And The Vote Is...

^&*(%*$!!!!

bummer…

that's a shame.

sad, sad, sad

Ashamed to be living in such a backward state. NJ voters: Remember the names of those who voted "nay."

where can one see a roster of the votes?

Saddened for couples who do not fit the mold; this country is moving to more conservative stances during the recession, and we all lose out.

Sadly, the rest of the State does not agree with the overwhelming sentiment in Montclair on the issue of equality and choice in social arrangements.

Who cares. D**chebags argueing about ceremonies on the Titanic.

This is very, very sad and disappointing.

New Jersey's Senate voted today in favor of discrimination. A sad day.
Thanks to Nia Gill for voting and standing against discrimination. The battle for equal rights must continue.
Now let us all get back to complaining about property taxes and our wasteful school system (and those stupid bike lockers).

What a sad day for us all. I really expected that maybe things would go our way for once in my lifetime. It is not to be so.
Many of you can feel badly for gays, many can be happy that
we don't get these rights. Hitler sent gays to the gas chambers
in germany along with millions of jews. I can tell you with much
certainty tonight, those ugly minded religious right and fundamentalists who fight so hard against us wouldn't mind to
see us ( gays ) all gassed as well. If you knew how bad I felt right now,
you would understand my anger and my convictions. What a sad day for us all. period.

From Politics NJ

"Several Democrat senators either voted no or did not vote. Voting no were Jeff Van Drew (D-Dennis), Shirley Turner (D-Trenton), Nicholas Sacco (D-North Bergen), Ronald Rice (D-Newark), John Girgenti (D-Hawthorne) and Fred Madden (D-Washinton Twp). Not voting were James Beach (D-Cherry Hill), Stephen Sweeney (D-West Deptford)

Only one Republican, state Sen. Bill Baroni (R-Hamilton), voted yes. Diane Allen (R-Edgewater Park) and Andrew Ciesla (R-Brick) were absent."

Sad yes, but expected.

And the idea that someone's civil rights should be in the hand of the people is just as sad.

For me, this points to the simple idea that the rights of citizens should NOT be in the hands of the "majority" people or the legislators who represent this "majority."

No. These rights must flow from the Constitution.

To this end, I hope in the next few years we will have a day as special to gay folks as June 12, 1967 is for me.

Embarrassing that a so-called progressive state voted it down.

I hope in the next few years we will have a day as special to gay folks as June 12, 1967 is for me.

Hear, hear.

I see that the state senator for my town, Bloomfield, voted against the bill. I shall henceforth go out of my way to vote against Ron Rice in every election in which he ever runs, even if I have to vote for the fringiest of fringe party candidates instead.

(Not that I was ever thrilled with Ron Rice in the first place.)

Among those in the state senate, one would think that Ron Rice in particular would be sensitive to the desire for equal treatment under the law for a minority among his constituents.

Wow. What a bunch of cowards. I'm beginning to wonder if democracy is a failure.

Disappointing, but not surprising. And now, unfortunately, we can kiss the chance of this coming up for another vote for at least 4 years. I heard Nia Gill's speech at the hearing approximately a month ago and she was amazing. It's an example of what all our senators/representatives should be - smart, thought-out, compassionate. I was actually proud of a politician after hearing this, and I can't remember the last time I felt that way. Senator Cardinale, on the other hand is a disgrace. It almost made me regret changing my voter registration from Bergen County as I can't vote him out next term.
You can listen to Gill's speech here: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/listen-nj-senator-gill-“i-vote-for-the-equality-of-marriage-because-i-believe-in-the-constitution-”/politics/2009/12/08/5659

The State of New Jersey voted down civil rights today. Let us commend the fourteen strong enough to stand by their convictions.

Marti101 says we're moving towards more conservative stances in the recession (we've actually always been a right of center nation)

Spectator says it's an issue of equality and choice

Chris Porter says the vote was a vote for discrimination.

Kevin1975 invokes Hitler's name and rants against the ugly minded religious right and fundamentalists as the root of the problem.

plaxico's holseter wonders if democracy is a failure (actually, democracy is working. in the latest poll of NJ residents, more of the population opposed than supported).

I can fully understand the disappointment here. Unfortunately, some of the rhetoric isn't supported by facts or reality. Further, our own progressive, liberal president opposes gay marriage. How can we expect our state senators to act courageously when the leader of our "gay rights" party opposes such rights? Maybe we should examine who we vote as our leaders a little more closely?

All in good time; all in good time.

A generation or two from now won't view same-sex relationships as being "abnormal" or "wrong" - it'll have always been a part of their life - much like interracial relationships are today.

I am humored, however, when senators say gay marriage should be a decision left to the voters to decide on (via a proposition). So, legislators, the next time you wish to raise taxes, please make it a proposition for us, the voters, to decide on; thank you.

And yet again politicians prove that the government, the bill of rights, the constitution, and the concept of all men being created equal is complete bullshit.

Times like these, I look to Carlin.

"Now if you think you do have rights, one last assignment for you. Next time you're at the computer, get on the internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in "Japanese Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious fucking rights, Okay? All right. You know about it.

In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: "Right this way" into the internment camps!

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away! And rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. You see all, sooner or later. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a fuck about them! The government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. It simply does not give a fuck about you! It's interested in its own power. That's the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible."

The new Senate president sounds like a real brave man!

Sweeney, who will replace Codey, D-Essex, as Senate president next week, said after the vote that his fellow Democrats had mishandled the measure “from the beginning.”

“This bill should have been put up in April when there was four or five Republicans willing to vote for the bill,” he said. Asked whether he would have voted for the bill if there were more support, Sweeney said he “felt very strongly that the advocates had made a very good case.”

“But unfortunately, it wasn’t even close,” he said. “I wish there would have been enough to pass it.”

Translation: "It's so sad this bill I didn't vote for didn't get enough votes. I didn't vote for it this time, but I might have voted for the same bill months ago."

So he's voting on bills based on how they are handled by their supporters? Shouldn't he make his decision by the content of the bills?

In an ideal world you're right Nick. But it doesn't work that way. A controversial bill has to get to a certain margin of possible passage to to get the last handful of votes. Fence sitters won't want to take the political "hit" unless they're reasonably sure it will pass.

Or you can just bribe them like Pelosi and Reid do.

This is probably not going to be a popular post (oh well, oh well) but it should probably still be noted that the Nazis apparently did not send homosexuals to the gas chambers. That claim is a bit too much in terms of special pleading.

Rather, Hitler's Germany purposely persecuted and imprisoned gays. Threw them in concentration camps, where they were subjected to harsh treatment not only from their captors but also from their fellow captives. But the numbers of those actually sent to the camps, as opposed to those sent to jail, is actually quite small, 5000-15,000 out of an estimated 50,000 total convictions. Nor were they gassed. Yes, the death rate for these poor souls was high. But then so was the death rate in the camps for anyone imprisoned there.

The (unsubstantiated) claims about gassing, thus making the Holocaust somewhat more inclusive, have the effect of diminishing its horror, many understandably feel. The Nazis were determined to physically wipe out Jews entirely. Even as they searched instead for a "scientific" solution to homosexuality (often with very silly indeed research procedures). It is also quite apparent that that would-be bastion of Aryan-type manliness, the SS, was in fact fairly lenient when its own members were accused of homosexuality. The issue of Nazi persecution of homosexuals is a very involved story, but it should not be complicated further with claims of gassing.

None of this should have much to do with yesterday's state Senate vote, either. Perhaps, as at least one poster has suggested above, there should be an actual referendum of some sort, to let the public (in a generally liberal state) make its true views known.

But profwilliams, good prof, your seeming anger over this one, and your contention that the rights of citizens should not thus be left in the hands of "the people" but rather baed on the Constitution's intent is also a bit disturbing. Even leaving aside that such an argument has been made by all manner of dangerous revolutionaries for at least the last 200 years, it begs the question as to what the framers of the Constitution actually intended in terms of sexual rights. And the simple truth is that we have no idea, now do we? The mindsets of, say, Richard Stockton, John Adams or Jefferson himself on matters of sexual preference and behavior remain unknowable to us. Have much to do with when and how they lived; to expect that the Constitution's framers would change their minds without having lived their lives entirely in the 20th century is probably a completely unwarranted assumption. Remember L.P. Hartley's famous line in "The Go-Between" that "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there"?

The insertion above of George Carlin's remarks about the Nisei is equally dismaying. Such comparisons are just invidious. This is not 1942 and we are not in an unfamiliar-to-us-then wartime type situation. (Nor did Carlin in his sputtering evince any comparable understanding of how the Japanese in fact treated the non-Japanese in their own camps.) I understand the rush to judgment and the sheer passion level of so many remarks above, but if "your" side has just taken a major legislative hit, then passion is probably not what is truly called for the next time the issue arises in the state legislature. And it surely will.

And when exactly, Mr. Cathar sir, have you known a plesbiscite in this country to favor the extension of civil rights? Can you cite us a single example? (I thought not).

Case closed.

ROC, I guess you're right. It would be nice, however, for our elected leaders not to admit that they don't vote for bills based on their conscience, but rather on the way the bills are presented and what time of the year it is.

I listened to the part of vote through the Huffington Post site. I thought Nia Gill's remarks were both cogent and compelling. I also listened to arguments against the bill and I found them less so. Many of the bill's opponents used their own personal religious beliefs as a basis for their vote. I alwys thought that when you take the oath of political office, you put your personal beliefs and biases aside and do what's right in the end. Maybe this is naivete on my part but so be it.

It's the same thing with a pharmacist who will not fill a prescription for birth control pills because it goes against his or her personal belief system. A whole bowl of wrong, IMHO.

Case reopened:

In 1893 Colorado voters gave women the right to vote by plebiscite.

In 1911 California voters gave women the right to vote by plebiscite.

In 1912 Oregon voters gave women the right to vote by plebiscite.

In 1912 Arizona voters gave women the right to vote by plebiscite.

In 1914 Montana voters gave women the right to vote by plebiscite.

"It would be nice, however, for our elected leaders not to admit that they don't vote for bills based on their conscience, but rather on the way the bills are presented and what time of the year it is."

Sure, I agree. It would also be nice that when the president promised (8 times) negotiations for health care reform would not be held behind closed doors, he followed through on that promise.

I thought there was precious little Obama-bashing coming from you in this thread, ROC.

Ah, Courson, you sound as swinishly self-righteous as ever, no matter the level of our personal animosity. But it's rather bothersome that you didn't wait for my answer. You've really got to temper your idle choler there, Courson.

As ROC has very nicely pointed out above, several important political-moral issues have in fact been decided by plebiscite in this very country. Beyond the record of history, however, I perhaps as a democrat with a lower-case "d" simply have more faith in the general populace, and in democracy in general, than you, in your fustian and non-endearing way, do. It also almost doesn't matter what the true will of the "people" specifically was on June 12, 1967, since I'm pretty confident that today's America heartily endorses that vote in retrospect. Show some more faith in the eventual wisdom of your fellow citizens, Courson, and maybe your blood pressure will even ebb.

Mrs. Martta, I find your consternation that some legislators may have actually voted according to their religious beliefs muddied as a thought. While the New Jersey legislature is hardly the deliberating body of the Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran, it seems in general that legislators voting re their consciences might actually be a commendable thing. We certainly would be hailing these same legislators if they'd voted for abortion rights as a result of their examining their religious beliefs, no?

Sir Thomas More types are so rare in politics in any situation these days (despite the propensity of windbags like the recently deceased Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to claim kinship with them), after all. If the New Jersey State Senate is suddenly full of people who claimed yesterday to be voting via their religious beliefs, perhaps that's not at all dismaying. Perhaps, too, it's now incumbent on doctrinaire, somewhat intolerant(in truth) wretches like Courson, as well as much more rational and kinder sorts like yourself, to work hard to change these legislators' hearts and consciences. What is worrisome to me is that the Coursons of this world seem averse to doing such hard work in the first bloody place, though the necessary path ahead should be visible even to the most hidebound among them.

It's a shame that I can't vote out any of the people who voted against this measure.

I'm also still a bit confused as to why the Gay Rights movement hasn't tried to get this passed as an Amendment instead of going from state-to-state.

(Or is protecting the rights of the minority against the will of the majority no longer on our country's to-do list?)

"I'm also still a bit confused as to why the Gay Rights movement hasn't tried to get this passed as an Amendment instead of going from state-to-state."

Amendments to the Constitution have to pass 2/3 of the US house and Senate and then 3/4 of the state legislatures have to ratify it.

The votes are not currently there.

Id' say there's a difference between process of consultation and legislation.

But I understand your need to use the Bush/Cheney talisman to ward off any evil spirits.

The polls seem to show that the magic is wearing off, but I would encourage you and all Democrats to keep at it!

the rights of citizens should NOT be in the hands of the "majority" people or the legislators who represent this "majority." No. These rights must flow from the Constitution.

I have to admit I don't understand this point of view. The Constitution is a piece of paper. The principles that would support gay marriage may flow from it, but there has to be some mechanism here that involves people, voting, legislatures, popular support, etc. So what is this argument exactly -- that the courts should decide the matter? Someone please 'splain.

Cathar,

"Mrs. Martta, I find your consternation that some legislators may have actually voted according to their religious beliefs muddied as a thought."

You called me a "bigot" for making the same statement yesterday. As did Nellie and Mike91.

Stick to your guns, you religious junky!

Muddied Thoughts=Bigotry....I guess

Also are you saying that someones consciences(balancing moral values) should determine how they vote? Because most Christians/Jews/Muslims believe homosexuality is Morally wrong, and a "Marriage" is a union between a man and a women.

That is what you are suggesting correct?

"it seems in general that legislators voting re their consciences might actually be a commendable thing."

oh cathar! if only your powers of research were as finely honed as your gift of gab!

Jefferson, from his own mouth, supported castration as a punishment for sodomy.

Here is where we can agree to disagree, Cathar.

I find the concept of people in government making decisions based on their own personal religious beliefs a frightening one. What if those religious beliefs include public stonings or animal sacrifice? I know that I am using extreme examples here but it's a slippery slope.

Far be it from me to trample on religious freedom (freedom to believe or not believe) but to make decisions that will affect hundreds of thousands of people based on your own personal belief system is just not right.

The issue of gay marriage, as with all issues, should be considered as a civil rights issue, nothing more. Why afford some citizens the full right to marry whom they please and others not? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

I don't get it MM. So pacifists should not push for pacifism? Animal rights advocates shouldn't push for that?

Personal religion forms a moral framework for people. (not the only one obviously) What your saying (I think) is that their own personal framework should not come into play in their decision making.

So (I guess) it would be ok for an atheist to advocate pacifism but not a Hindu?

They should push for them, ROC, because they are good things (pacifism, animal rights) that benefit society. You don't need religion as a basis to do the right thing.

So if in your particular estimation if a religiously motivated idea is also "good" for society then the religious motivation is ok, right?

So a Hindu who advocates pacifism is ok, but a Catholic who advocates against abortion is not ok, because you think pacifism is ok and restrictions on abortion is not ok. right?

p.s. I know people who advocate FOR gay marriage from a religious perspective. Should they not run for office?

And let's remember Martin Luther King's framework for civil rights was entirely religiously oriented.

What I am saying is that the motivation should come from a rational examination of the issue at hand, not from religious beliefs. The abortion issue, for example, is a complicated one and a good portion of it is based on when one believes life begins. You can be an atheist and believe that life begins at conception, for instance, and therefore would be against abortion.

for many (myself included) there is nothing irrational about religious belief.

I'm curious why an atheist might think it's wrong to kill a clump of human cells just after conception? It's just a clump of cells - like a fingernail. What's the "rational" reason to be against it's termination?

Ogie-oglethorpe, I made no claim above to knowing exactly where ANY framer of our Constitution, Jefferson included, stood on matters of sexual preference. If Jefferson thought as you say he did (I didn't go to the reference), well, that merely invalidates profwilliams's suggestion that we "go to the Constitution" on this one, that's all. Provided we're not strict constructionists in the first place, that is.

Kyle M, there is something of a big difference between noting that legislators say they've just voted according to the dictates of their respective faiths, and even finding such commitment might be rated as admirable in some circles, and your dismissal yesterday of Supreme Court justices because they happen to be RC's. Your abrupt dismissal was religious bigotry, plain and simple. It may hurt you to admit it, but others clearly felt the same way. (And I am not known at all here for having "disciples.")

Mrs. Martta, there aren't too many politicians out there who won't claim, whatever their personal persiflage levels, that they vote their consciences. Ofttimes, as with the blowhard Kennedys to a man and woman, we commend them for such claims. Yet do we ever know for sure if such claims were true? Well, who knows, right? But Thomas More strikes me as a good example of someone who told the truth there, since losing one's head indicates a hell of a lot more sincerity than the prospect of just losing re-election.

As to religious beliefs which include stonings, well, again, this is hardly Yemen or Iran or Saudi Arabia. As to animal "sacrifices," again, this is not ANY Islamic nation come Ramadan. (Although we do have Thanksgiving, when so many turkeys are offered up for votive reasons; also, local practitioners of santeria and candomble, which do entail genuine animal sacrifices, in fact have their defenders hereabouts.) So that contention of yours is somewhat silly.

My point is simply that we generally applaud politicians who say they've voted their consciences when the direction of their votes is approved by us. (Think of the Congressional and Senatorial foes of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of the risk they run if their votes result in either the deaths of US troops or civilians.) Not when we disagree with the direction. It is the pompous fools like knotted-up Courson, who then refuse to do the hard work to help change such consciences, who totally baffle me. And am I really so wrong when I suspect that it is usually the hyper-liberals and self-proclaimed "progressives" among us who get so worked up when they disagree with what politicians claim are the demands of their religious consciences? I really thinketh not.

If you have a strong religious faith, of lack of, I'm not sure it's possible to separate that out when voting. I know my strong religious perspective very much drives my view on abortion, and yes, it affects the way I vote. Animal rights drive my votes, too. However...

My opinions certainly don't prevail, however, but maybe that's the beauty of the Democratic process..Everyone is allowed to vote based on their own belief system and then,the consensus prevails (unless it's a Presidential Election and it's Florida).

Kyle, I don't think I called you a bigot. Just wanted to raise the point that the Catholic community, like the rest of the nation, has conflicting views on the gay marriage issue.

"bingo" Nellie.

The fact that western religions frown upon homosexual behavior should be enough to convince all of us to consider trying it out nonetheless. It's probably more fun than eating kosher food, halal meat or church wafers.

If religious leaders wish to save their flock from eternal damnation, they should insist from the pulpit that there are no homosexuals in heaven, since many seem to believe this anyway.

The fact that western religions frown upon homosexual behavior should be enough to convince all of us to consider trying it out nonetheless.

Gay isn't a choice.

Boom. Thread closed.

"I'm curious why an atheist might think it's wrong to kill a clump of human cells just after conception? It's just a clump of cells - like a fingernail. What's the 'rational' reason to be against it's termination?"

And why not? I happen to have a friend exactly like this: an atheist who believes that life begins at conception because that "clump of cells" is a potential human being. I don't see any conflict here.

ROC - nothing irrational about religious belief?

so believing in angels and talking snakes and two of every animal on a big boat and zombies is rational?

maybe we just have a different definition of rationality.

Note to ROC: What, 1914 is the most recent date you can provide? Says something, no?

Note to Mr. Cathar (sir): You are a very, very rude little man. KMA, DB.

"Note to ROC: What, 1914 is the most recent date you can provide?"

Don't know I wasn't looking for recent. Was just the first thing I though about.

"Says something, no?"

Yes it does. It says this:

"And when exactly, Mr. Cathar sir, have you known a plesbiscite in this country to favor the extension of civil rights? Can you cite us a single example? (I thought not)."

Is not a valid point.

Mr. Cathar, sir, you do not know me, so I dismiss your epithet-hurling as the irrational braying of the bipedal ass that you are and that you so delight in displaying yourself to be on a near-hourly basis. However, let me point out that I was actively involved in the struggle for racial equality and civil rights since probably before you stopped befouling your diapers.

"the rights of citizens should NOT be in the hands of the "majority" people or the legislators who represent this "majority." No. These rights must flow from the Constitution."

Yes, this is absolutely correct. If 90% of voters in this country were to think that gay people shouldn't be able to marry? If 90% of voters in this country were to think that black people should still be slaves? If 90% of voters in this country were to think that women should not have the right to own land?

It's a shame that 90% of voters in this country don't think that one person doesn't have the right to deny another person's rights based on their own opinions.

What if 75% of voters in this country thought that YOU (insert whatever type of person you are here) should not have rights?

"However, let me point out that I was actively involved in the struggle for racial equality and civil rights since probably before you stopped befouling your diapers."

No wonder it took so long. This slob impeded all progress.

Dear Bill,

cathar has NOT stopped befouling his diapers
and the same foul excrement comes out of his mouth as well.

The fraternity that he belonged to at Columbia U had a reputation for beating up on gays. I don't know if he participated but do know that he is severely religious- and Roman Catholic at that- probably an ex-altar boy.

Perhaps he was one of the victims of sexual molestation at the hands of church officials and thinks that they were gay- we all know that those priests were straight men.

Courson and Albert G. Perfect together. Since TP2 has been banned it's incumbent upon me ..... Douchebags!

who is TP2?

What does douching (do women still DO that) have to do with anything that is being talked about here?

"cathar has NOT stopped befouling his diapers
and the same foul excrement comes out of his mouth as well."

It seems pretty clear baristanet's new civility policy is a farce. Perhaps the barista's could list on the policy page which posters are "covered" under the new policy and which posters are "fair game" for any language.

ROC is right.

The constant schoolyard taunting of "your wife's on the board of ed" and the equally juvenile refrences to cathar's college days make it clear that some posters can be slammed at will -- perhaps in the hope that they will go away.

If a policy is to have any meaning, it should apply to all. Simply because ROC and cathar voice opinions that may not be in favour with those who administer the site, they should not then be subjected to abuse from others and be protected while doing so.

I doubt, cro, that anyone wants ROC or cathar to go away. This would be one dull place without them.

I found it VERY interesting that RoC's wife is on the Montclair BOE. You didn't? Is saying that his wife is on the BOE considered an INSULT?

I think that this kind of transparency is needed.

I actually appreciate the attacks on cathar and ROC and would embrace them if I were either of them. Nothing validates somebody's point moreso than a response that is completely devoid of substance and resorts to petty attacks. I think most of us see it for what it is.

Perhaps you found it "interesting" The rest of us may have found it interesting if:
1. it was known to be true
2. this was not an anoynomous blog
and
3. you didn't feel a need to state it several times each day

I do not consider a connection to the board, if it exists, to be insulting. I DO find your form of engagement to be juvenile and counter-productive.

That's funny as I made no remarks here about RoC except to say that I found his wife's BOE membership to be interesting. It is known to be true per several other posters that contribute here.

As to cathar, I know him from his days at Columbia. I see his postings on the Columbia alum web site. What I say is true, and I don't say it very often, just when he needs to be reminded that some of us here know him and his past.

Your comments are directed to ROC, and to pretend otherwise is as disingenous as your attempt to portray these postings as an effort to enlighten others. The same is true re: cathar. What is "known" to be true is, in fact, not known -- and to suggest that one should take your anonymous word for it is ridiculous.

You come across as an embittered type with a personal ax (or axes) to grind.
And in what is perhaps the most serious sin, you are boring.

My comment about RoC on this thread was in response to your posting of:

"The constant schoolyard taunting of "your wife's on the board of ed" and the equally juvenile refrences to cathar's college days make it clear that some posters can be slammed at will -- perhaps in the hope that they will go away."

Oh goody, so now I don't have to bring up the fact that RoCs wife is a longterm member of the Montclair BOE, YOU will do it for me.

Go for it Mr. Lucky charms!

"Perhaps you found it "interesting" The rest of us may have found it interesting if:
1. it was known to be true
2. this was not an anoynomous blog"

Would you like the address of the Montclair Watercooler where all posts are moderated and everyone knows your name. If that's what you are longing for there is a forum that does exactly that.

You are introduced with your real name and all posts are moderated for civility and subject matter which needs to be Montclair-centric.

the bipedal ass that you are

I found it VERY interesting that RoC's wife is on the Montclair BOE.

cathar has NOT stopped befouling his diapers

Oddly enough, the level of civility on this site seems to have gone down since the new Comment Policy, not up. I'm not arguing in favor of enforcing this silly policy, by the way (as much as I find the posters referred to above, and one or two others, tiresome and mean-spirited). But either the policy itself is nothing but puff of hot air, or the Barista intends to allow ad hominem attacks upon, and bullying of, those posters "she" doesn't particularly like.

Btw, croiagusanam and commonsense have distinguished themselves here, and elsewhere, as voices of intelligence and moderation.

YES
MODERATION is the word

Will the Barista now MODERATE all posts. That is what croiagusanam is asking for.

A stupid person should keep silent. But if he knew this, he would not be a stupid person.

-- Muslih-ud-Din Saadi

"There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: 'The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence."

Obama

to be clear, I don't care what some says about me or how they say it. the quality of the person and their thinking are accurately reflected in what they say.

Also I'm sure cathar can defend himself.

My point is the fact that a comment such as:

"cathar has NOT stopped befouling his diapers
and the same foul excrement comes out of his mouth as well."

receives no rebuke (or deletion) under the new "rules" proves the new rules unserious and obviously ignorable. Unless the rules are to be selectively applied.

Which has been my suspicion all along.

"... all of this [health care negotiations] will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public."

- Obama

As others have said, and said better than I have, simply reading the posts of some of these folks is enough to convince any reasonable reader, of any stripe, that they are the rantings of an idiot.

If I wanted to go to the watercooler and have my identity made public, I'd do so. As would other here. The fact that they don't means that they wish to remain unknown. Therefore, offering "hints" as to the identities of posters, like where spouses are employed or which schools were attended, runs counter to the spirit of the blog and contrary to the wishes of those who post here. It says further than the "outer" feels that he or she is above all guidelines and is in possession of vital info that the rest of the world simply cannot live without.

Well, you know what? We can.

And the Lucky Charms comment is priceless. Thank God you have no pictures of me in my green vest with my clay pipe.

Of course, I want to make it clear that I am not offended by the Lucky Charms reference.

As my good friend Harry Reid has pointed out, I am lightly freckled and have no Irish dialect, unless I want to.

However, my brother Tadhg "Trodai" will be over to your house to kick your ass.

But I do have pictures of you in your tiny and very fetching Lucky Charms Vest.

Is your brother a tiny warrior? A teeny tiny Gaelic warrior?

OOH, I'm shaking in my Irish (not only do I look Irish but sound Irish) boots. I do have my shillelagh and will dispatch your teeny tiny warrior brother quickly and without hestitation.

Hey RoC,

The comment policy is not a farce and it's being administered equally.

I look forward to the addition of disingenuous posts being banned because then there will be nothing more for you to day.

It is somewhat unsettling to watch avoiceinthewilderness AKA hidinginbaristaville come unglued right before one's eyes.

But entertaining nonetheless.

unglued? What does that mean? Is that some kind of new Irish saying?

avoiceinthewilderness AKA hidinginbaristaville

Indeed. They do share a certain quality, don't they.

The quality of the truth. rings true. no matter who says it.

I've been posting on Baristanet a loooong time. And people have occasionally hazarded guesses as to who I am, but so far no one here has gotten it right.

I will tell you that I am NOT a teeny tiny Gaelic warrior wearing a lucky charms vest. That's not me. And I am not a football player from Columbia U, who is tied up in the Catholic church and who was also a frat boy. Not me. I am not married to a member of the Montclair BOE. Not me as well.

I also don't live under Liz's porch and try to look up her dress. Not me.

So it's painfully obvious that HIB is extremely prejudiced against Roman Catholics, right? Ironic that this thread was started with the accusation of discrimination and intolerance. Even the name of Adolph Hitler, who sent six million people to their death for their religious affiliation, was used. Yet we see the same intolerance and discrimination evident on this thread for the exact same thing, religious affiliation. Just as Harry Reid is finding out, political affiliation or leanings do not absolve one from being a bigot. Intolerance is intolerance regardless of which box you check on that Tuesday early in November.

No, my dear, it is cathar who continually mentions the Catholic Church. That was my point. I have nothing against Catholics, I used to be one.

Uh oh.

Its that Twilight Zone music again.

"I have nothing against Catholics, I used to be one." Has Harry Reid told us yet that he's not prejudiced b/c he has lots of black friends? If I had your prejudices, I suppose I would be ashamed to admit it too.

"The fraternity that he belonged to at Columbia U had a reputation for beating up on gays. I don't know if he participated but do know that he is severely religious- and Roman Catholic at that- probably an ex-altar boy.

Perhaps he was one of the victims of sexual molestation at the hands of church officials and thinks that they were gay- we all know that those priests were straight men."

I'm not Harry Reid either and I'm not ashamed to say so.

So, why do you think that cathar hates gays?

"Stick to your guns, you religious junky!"
Kyle M

"Mr. Cathar, sir, you do not know me, so I dismiss your epithet-hurling as the irrational braying of the bipedal ass that you are and that you so delight in displaying yourself to be on a near-hourly basis. However, let me point out that I was actively involved in the struggle for racial equality and civil rights since probably before you stopped befouling your diapers."
wacourson

I guess I'm the only one in here who is thankful that the NJ senate did the right thing, despite any backhanded motivations. Marriage is and should always be between 1 man and 1 woman, period, end of story. Thank you NJ for voting your conscience! To all you posters that are so upset about this injustice, I'm sure Massachusetts is beautiful this time of year.

Spiro: Mtcsince72 is entitled to his or her opinion. It's just a shame there are more of them than us as we head into 2010 in NJ.

In other news, it's now OK to use marijuana in NJ but only for medicinal purposes.