Comments on: David Catania Gives Harry Jackson a History Lesson

By: Craig Howell

Craig Howell — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:16:12 +0000

Mark, George Washington was also a slaveowner.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:52:41 +0000

Here is some history for Councilmember David A. Catania. In Washington's Farwell address we find this statement " And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Frederick Gotthold Enslin was the focus of one of three possible cases of sodomy documented in the Continental Army under General George Washington.[citation needed] The case began with a charge against an ensign for slander against another soldier. At Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, in February 1778, Ensign Anthony Maxwell was brought before a court-martial charged with "propogating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lieutt. Enslin." The Ensign was ultimately acquitted of the charge. In March 1778, Lieut. Enslin was brought to trial before a court-martial. According to General Washington's report: "...Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcolm's Regiment tried for attempting to COMMIT SODOMY..." Washington's secretary continues to describe the results of the trial in negative, descriptive terms: "His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence & Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning...." It seems that Ensign Maxwell had witnessed Lieut. Enslin in bed with another soldier. There is no record of the sentence ever being carried out, nor what happened to the dismissed Lieutenant." It appears sir you don't agree with our first commander and Chief.You must however be right though!

By: NadaDon

NadaDon — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:43:00 +0000

motorhomejesus- I don't think were my comments were meant to be misogynistic. Actually, I love woman, love, love em. But, I do have a serious problem with overweight, hairy-twat bitches, who have not been laid in ages that feel the need to deride others because uncle cletus had his way with her in the toolshed 30 decades ago. The reason I remarked the way I did to her is that when you attempt to make logical explanations or give opinions as to why sexual preference isn't really a preference but part of our innate nature. Instead, I choose the high road and bash the shit of that twit because it's pretty damn obvious that she is a sex-starved, obese person, with a rather hairy twat. So if you find this offensive, well, I'm not really sorry, I wish I could have had a picture to go along with it to prove exactly what I said. You might be offended because you like large women with a tendency not to groom themselves, I don't know, I'm making that assumption. As for the validity of any of my arguements, religious or not, I frankly don't give a flying fuck. Religion is nothing more than a set of rules written by people who couldn't get laid. So instead, they wrote a bunch of shit expecting others to follow it so that they too will not get laid. America was "founded"- I love this term, someone should have told the natives- on the principles of puritans, who burnt women at the stake because preachers couldn't follow their menstral cycles. Now, 400 years later, we have Ms. Davida, Bishop Jackson, and others, who are obsessed with what happens in someone else's bedroom and wanting to impose their religious bullshit on them. Well, I have no patience for it and I have no problem sounding like a misogynistic prick as a result. Good day bitches...

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:45:54 +0000

Actually, as much as many of you have criticized Davida Lavina's comments as being religious, she never used a single religious argument. Sure you could apply it to religion, but nothing she said was religious. Therefore, the name-calling and "hate speech" for which will soon be illegal was the only valid argument against what she said.

By: Waldorf, MD

Waldorf, MD — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:36:55 +0000

Catania's dumbass seemed to overlook one important fact. What were they voting on? Extending voting rights to Black males. Guess who didn't get to vote on that issue? The Black males, or Black anythings as a matter of fact. The outragous attempts to compare the oppression of Blacks in America's past, to today's Homosexual rebellion are all completely irrelevant and unrelated. Homosexuals have every FULL right to vote on the exact same issues as any other American. The votes that Mr. Catania referred to were obviously NOT representative of the population. Just like these pathetic coucil members are not representing their constituates. Bishop Jackson will be better prepared to defend against this ludicrous attack next time.

By: motorhomejesus

motorhomejesus — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:51:39 +0000

@NadaDon @Gossipidity Personally, as an LGBT myself, I support gay rights and civil unions or marriage or whatever anybody wants. People are who they are and they love/lust/fuck who they do. And, after growing up in the buckle of the Bible Belt, I have a short fuse for people who use religion to justify their fears, like Davida Lavina. HOWEVER, as a feminist, I also don't like the misogynistic crap you are spewing... Seriously?! What the fuck is your problem? The "needs to get laid" crap and the fat-hate... Instead of pointing out why Davida Lavina's beliefs are wrong, which they are, you comment on her looks, her vagina, and use some really disgusting, sexist language. You make it about her being a gross, disgusting woman because you don't agree with her, instead of just being a bigot who happens to have a vagina. Shame on you. Dehumanizing someone for their gender does not a good point make when arguing that you shouldn't be dehumanized for your sexuality.

By: NadaDon

NadaDon — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:26:04 +0000

Hell, give me the government subsidies these fuckers get and I'll do it. I'll walk into every McDonald's in the City, hire the entire staff at double what they are getting there, and transform these food-banks into a fast-food service. Then I'll go to the motel 8s, hire Mr. Patel's 18 kids and have them run the shelters as they would their motels. I guarantee you efficiency and money to spare. You know where a lot of the money goes isn't for the services these asses provide (and don't think that the majority of them are doing it out of the kindness of their hearts- some do, but most do it for a paycheck? What is the pay scale for the executive level of these groups. I know you all are thinking it's a Church, they can't be making that much money. Well, who are the most promient land owners in the District? St. Matthews in SE pratically owns a third of that quandrant. Calvary in Brookland owns a boatload of properties. And then there is the Catholic Church Archdioses of DC, they aren't indpedent shops or franchises. Count and em, tally up their networth, it's all a hustle somewhere. Dayam, all these fucking morals. Thank you momma, now my ass is broke while politicos and churchies are realing dem in...

By: 1967dc

1967dc — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:23:33 +0000

whowilldotheservice...you misunderstood me. Screw the catholic church! I think that its repulsive what they are suggesting. Ive dealt with Catholic Charities..Can not stand them. They run 3 or 4 of the largest shelters and I know for a fact that a majority of the staff who run the shelters are ill-trained and treat the men that depend on them like sub humans.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:11:06 +0000

Even as a Federalist' I would be reluctant to put the issue to a DC wide vote. As you can see from some of the comments, blacks hate gays. And Hispanics. And pretty much everyone. And firmly believe that their plight is not only the only one that matters now, but that no other group has ever faced or faces at present ill-treatment.

It's sad, really.

By: whowilldotheservices

whowilldotheservices — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:24:18 +0000

NadaDon Agreed but the question remains, who will provide these resources and services if they leave.

By: NadaDon

NadaDon — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:13:19 +0000

So rather than sucking it up and respecting the equal rights of gays, the Catholic Church will pull out of its social services in the District, thus leaving hundreds of dependent people, many of whom probably aren't gay, to fend for themselves. Wow, what a religion. I think is exactly the pratices and teachings I would live to instill in my kids. You can't win, quit and leave like some bitches. Why should the Catholic Church care anyhow? Do they have the monopoly on marriage in the City? Do they even have a large Catholic Community in the District? Also, since the Church doesn't believe in homosexually, doesn't it seem kind of weird that they are opposing something that really won't effect or doesn't matter to them to begin with? Ah, hypocrisy at its greatest...

By: whowilldotheservices

whowilldotheservices — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:57:20 +0000

1967dc. As an impartial reader of these blogs, when the catholic church pulls its social services of DC, will you and others step up to provide these much needed services to the citizens of the District of Columbia? I am a realist.

By: 1967dc

1967dc — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:40:17 +0000

The catholic church just threatened to pull all of it social services out of DC if the Marriage Bill passes! I say FUCK em'!

By: NadaDon

NadaDon — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:52:57 +0000

I just today's issue of theMail and our favorite advocate Gary Imhoff turns out to be a royal douche. Masking his obvious bigotry towards gay marriage in the form of favoring "put it to masses" approach, I was somewhat disheartened by this. I wish I could understand the fear and paranoia these idiots feel towards gay marriages, but I really cannot. All the moral uprightedness that they preach in defense of their disdain for others is so hypocritical. And they all use the bible as justification for it. Well, last time I read, if marriage was such a sacred union between men and women and absolute must for the preservation of our species, why the hell wasn't Jesus married? I understand the wholly divine thing, but he was also human right? So do you all believe Jesus, being the mac-daddy pimp that he was, was also a virgin? Come one, from 12 to 30, he was probably off to India learning all that funky kuma sutra shit. Badass son. This is getting a little off topic, but my point is that we know the majority of Americans disapprove of Gay marriages. Sixty Years ago, most Americans disagreed that African Americans were equal to white Americans. Shit, sixty days ago, a minister refused to marry an interracial couple. Why do you think the electoral college exists? If we left everything up to the majority, then we jeopardize the ideals of what this country was found on; freedom and liberty for all.

So a royal fuck-off to all you hateful sonofabitches, Gary Imhoff, you especially.

By: Gossipidity

Gossipidity — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:02:09 +0000

Way to go Nad. I hate when people feel it's moral uprightedness that dictates what marriage really is. Davida needs to get laid, seriously, because the chick seems too uptight. Maybe she needs an orgasm or six to help her out cause she obviously thinks those things are choices. It's not so dear, why else would God allow you to have one. Try anal dear, it will loosen you right up and all that pent up hate will just fall right out (sort of like you next few poops as well).