Posts made by leatherbear

:cheesy2:

:crazy2:

A guy is having marital problems. He and the wife are not communicating at all and he's lonesome, so he goes to a pet store thinking a pet might help.

The store he entered specialized in parrots. As he wanders down the rows of parrots he notices one with no feet.

Surprised, he mutters, "I wonder how he hangs onto the perch?"

The parrot says, "With my penis, you dummy."

The guy is startled and says, "You certainly talk well for a parrot."

The parrot says, "Of course, I'm a very well educated parrot. I can discuss politics, sports, religion, most any subject you wish."

The guy says, "Gee, you sound like just what I was looking for."

The parrot says, "There's not much of a market for maimed parrots. If you offer the proprietor $20 for me, I'll bet he'll sell me."

The guy buys the parrot and for three months things go great. When he comes home from work the parrot tells him Bush said this, the A's won, the Giants lost, the Pope did so and so.

One day the guy comes home from work and the parrot waves a wing at him and says, "Come in and shut the door."

The guy says, "What's up?"

The parrot says, "I don't know how to tell you this, but the mailman came today. Your wife answered the door in her negligee and he kissed her right on the lips."

The guy says, "Oh, a momentary flight of passion."

The parrot says, "Well, maybe, but then he fondled her breasts."

The guy says, "He did??"

The parrot says, "Yes. Then he pulled her negligee down and started sucking on her breasts."

The guy says, "My God, what happened next!?"

The parrot says, "I don't know. I got a hard-on and fell off my perch!"

Sydney, February 4, 2010 - 11:26AM

"The giants of the film industry have lost their case against ISP iiNet in a landmark judgment handed down in the [Aussie] Federal
Court today. The decision had the potential to impact internet users and the internet industry profoundly as it sets a legal precedent
surrounding how much ISPs are required to do to prevent customers from downloading movies and other content illegally."

Read more here:

hXXp://www.theage.com.au/technology/techno…00204-ndwr.html

200 page court summary, for the legally inclined and otherwise curious:

hXXp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html

Dana Milibrand, Washington Post
Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Mike Mullen's 42 years in the military earned him a chest full of ribbons, but never did he do something braver than what he did on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

In a packed committee room, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff looked hostile Republican senators in the eye and told them unwelcome news: He thinks gays should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces he commands.

"Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," the nation's top military officer told the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

People in the audience looked at one another. At the press tables, computer keys started clicking. Reporters consulted the time on their digital recorders.

If opponents prevail in their effort to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bars gays from serving openly in the military, they will doubtless point to those strong words -- until now heresy for a top military officer -- as a turning point. Supporters of the policy evidently grasped that, too, for they turned against the admiral with caustic words.

On the dais, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the Republican Party's 2008 presidential standard-bearer, accused Mullen and the other witness, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, of trying to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law "by fiat." Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) accused the admiral of obeying "directives" from President Obama. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) accused Mullen of "undue command influence."

As the challenges to his integrity continued, Mullen pursed his lips, then put his forearms on the table, displaying the admiral stripes on his sleeves. After Sessions's provocation, the Joint Chiefs chairman glared at the diminutive Alabamian. "This is not about command influence," Mullen said. "This is about leadership, and I take that very seriously."

It made little sense to accuse Mullen of currying favor with the president. Nominated for a first term by George W. Bush, Mullen was renominated by Obama and began his second two-year term in October. Joint Chiefs chairmen traditionally serve only two terms, so the lame-duck Mullen is freer than ever to speak his mind.

That made the admiral's words all the more striking.

Just three years ago, Mullen's predecessor as chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, gave a very different view on gays in the military, saying, "We should not condone immoral acts." Challenging that view, held by many top brass, couldn't have been easy.

"Admiral Mullen, I want to salute you for the courage of what you said," offered Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a former Navy secretary and a classmate of Mullen's at the U.S. Naval Academy.

McCain, who once said he would support repeal of the law if top military brass did, instead challenged the candor of Mullen and Gates before they spoke. He held up a letter from retired officers who favor the current law and said they "can speak more frankly" than those still serving. McCain then protested when the committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), announced that senators would have three minutes each to ask questions.

"We need more than three minutes," McCain growled. He turned to Sessions and gave a derisive laugh.

"This schedule was shared with everybody here," Levin pointed out.

"Not with me," McCain retorted.

"It was indeed," Levin maintained.

"You're the chairman," McCain said bitterly.

In the end, three minutes proved more than sufficient. McCain and four Republican colleagues left before the hearing ended, and the other six GOP members of the panel didn't show up at all.
After McCain's performance, Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) reminded him, and the rest of the room, about the different view on the topic held by McCain's late political mentor from Arizona. "Barry Goldwater once said, 'You don't have to be straight to shoot straight.' "

The next three Republicans were all Southern white men, and all opposed to Mullen's view. After Sessions and Wicker took their shots at the admiral, it was time for Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). "In my opinion, the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk," he said, putting homosexuality in a category with "adultery, fraternization and body art."

Mullen did not bend. He said he knew of no studies indicating that repealing the law would undermine morale. He said he knew of no harm to the British and Canadian militaries from the decision to allow openly gay troops to serve.

"Sort of a fundamental principle with me . . . is everybody counts," he told the senators. "Putting individuals in a position that every single day they wonder whether today's going to be the day" -- that they are kicked out for being gay -- "and devaluing them in that regard is inconsistent with us as an institution."

If they awarded decorations for congressional testimony, Mullen would have himself a Medal of Honor.

SAN FRANCISCO (Feb. 3) – On the morning the landmark Proposition 8 trial was set to begin last month, John Ireland was sitting eagerly at his computer ready to watch the proceedings on YouTube.

But to the Los Angeles filmmaker's great disappointment, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that morning blocking any broadcast of the proceedings, except for inside the San Francisco courthouse where the trial was being held.

"They were really trying to bury it forever," he says.

His friend and fellow filmmaker John Ainsworth was equally disappointed he couldn't watch the trial. As gay men who married their spouses during the brief period when same-sex weddings were legal in California, they felt the issues in the trial were too important to be confined to a single courtroom.

So the pair decided to create their own production: "The Perry vs. Schwarzenegger Trial Re-enactment."

Using court transcripts and a cast of 40 professional actors, they began re-enacting every moment of the proceedings. Now, three weeks after the trial began, the first episode is airing at marriagetrial.com and on YouTube. Eleven more episodes will follow.

"We're very excited to be on YouTube," Ireland told AOL News. "It's been a long journey of three weeks."

For both men, the motivation was to let members of the public hear the arguments firsthand and decide for themselves whether the right to marry should be extended to same-sex couples.

"As someone who is a gay married man, I wanted to present this the best way possible: a non-biased, objective presentation of what went on there so people can make a judgment on their own," Ainsworth said.

Proposition 8, approved by voters in 2008, banned same-sex couples from marrying in California. A gay couple from Burbank and a lesbian couple from Berkeley filed a suit arguing that the measure unconstitutionally deprived them of their right to get married. The case is expected to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 12-and-a-half-day trial featured emotional testimony from the plaintiffs about discrimination they have faced, and from expert witnesses who discussed the history of marriage, the psychological effects of discrimination and the political influence of the gay community.

Testimony in the case ended last week. Chief District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is hearing the case without a jury, is expected to schedule closing arguments for next month. Walker, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, will decide whether gays and lesbians make up a class of people that suffers discrimination and whether Proposition 8 unconstitutionally infringes on their rights.

To find actors and actresses to play the roles of the judge, lawyers and witnesses in the trial, Ireland and Ainsworth first called on friends in Hollywood and posted an ad on Craigslist. But they quickly found enough professional actors who wanted to be in the production and were willing to work for free. The two producers are attempting to cast actors who look as much as possible like the trial participants they portray.

"We want to keep this a high-quality production, and the level of actors we have gotten shows we are able to stay true to that," Ainsworth said.

Among those playing a part is Tess Harper, who starred in the film "Tender Mercies" and was nominated for an Academy Award for best supporting actress for "Crimes of the Heart." She plays Sandra Stier, a plaintiff who testified on the first day about her love for her partner, Kristin Perry, the lead plaintiff in the case.

Gregory Itzin, who plays President Charles Logan on the television series "24," will portray David Blankenhorn, the defense witness and president of the Institute for American Values, whose testimony during cross-examination by attorney David Boies was unusually confrontational.

Veteran character actor Jack Laufer plays Boies, one of the plaintiffs' lead attorneys. And Adrienne Barbeau, who has performed in numerous movies and TV shows, plays psychology professor Letitia Peplau, a witness for the plaintiffs.

Ireland is playing Yale history professor George Chauncey, a witness for the plaintiffs.

Although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the named defendant in the case, he refused to defend the initiative in court. He has no role in the trial, so no one is cast to portray him.

During the real trial, the court used three cameras to videotape the judge, lawyer and witness and displayed all three images on a single screen. This is what viewers would have seen on YouTube if the Supreme Court had not intervened. In the end, the video was shown only in an overflowing courtroom.

Ainsworth and Ireland came up with a system of using one camera to tape the three actors simultaneously and then splicing them together later into the same screen, similar to the actual court video.

University of Southern California law professor David B. Cruz is advising the production on the scripts and the dynamics of a trial. The university's Gould School of Law has made a mock courtroom available as the set for the video, which is being shot on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.

"Few people are going to have the time and patience to read through the voluminous transcripts – almost 1,300 pages just in the first week of trial," Cruz wrote on his USC Web page. "Being able to play the re-enactment on the Web will increase exposure, which in the end can only help the cause of equality under law."

Ireland and Ainsworth maintain that the high court was wrong in agreeing to the request from defenders of Proposition 8 to block the broadcast and deny the public the opportunity to see video of the trial.

"I view it as a landmark case," Ireland said. "I want this to be a piece of the historic record that people can review. It's for the everyday citizen who has the right to participate in the judicial system."

Well, I do try ….... and I will not be discouraged from the effort. The forums are a much more active part of GT.ru now than ever before and with time they will only become more active.

Very well done!!!


There once was a Gay Man who was tired of living alone. So he put an ad in the paper which outlined his requirements.

He wanted a man who would treat him nicely, wouldn't run away from him, and would be good in bed.

Then, one day, he heard the doorbell ring. He answered it, and there on the front porch was a man in a wheel chair who didn't have any arms or legs.

"I'm here about the ad you put in the paper. As you can see, I have no arms so I can't beat you, and I have no legs so I can't run away from you."

"Yes, but are you good in bed?"

"How do you think I rang the doorbell?"

A man with a stuttering problem tries everything he can to stop stuttering, but he can't.

Finally, he goes to a world renowned doctor for help. The doctor examines him and says "I've found your problem.

Your penis is 12 inches long. It weighs so much it is pulling on your lungs, causing you to stutter."

So the man asks, "What's the cure, doctor?".

To which the doctor replies, "We have to cut off 6 inches." The man thinks about it, and eager to cure his stuttering, agrees to the operation. The operation is a success, and he stops stuttering.

Two months later he calls the doctor and tells him that since he had the 6 inches cut off, all of his boyfriends have dumped him, and his love life has gone down the tubes.

He wants the doctor to operate to put back the six inches. Not hearing anything on the line, he repeats himself, "Hey doc, didn't you hear me? I want my 6 inches back!"

Finally, the doctor responds, "F-f-f-f-f-f-uck Y-y-you!

:lovp: