Chicagoist: Fashion Sense Cools at Pride

guest

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:28:27 -0600

I think you all miss the point. Are you a Nancy, or not? I am.

guest

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:37:20 -0600

Thanks, guest 30. Personality, as bad as it can be, hardly demeans one's ideas--ideas stand or fall on their own. If they didn't, we wouldn't like the products of many artists, musicians, philosophers, etc (Not saying I am in those classes, of course, only making a point). Remember to practice that writing. And your vocabulary, too. Vise

guest

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:57:41 -0600

Thanks for the writing advice Vice. You know, for all the great things you have to say on this site (and I agree with so much that you have to say), you take 2 steps backward in your credibility when you act like condescending asshole (or, simply the term "asshole" would do. The adjective is not needed, is it?)

guest

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:12:25 -0600

Guess what, I'm a conservative, (I agree with the Republicans on more issues than the Dems) and I'm gay, there's not many of us but we do exist.

guest

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:22:56 -0600

Actually, Kettle, it's Vise. And I think you met your quota of adverbs and adjectives today, sweetheart. Little writing truth: Use of modifiers may make you feel smart, but it doesn't mean you are. Power comes from nouns, babe. Finally, there are city officials who monitor press and communications that comment upon the administration. I don't know if Chicagoist is grown-up enough yet to check, but I would guess any comments I or others make about Daley have a much better shot of being read by Daley's workers than any comment about the GOP being read by anyone in DC. No, I've not brought Daley to his knees, but neither do I engage in simplistic thinking and sloganeering. And, finally, I doubt you know what "sophistic" means. Sure, you may have heard the term bounced around a few times in your grad school seminars, but you really don't know what you are talking about. Love, Vise

guest

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:53:27 -0600

So, who did all the republicans rambling around Chicago vote for in the mayoral election?

Kettle

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:41:54 -0600

"I am sure Bush and Cheney, etc are just shaking in their boots today, now that you've written what amounts to a pathetic little dog's yelp against the GOP." Yeah, much like how your incessant array of snarkishly sophistic and mind numbingly redundant pissings and moanings have brought the Daley administration to its knees, Vice.

Stoner

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:29:26 -0600

Considering the mess the GOP has made out of this country over these last 6 years, I'm shocked there are even people out there who still proudly claim to be Republicans.

OnTheNorthside

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:08:15 -0600

I agree with Hillary's post 100%. I'm actually in the middle of re-reading Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg. You want to know why police raids of gay bars were worth rioting over, check that book out - it'll give you some real perspective on how LGBT folks (and particularly the gender-deviant ones) were treated pre-Stonewall. (P.S. to all you nitpickers - yes, I know it's officially fiction, but it's also a loose autobiography of Feinberg's life, and a pretty accurate rendition of how us queer folks have been treated across the years.) Oh, here's some interesting discussion fodder: both veterans of the Stonewall riots I've heard speak have commented that a number of Black Panthers joined in the Stonewall riots, but the Panthers later officially denied that they were there. Interesting, no? Discuss amongst yourselves.

Mike M

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:59:13 -0600

"...Anybody else think there is one Republican troll here posting under different names?" I love that quote. It is a classic. Lefties can't grasp the fact that there are more than one or two Republicans around. "How could there be more than one Republican on Chicagoist?" seems to be the thinking. Here's a suggestion. Walk down the street. See all of those people around you? A lot of them are Republicans. Some of them even might come close to your level of intelligence.

prescott

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:20:18 -0600

Dammit, I keep posting at the same time as vise77 and saying essentially the same thing. Setting the keyboard back on "lurk" mode now...

prescott

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:13:54 -0600

I'm neither a troll nor a Republican, just a grown up that can actually take a step back and see that there's very little difference between the "right" and "left" in Washington. Democrats in congress don't want to deal with the gay community any more than Republicans do -- they half-heartedly mention civil unions (yeah, let's see how fast that's put on the back burner once a Dem makes it to the White House) to pander to their base. As vice77 said, merely running around shouting, "liberals good, conservatives bad!" and giving a free pass to politicians just because they have a "D" after their name will merely ensure the status quo continues for a long, long time.

vise77

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:08:34 -0600

NA: And acting as though they are the best friends of gays is a key part of the Dem agenda (emphasis on "acting"). From Don't ask- don't tell (a cowardly program if there ever was one) to the current lack of enthusiasm about full marriage rights for gays, the Dems have a piss-poor track record in this department. God, I hate it when so-called progressives of Chicago force me to defend the modern GOP.

NA

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:49:52 -0600

"I'll summarize- 98.9% percent of Republicans are against gay marriage." So is Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Your point is? My point is fear and hatred of homosexuals is a key component of the Republican agenda.

Al Conif

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:47:02 -0600

Anybody else think there is one Republican troll here posting under different names?

prescott

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:45:01 -0600

"I'll summarize- 98.9% percent of Republicans are against gay marriage." So is Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Your point is?

vise77

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:39:53 -0600

Wah: Good luck defending the Dems, too. Many of them can't seem to support full gay marriage. Saint Obama doesn't seem too thrilled with the idea of letting gays marry like normal human beings, either. Blago has hardly wrapped his arms around gay marriage; he seems to prefer the watered down "civil unions." And the people who voted against gay marriage in various state votes weren't all Republicans, my friend. Then again, it is easier to be like Timmy and throw out yelps and slogan-like "reasoning" instead of really engaging the issue or actually thinking. You all remind me of the dolts who think they can stop a war by pinning a freaking button to their backpacks. Believe it or not, I know Republicans and Bush-backers who support full gay marriage. Really. You guys really need to hang out with different people from time to time instead of patting each other on the back about how progressive you are.

Wah wah

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:26:54 -0600

Mike M: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Good luck defending the Republican party on queer issues.

Mike M

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:22:04 -0600

"...republican uproar? whatever." It seems like you're feeling more superior by the minute.

Lawrence

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:14:25 -0600

republican uproar? whatever. i'm offended by this statement: "Former NBA star John Amaechi" Amaechi was by NO MEANS a "star" when he was in the NBA. Puh-leeze!

Mike M

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:03:04 -0600

Another anti-Republican taunt by Leftcagoist...er, I mean Chicagoist. You obviously have no idea what Republicans think about gays. What you know is how to make yourselves feel better about yourselves. Lefties are nice. Republicans are bad. There, doesn't that make you feel superior?

AforE

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:00:11 -0600

Yikes, tense times in the comment section. Perhaps rightly so. But on a lighter note, did anyone catch the woman in the crowd with a pair of panties over her head? She used the leg holes as eyeholes, though I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to look like a homemade superhero. She fell and layed on the ground and I almost ran over her in the car I was driving. I can't say that was the weirdest encounter I had all day. Most imagine the spectacles take place on the floats actually IN the parade but as an observer in the parade, I think the true oddities exist in the crowd watching. For real!

Matt

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:30:32 -0600

I'm sorry that you did not get to see enough of your stereotyped image of homosexuality. To discount homosexuals as a politically, socially, and morally homogenous cultural monolith ultimately does the community more harm than good. Besides, if you really wanted a parade that was truly representative of the homosexual community, the drag queens and g-strings would be outnumbered by the gay community groups (the chills-inducing gay veterans, for example) and the gay trade organizations (like the police, firemen, garbagemen,etc.) While the parade was a little boring (really, do we need three pirate ships!) and a little too corporate, the reality is that, while remaining diverse and inclusive in an increasingly welcoming society, the gay community has paradoxically become, a little boring and little corporate.

Hillary

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:20:40 -0600

Please don't trivialize the Stonewall Riots by simply saying that "the queens" were upset at Judy Garland's death. It had everything to do with the fact that police raided the place, molested patrons with their clubs, and picked which ones to beat to a pulp or arrest based on if they were "butch" females or feminine males, or if they were crossdressing...and little or nothing to do with her death. The Stonewall Riots shouldn't be pegged as some bitch fight that occured because gays were pissed that their Judy died. I read Chicagoist because it gives me the news without relying on false historical evidence that trivializes the minority experience. I'll be reading more carefully from now on.

vise77

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:01:23 -0600

Not ready: Care to provide evidence, then? Polls? Other sources? I agree most Republicans are against gay marriage, by the way. Timmy: Zombies didn't show up at the BBQ I was at on Sunday. No need to tell them; they were not missed, of course. That's about as meaningful as your little yelp. That said, I understand the AP has put a story on the wires that says Rove, et. al. are trying to figure out ways to neutralize the political threat apparently posed by a certain blogger in Chicago who dislikes Republicans. Apparently, a comment caught them off guard. Maybe Wolf Blitzer will take up the subject tonight on CNN, highligting your bombshell comment on one of the news crawl. Get ready for a media storm that will certainly change the way America feels about gays.

Not Ready

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:47:13 -0600

Anybody want to diagram this sentence: "not all Republicans even are against gay marriage(perhaps most are, but certainly not all)" I'll summarize- 98.9% percent of Republicans are against gay marriage.

Tim

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:07:18 -0600

Morydd: It's not discrimination when one of the main tenents of the republican party has been to cynically use issues like gay marriage to "rally their base" and create a culture where intollerance is masked as a family value. Are there republicans that don't tow this line? Sure. But as long as the republican party on the whole continues to promote the idea that gays are sexual deviants who are destroying the moral fabric of America, it shouldn't amaze you that most of us find them to be an unwelcome presence.

vise77

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:45:38 -0600

Congrats, Tim: You got your cheap, superficial and pretty meaningless dig at the GOP into an article supposedly about a parade. Tell me again what this accomplished, or added? What insight did it offer? What new analysis did you give? What on earth did it have to do with a parade--were people there really thinking about the supposed lack of Republicans? Really? I am sure Bush and Cheney, etc are just shaking in their boots today, now that you've written what amounts to a pathetic little dog's yelp against the GOP. And while I am NO Republican, I must agree with Morydd. Clearly, you need to enlarge your social circle--or simply read more--to realize that not all Republicans even are against gay marriage (perhaps most are, but certainly not all). And you would be amazed at how socially conservative large numbers of Democrats can be--you should visit downstate Illinois for that education, and be shocked, shocked, shocked that not all Dems are in favor of gay marriage or even basic civil rights for gays. Grow up, kid.

Morydd

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:20:11 -0600

Well, everyone except for the Republicans. But no need to tell them; they weren’t missed. It amazes me that in an article about the Pride parade, someone would resort to such blatant bigotry. There are many, many people who think of themselves as Republicans who are as open minded about homosexuality as the staunchest Democrat. As previous commenters have pointed out, there were not only Republicans at the parade, there were Republicans in the parade. This kind of knee-jerk discrimination is exactly what this event is supposed to oppose.

Em

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:18:20 -0600

Yeah, the Log Cabin Republicans were there - hiding behind gay veterans to cut down on the booing.

Virginia

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:19:58 -0600

Actually, the Log Cabin Republicans had a float near the beginning of the parade.

Steve

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:00:27 -0600

Well, it was a bit nipply outside.