Reply With Quote
Of course, we are talking about Austin, Tx. Somewhere else it might still be considered disreputable.
It did. But she didn't have to hide it either.
Of course, we are talking about Austin, Tx. Somewhere else it might still be considered disreputable.
thanks i needed that
yeah. i was just about to mention her. she turned out to be pretty worthless. i don't care what you do in your bedroom. just do the job you're elected for.
Couldn't you say that no one would give a about this story if the woman was straight?
Yes you could say that, because that's the norm.
Firsts are noteworthy, so this was noted.
So you could say that her gayness is being exploited because people are only noticing this story because she's gay.
No, I couldn't say that because it's stupid.
It used to be dependably blue until around the mid-70s, believe it or not. That's why DeLay's 2003 gerrymandering was -- and continues to be -- so vehemently criticized.
EDIT:
http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/10_6_2.html
Last edited by admiralsnackbar; 12-14-2009 at 07:31 AM.
way to beat generalizations with more generalizations.
Who cares.Houston elects gay woman mayor
Besides, the article is a lie. She is not the first:
Sam Adams, part of article:
I really wish people would verify source materiel.He was elected Mayor of Portland in May 2008 with 58% of the vote. He came out in 1993 and is the first openly gay mayor of a top 30 U.S. city.
lol Portland isn't a major city.
Figures that stupid would make such a claim.
It's smaller than Austin, and Austin isn't much of a major city.
I'm sure you'd want to whine about the MSA or something. I wouldn't call Riverside all that major in that case.
It doesn't rank in the top 20 in either. Your inferiority complex won't change that.
Recovering, my leg.
Why does her sexual orientation matter? Is she qualified to be mayor?
Besides, I recall a few years back that Houston was marketing their city as friendly to gays to attract sexuals there for tourism and such.
Right?Recovering, my leg.
I just think it's funny that the supposed outrage by the 'right' on this thread has all been manufactured by the limp wrested lefties on the board.
If she does a good job, who gives a who she goes home to at night? If she doesn't, she'll be a one termer, and it won't be because of who she goes home to at night.
Common sense over, please continue on with your manufactured, stereotyped outrage that you're all pulling completely out of your asses.
Again, people note firsts. What part of that do you not understand?
Could this woman's victory be out of pity or guilt? Maybe the voters in Houston only voted for her because they thought that if they elected a lesbian that it would make up for the all the bad things that have happened to gays and lesbians in the past. People love firsts. Obama is a fine example of that.
Maybe you really do have a better idea why Houston voted for Annelise Parker than Houston does itself Jacob 1983, but I doubt it.
Only about 150,000 people voted, and estimates are that Houston has about half that many sexual people living there. I wonder the sexual orientation of those who showed up to vote.
Does it matter? They voted for who they voted for.
obviously the other several million Houston residents didn't give a flip that they were about to have a lesbian mayor.
So, a victory for political apathy over prejudice
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
