Houston elects first openly gay mayor

Good bye person who had the answer in his head before he asked it. Which is why there was no point in answering it. ( Also the person that just played his own game, but since it's your own game...it's ok.)

Duh.

Look someone saying what someone wants as if they read minds. Wow. Hold on who came in here and used my screen name? You did. Who started talking about me? Not me.

It's people like you that do it.

I do nothing.

LOL, I'm sure maybe a few people were convinced by that.

The only reason you posted in here was to talk about me.

Who invited you here?

I didn't.

Do people need to be invited into Current posts?

You said that I start people on talking about me. And you are right. You came in to discuss me uninvited by me. Meaning that people do it on their own...without my help.

Thank you for proving my point.

The help you provide is in the form of multiple responses, like a fisherman who keeps throwing out bait, waiting for a nibble. You don't understand why the conversation turned to you?

Blaming me for what you people do on your own is selling yourself short for how easily controlled you are claiming you and everyone else are.

Blaming me via bating is also not very flattering for you or anyone else.

There is a difference between wanting to argue and wanting to be an antithesis to the point of annoyance. I think the problem is with people not understanding the differences let alone the reasons behind either.

Far be it for people to actually think before they accuse. That would be over shooting what is possible for some of you. My bad.

Just so you know jammer this isn't a monologue. I'm quoting you to prove my points.

"There is a difference between wanting to argue and wanting to be an antithesis to the point of annoyance. I think the problem is with people not understanding the differences let alone the reasons behind either. "

I find the second part of this "an antithesis to the point of annoyance" a spot on description of what you do. I don't care why a person acts awful. You don't have to be a dick to disagree with me. I don't think you understand the difference.

You have a choice. Just don't be a douche. If you tried that you might be surprised to see that people wouldn't come after you as much.

And no Jammer, sorry, I invited her. Or maybe, just maybe, she cared about topic. Not you.

Delia you hit it right on the head with baiting. As Jammer tactfully and tastefully shares:

"Blaming me via bating is also not very flattering for you or anyone else." - J

Very clear bait right there. With some smearing thrown in for an after effect.

How much longer can we drag this out for? There really isn't much else to say. I'd bet good money thought that Jammer needs to stir the pot more and have the last word.

Oh no you're one of those people "they need the last word" seeing how you just posted twice and said nothing new in either post.

You should stop lying that you like opposing views. It's not working.

Jammer, you don't think you bait people? What is the function of multiple responses like "Gay trumps black" and "she has hair and boobs"? What are your reasons since you think I have them wrong?

It's easier to blame me so that you don't have to think too hard about why things are said. I'm sorry you rather jump to the easiest conclusion instead of actually use what you claim you want to use when coming here.

What am I blaming on you? I'm asking you a question. I find it hard to believe that you do not intend to disrupt the conversation through a series of inflammatory posts. I find it hard to believe that you don't realize that you're doing this, or that you are shocked when the conversation turns to your methods instead of the topic. Am I wrong in thinking that? Is it just a case of being misunderstood? What are your motivations if they are not as I have stated?

Objection. Asked and answered.

Do not ask me a question that you have already answered in your head and then you get all pissy because I didn't answer it as you see fit. If you truly care for the question you have asked, then the answer you get will suffice and if it does not suffice you will ask your question in a better way.

Do not ask me things you have an answer sheet for. You're not my teacher and I sure the hell don't care what grade you have in store for me should I answer not according to what you want.

You see one answer. You have enclosed your mind to any other possibility other than the one single black and white thought you have created. Therefore you cannot see the actual answer.

I could directly answer your question, but you'll only bring this entire situation up again. Why? Because I have answered your question directly before and look what you're doing....you're asking it again.

I cannot think for you and therefore I will not throw bread crumbs and lead you to the answer I have already given multiple times.

Do not blame me for your irritations, for your emotions over how you choose to read my post. Instead of actually thinking a little hard you've decided on a surface answer and wonder why you feel something is lacking. Personal problem.....that's why you feel that way.

If I had closed my mind to your answers I wouldn't have asked the questions. That is what I did at first; asserted my viewpoint, but you implied that it was wrong. That's why I'm asking; so how can you get annoyed with me and proclaim "Look someone saying what someone wants as if they read minds" then turn around and employ those exact same tactics by telling me what I think, or what answer I have come to when you can not read my mind any more than I can read yours?

Writers need to think about the best way to convey their message. If yours is getting lost by your method, you can only blame your audience for so long. If we are all coming to one answer- that you purposely drive conversations off topic through repeated inflammatory posts, otherwise known as trolling, regularly on Current, how can you blame us for reaching that conclusion if you will not be honest or truthful with us? If your goal is to make people think, that goal is being lost by the way you talk to people. How long until the writer stops blaming his audience for misunderstanding him and takes the responsibility unto himself to be more clear and convey his message more effectively?

How long do you give the people until their ego deflates long enough to realized that they are in the minority when it comes to not getting something I've posted?

Just because you have the loud mouths on your side doesn't mean you have the majority on your side.

It is egotistical to think that your way is the only way. It is also asinine to think that you actually are trying to convince me that you care to know the answer to the question you're asking when you CONTINUE to answer the question with every single suggestion you make.

You're trying to intimidate me into answering when I've answered so many times prior.

Whether or not the message is lost is of none of my concern. Why? Because if you can't get it form how i give it, then you're not smart enough for me to bother with.

I've posted on many forums. I know how the loud posters work and for the most part they are the ones that cause most of the problems. Why? Because they have to have control over everything and everyone.

I ask a a rhetorical question to you and anyone else that swears they care to hear opposing viewpoints. When was the last time you heard someone say that being gay is wrong and accepted their answer without badgering them? If you cannot do that you're lying when you state you can accept opposing viewpoints. What you mean to say you can only accept such opposing viewpoints when it's over trivial matters.

I do not like when people lie to me. Stop lying.

What am I lying about? Why would I bother continuing this conversation? The only time you have actually answered me directly, it was an admission of your behavior. You have told me privately that you are aware of what you do; so how am I the liar? Either you were lying to me then, you are lying to me now, or there is some other situation going on here.

I have no authority with which to intimidate you; none that you and every other Current user don't also possess. I have no control to wield over anyone;I don't see what good that would do me anyway. I don't know why you are always so defensive, why you always think I'm out to get you somehow.

I just read an interesting book (well actually I listened to it as an audio book) called How to Argue and Win Every Time. I was surprised to find that it wasn't so much a book of strategies but rather a different way to look at arguments, a way to understand them, to understand yourself. The author says that people argue to get what they want. So I ask myself, why am I arguing with you? What do I want? I want to understand why you behave the way you do, I want to understand your motivations since you are telling me I don't. Why are you arguing? What do you want?

I've read the same book. I have that book.

The problem is that you're not very inviting. You claim to want something while you constantly send out the message your out to prove something to those that are reading this exchange. The other uninviting thing is the comment about private conversations. As if that has anything to do with this at all. I cannot possibly believe you remember any conversation we have had in it's correct manner....because of the way you decide to use it as leverage of some sort.

When people post about the environment on this site they hope that they alter someone's mind so that they can get someone on their side...so that they can make a difference as a whole community. I care about the environment, but could careless who agrees with caring with me. Their not caring or caring will not alter the outcome of the Earth at all. It's not like it makes a difference to me or the Earth in the long run if someone disagrees with me on this site about what is and isn't right.

The same with politics as well as religion and anything else.

Whether or not I am or am not agreed with matters not.

How I am treated because of the different view does matter. It matters because if you cannot take in views that are not the same as yours....well....yours are not worth getting to know at all.

"As if that has anything to do with this at all. I cannot possibly believe you remember any conversation we have had in it's correct manner....because of the way you decide to use it as leverage of some sort."

I thought that's what YOU were talking about when you said you had answered me directly. I don't have to remember it correctly; I save all of my emails. I have them.

If I'm sending out a message that I'm trying to prove something, what is it? What do you think I'm trying to prove? Like I said, I thought about the reason for this argument; it's not to prove to anything to anyone else, it's to understand your behavior for what it is since you have told me that I don't understand. I like understanding, I dislike misunderstanding communication.

"How I am treated because of the different view does matter. It matters because if you cannot take in views that are not the same as yours....well....yours are not worth getting to know at all."

I don't think you are treated that way because you have a different view, I think you are treated the way you are because of your methods of conveying that view. When I first came onto Current, people told me I was too angry and went to personal attacks too easily. They were right, and now I think about that when I'm posting. That doesn't mean I never get angry or passionate, but I thought about what people said because making people upset and defensive does not help people understand my point of view, it does not help me communicate; if anything, it was driving the conversation away from the topic and onto me, which is what happens frequently to you as well.

That was my point when I was talking about how writers think about their message; you say that I'm not inviting, but do you think your postings are inviting people to understand your viewpoint and respond to them in a non-emotional way? I'm not blaming you for the emotions of others, but I think we both know that words are very powerful and the way things are written often dictate the response received. If your true intention is to bring up the "other side" of the viewpoint, why go about it in such an aggressive or adolescent way? Why not just say what you mean; why play these word games with people to determine their worthiness of understanding you? What if I am too stupid to get the underlying meaning of your seemingly inflammatory responses- you deem me unworthy of understanding your motive when I ask? That seems like a snobby way of thinking about things that I wouldn't really expect from you, like you are better than others because they can't keep up with your games, the rules of which are exclusively inside your head.

I think the function of all communication is to be understood and to understand others. So I am laying this out to be understood, for you to understand me; I'm not lying to you, I'm not trying to intimidate you or force you into some kind of admission, I'm trying to be understood and understand where YOU are coming from - but will you believe me and attempt to be understood, or will you continue to believe that I'm after you in some way, hiding my true intentions?

I did not state that you are not inviting as a whole. I said you are not being very inviting with how you are posting here.

Why is it so hard to understand that you are doing exactly what you suggest I am doing by not communicating well. You are assuming your are right and this can be proved by the way you ask questions that answer themselves via your opinion within the question itself.

---That was my point when I was talking about how writers think about their message; you say that I'm not inviting, but do you think your postings are inviting people to understand your viewpoint and respond to them in a non-emotional way?---

Asked and answered. Take away the question mark and the word that makes it the question and you get the following. "Your postings are [not] inviting people to understand your viewpoint and respond in a non-emotional way." Why can the "not" be placed in there? Your negative cogitation prior to the question allows the not to exist. Had you left that part off there would have been no negative attribution.

--- I'm not blaming you for the emotions of others, but I think we both know that words are very powerful and the way things are written often dictate the response received.---

This sentence is you blaming me. You cannot use "but" because it totally negates anything prior as in not existing. It's pointless to even take into consideration anything before th "but" in this sentence.

--- If your true intention is to bring up the "other side" of the viewpoint, why go about it in such an aggressive or adolescent way?---

Again asked/answered. "Your true intention is to bring up the other side of the viewpoint in an aggressive and/or adolescent way."

--- Why not just say what you mean; why play these word games with people to determine their worthiness of understanding you?---

"You do play word games with people to determine their worthiness of understanding you."

--- What if I am too stupid to get the underlying meaning of your seemingly inflammatory responses- you deem me unworthy of understanding your motive when I ask? ---

I'll skip the first part of your question since it would be unnecessarily insulting and go with the second half.... "You deem me unworthy of understating your motive when I ask."

--or will you continue to believe that I'm after you in some way, hiding my true intentions?---

Asked/answered "You will continue to believe that I'm after you in some way, hiding my true intentions."

I have read many books about communication and I have seen every single episode of Survivor. I've seen people lie and yearn for control.

Those who really care to know something will ask correctly. They will ask the right questions.

You have not and therefore do not care.

I can be a very offensive person because I use the word retarded and I think that suicide, in the right context like Wes Anderson, can be made into a joke. I do not have time to baby those that find such offensive. Therefore I do not have time to deal with people that cannot buck up and not be so thin skinned.

I'm not going to sweeten myself so that someone can be fooled by a lie.

Your insinuations are very hurtful. You can read a million books; they will not teach you to learn to listen, to recognize the truth when it is right in front of you - in your case they have only fueled your fires of being defensive and suspicious of everyone. While I am being sincere, you continue to play games with this "you'll ask the right questions" stuff. Perhaps you are afraid to show your true self, afraid to be open and vulnerable with your communication, afraid to be wrong; in this way you are not just lying to us, but yourself as well. Good luck with that and goodnight.

Good night.

Thomas Paine has rolled over in his grave for your misuse of his words. People fail to understand history let alone Thomas Paine and John Adams' role in it.

You just called Annise Parker stupid. Why?

because your being bothersome. And it's easier to do what tommic has done then try to explain it in a longer post.

your still haven't answered my question.

Sticking up for someone that posts something like that without any backing....and you agreeing is sad.

I hate when people state "that's how I see it" as if that alleviates their need to play psychiatrist.

It's interesting that people think they are the first to sit there an analyze me. It is not. It won't be the last and it certainly off, but you will believe what you want and evidence, as Current proves, does not matter.

This thread also proves that.

Experience and evidence are so far down on the important things list that it's pointless to even mention them. You were so close to stating that Obama won because he was black. Nice try in toeing that line.

And people's problem with Texas is their own problem. There is no more homophobia here than in San Francisco. Don't tell me what goes on in Texas when I have lived here most of my life except for ONE year. I have been all over this state. The problem is never the people it's those that hold on to prejudices outside the state that are the problem.

The most popular people on radio here is gay.

I hate having to state things like that because it shouldn't matter, but you people make it matter.

Disgusting.

Sigh.

I Didn't think there would be that much for you to come back at me with. But okay, i'll bite.

First, the "that's how I see it" is about how different people, myself, and others use and interact on the website. And how I think negative attitudes aren't much of a help (see the condescending part of the post). I have no desire to play psychiatrist and, as I stated, was making an observation more so then pointing out what you do and why you do it.

"Please understand I'm not trying to go "ah ha!, gotcha! That's what you do!" here. It's more of an observation. Garnered from being active on this site over the past year (not by stalking his post history)."

Why focus on you? Because this was my thread and the topic of discussion turned to you. If the topic had turned towards a flock of 500,000 thousand birds flying through the sky I would have focused on that.

As for "evidence" I cited our interactions through out the past year on this site and welcomed anyone to look for themselves your post history. That would be evidence.

"You were so close to stating that Obama won because he was black. Nice try in toeing that line."

No, I wasn't. This one's all you. You just made it about him being black by mentioning it now. To create, so it seems, a diversion. I was talking about his experience, or lack there of, and how experience is always a valued thing. A boss isn't going to hire a bum off the street to be a CEO. People are always going to want someone with experience. My little side point was that his inexperience didn't matter because of the situation our country found itself in. Things were so bad that people were willing to take a chance with someone who was inexperienced.

"And people's problem with Texas is their own problem. There is no more homophobia here than in San Francisco. Don't tell me what goes on in Texas when I have lived here most of my life except for ONE year."

I didn't tell you what goes on in your state. I asked you a question and you didn't answer it. I stated how politicians worked and then asked:

"In Texas it would have been political death to up play her sexuality. She would not have won the election. You live there right? Is that correct?"

I should have said:

"In Texas, similarly to almost everywhere else in the country, it would have been political death to up play her sexuality. You live there right? Is this line of thinking correct?

How about an answer? Would she haver gotten elected if she was up playing her sexuality?

"The problem is never the people it's those that hold on to prejudices outside the state that are the problem."

Oh now, I think never is a very strong word. That statement might even be a fallacy. The people of Texas make up Texas. Not anyone else. They will decide what the outcome will be. I was just telling you what many people, outside of Texas think.

"I hate having to state things like that (this) because it shouldn't matter, but you people make it matter."

Your the one making it matter Jammer. And I agree that's "Disgusting."

You can try and play it off like I'm the one with the issue here. The truth is everything is a two way street. As I've already stated, it's important having an opposing point-of-veiw around.

So important you have to do what you just did. That's why I don't believe you.

You still haven't answered my question.

You've lost me. Beyond trying to explain myself, my point, and responding to a post, what did I just do?

Believe me or don't, thats your business. I'm speaking from what I know and what I think. Which your also doing, I imagine.

Four posts in now and you still haven't answered my question.

You said it was important to have opposing view points, but that's not what your post indicate.

And if you didn't monolog I could have answered a question. Maybe you should re-ask it.

No Jammer. My post does indicate that. If you read the post and used this thing called thought you might be able to understand. But I think it's pretty clear now that you don't want any part of that.

Also, I think it's down right arrogant and rude of you to ask you the question again. I've posted it 3 times, that 1-2-3 times in the threads leading up to this one. If you read my "monologs" you'd see every word of them is a point and or counter point to what you've said or accused me of.

I've come to the conclusion that you don't give a damn and just want to make noise. Yes opposing points of view are extremely important, but i've grow weary of all your hot air.

I know the answer to the question. And I know I'm right. I just wanted to see if you'd be man enough to admit your in the wrong. And now the answer really doesn't matter. Our dialog here makes it clear it's not the issues you wish to discuss.

Really, I think this is all very childish.

Childish is stating you're right without getting an answer. Arrogant as well.

But you already knew that.

It's amusing when people accuse others of things they are guilty of the same thing. oops.

No fool. No. Nice try but no. It must be lonely up there on your pedestal.

Such a tiresome attempt at wit and one up-manship.

It must be very comforting to think you're better than others. It's not like you're presenting a better person than you're attacking (that figment of your imagination).

It's also degrading to her that all someone can focus on is her being gay...YAY Houston elected a gay person to be mayor. She didn't run on that....so it shouldn't be noticed as that.

I heard someone speak that worked with her on city council. I don't spread rumors. Your post is more of a rumor than my comments in this thread.

Oh Jammer, come on now. Really?

She was not YAY I am the first Gay Mayor. YAY. Like several post here did.

When she was city council member she was not someone that just did as the gay community wanted. She's not stupid. She's just not great. But time will tell...either way.

Can you give examples of her not being great? What does that mean?

Her commercials to win were mainly about attacking Locke and not about what she will bring. Maybe she had some, but the ones I frequently saw were attack ads. That's one thing to add to the few I already said in this thread. She can't work well with the police department when she lied about having the police union's endorsement. That's another bad thing.

The MAIN good thing is that she didn't run on being gay. She didn't do that. Other people might have done that for her, but she didn't do it. So she most likely will not put homosexuals ahead of what the city needs and that is a good thing. Especially since she's the "first" Mayor elected to any big city that is gay (outright).

... just like every politicians that's ever bought time on any form of entertainment

I have heard her positions. But none of that can explain why she LIED and said she had the support of the Police Union when she did not.

"Right wing bigots both of you."

Again somebody on Current out of their own ignorance has referred to me as a Right wing bigot.

I'm probably a "bible-thumper" too, right? Even though the only times I ever participate in religious activity of any kind is when I attend funerals and weddings.

And I probably voted for G.W. Bush too, right? Even though in the 19 years I have been eligible to vote I've never voted Republican.

I don't know where the "bigot" remark comes from. Could you explain why you've referred to me as a bigot?

Please remember that there's a great difference between me and the inferences you've made regarding me.

.

Jammer- check your facts. She did not lie about having support from police, the "Fraternal Order of Police" supports her, the Mexican-American Sheriff's Association supports her, and the Harris County Afro-American Sheriff’s Deputy League supports her. She is the best candidate out of the two. Gene Locke didn't have enough experience working for the city, other than writing contracts for Bob Lanier.
You're just wrong. Sorry.

Good lord. I'm sick of hearing about experience. Obama won...that doesn't matter any more. Moving on---the POLICE UNION is mad. They are who I'm speaking about. Don't pull out groups that support her since that has NOTHING to do with what I just said.

They aren't stupid remarks. Get your head out of the gutter and quit insulting people only because they have different opinions. Neither of them have made any "anti gay" comments. They both make valid points that you apparently don't agree with. Why don't you try arguing their stance instead of bashing them?

I happen to think that she WAS the better of the candidates (albeit the lesser of two evils, like everything else in this country), but I also happen to believe that she only won because she got the blind vote of many just because she's gay. Am I happy she won? Sure, but not content with some of the reasons she won.

Oh and one more thing: don't throw the word bigot around if you don't really know what it means.

"Oh and one more thing: don't throw the word bigot around if you don't really know what it means."

Agreed.

Bigot (n) bigot (a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bigot

tommic, It's ridiculous to call us bigots merely because our opinions differ from your own. Doing so you've provided a good example of bigotry in practice.

Austin is pretty darned cool, too. ;)

He actually was smart and polite and had a good heart.

Seriously?

We need to vote for people based on their ability to properly govern, not because they are gay, or black.. Obama (cough) or white and christian...McCain (cough) Palin (cough). It goes all ways. The truth is, this country is too stupid to vote for the right candidate. Just look at any Palin or Obama supporter interviews (like in book signings). Those people have no freaking idea why they support these politicians. That's why democracy does not work in this country. The majority of the country is just too stupid. The worse part is that they're willingly stupid and blissfully ignorant.

For the record, not everyone is like this (It seems like you are one of the few who actually think before they cast a ballot), but a huge majority of America IS like this.

Yes, I agree that this is a huge step for Texas (since I'm an Austinite), but I cannot ignore the fact that she probably won just because she's gay. Had she been straight, I'm sure she would not have won. I know a LOT of gay people from Houston who never vote (not even for the presidency elections). Yet they cast a vote for this woman just because she's gay. They admit it and they are proud of that.

People! FUCK!

And I'm done.

I'm 100% with you. It's what got us into a lot of messes.
I align myself now with individual anarchy now along with libertarianism, so my political ideals are mixed...
I want to move out of here as soon as possibly, it's a shame how this country works. It's full of bandwagoneers, even in sports, it's ALL about being sheep. The goal is to do as thy neighbor do and keep up with the jonses. I don't like the vast majority of americans general life philosophy. There's more to life than yourself and material items and people seem to ignore that at the voting booth.

Exactly. Just look at Jammer. He's getting a lot of shit just for saying what needs to be said, the truth.

I'm 100% with you on how much I despise the way most people lead their lives in this country. They refuse to think for themselves. They let the media do all the thinking for them. That's why our country is so fucked up right now. But these are also the same people who shun me for not being "patriotic." We either have a revolution (not a violent one mind you) or I'm getting the fuck out.

I think you would be surprised on how badly some people want a revolution, basically waiting to pop out of the wood work and force us back to what we were intended to be...and while many people would call them crazy, I might be with them when the time comes.
If people are going to continue acting like idiots, we'll make them start to think before they allow our country to be over run by corrupt politicians.
I plan on urinating on the stairs of the capitol building or another building this summer to make a point in a martyr type of way.

You could change your name to one of the founding fathers and fight that way. ha.

I know hundreds of people who want the same things as me so I wouldn't be surprised. I think our numbers will also keep growing until something finally happens.

Yep, voting black is so yesterday.

And once "voting gay" for the sake of gayness itself goes out of style, I believe voting paraplegic or double amputee will be in vogue. And once they've got done voting for every possible variation of underrepresented people, then we can get back to just voting for people based on their stances on various political issues.

Just like war veteran was in for a while. We all know what trumps war veteran.

I'm not sure I know what trumps war veteran. But I think gay or black trumps war veteran.

I agree that voting war veteran is out of style. Recently, people have preferred a lack of military experience in the candidates they support.

Uh if she did not win the opposite would not be true.

well, it really has more to do with the place.

hey, we just got rid of bill white!

agreed