election, and decertification, of Manning as Grand Marshal.

But — look at how many comments! I bet Jane gives you a bonus!

Obama said “No Deal” to the Iraqis suggestion that US troops could stay but would be subject to Iraqi law for atrocities and warcrimes they committed. This is fact. That’s why he brought all our troops home. There would be more than 10,000 active duty troops still in Iraq if not for Bradley Manning’s exposure of warcrimes, which enraged the Iraqis and made their government require future accountability.

Hillary will make a deal with Joe to make him her Veep. Nothing in the constitution prevents it, and people love Joe as Veep. Democrats have never warmed to Joe at the top of the ticket, though.

I’d like to see some actual progressives like O’Malley, Kitzhaber, Merkley, Brown, or Warren dip a toe in the 2016 water just to ensure some liberal issues get addressed at the debates. But I imagine the Democrats will nominate exactly who Wall Street wants (again).

Here’s the thing about kids, that’s different from dogs: you can’t strap ‘em to the roof of the station wagon. Ask Mitt about this; he knows.

What a magnificent hound he is.

Well, an official denial from the Saudi diplomatic corps is certainly good enough for me.

I was unaware until I clicked that link that the website Twitchy appears to have been named after the author of that particular blog post, Twitchy Staff. Cool!

Also, I’ve been wearing a slutty nurse costume for her amusement and because it makes me feel pretty.

Pics or it didn’t happen, but you knew that.

Maybe now he’ll come out.

The fact is that the 1% want these policies and were only tangentially happy that their political apparatchiks had a study like this one to cite. And the policies will continue, regardless of the TKO of the study’s authors, because the 1% gets richer in a stagnating economy.

All you need to look at — and it is a very small part of the picture — is the ‘recovering’ single family home real estate market in Florida. It’s dominated entirely by hedgies who are creating portfolios for rich people of homes they snatch away from foreclosed owners or their predatory banks, at all-cash prices in non-contingent deals that keep newly recovered potential homeowner-families from getting back into the Ownership Society.

This New Economy works for the very rich: they are getting a great deal richer, as the very rich usually do in downturns. Their only mistake is the long game, as in tumbrels and guillotines. But the vast police apparatuses their state protectors have built with our tax dollars may even protect them for some time from that eventuality. Maybe even their childrens’ lifetimes.

But not forever.

Nice one, Hag. Most Nixonian of everything I saw and heard — in the brief clips I could stand of today’s events — were the long-trumpeters in funny hats. I wondered, “Have those guys been cryogenically frozen since 1973 and, if so, wouldn’t their lips be stuck to their comically long Grand Duchy of Fenwick horns?”

But even Tricky Dick didn’t have the class to put them on the roof, as the Liberry did for today’s private opening.*

* The opening event for the public, of course, being the ten-year anniversary, May First, of the Mission Accomplished flight-suit costume ball.

I think when people talk about a ‘gathering of war criminals’ it’s important to note that no human died in war on the planet during the Carter Administration.

“One of our reporters will not allow a shared taxi to drop him off in front of his home, and never lets any friends come there,” said a Politico reporter obviously pining for more Mike Allen face time.*

*not satire, though: truth

Yes, I am, thanks for asking.

It is, as I understand it, “fully inclusive” which is, I believe, Hill-speak for “includes gender variance and expression.”

When they look to see who radicalized al-Awlaki, only one person stands out: George W Bush, with his illegal and brutal War On Iraq.