Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4843 Jun 20, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
So how would you feel if you were respectfully refused service in a restaurant? Okay by you?
I'd go somewhere else. Was that the only baker on town?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4844 Jun 20, 2013
lides wrote:
lides might ask herself the same question. I posted the stolen 2008 Schedule B from Huffington Posts website, what more does she want? Isn't that proof of the Huffington Posts' own claims, confidential IRS applications were leaked to political opponents?

The citation above is about Representative Darryl Issa, not NOM or the IRS. The citation comes from a partisan source that assumes conservatives lie, no wonder lides uses it:

"Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads."
http://www.addictinginfo.org/addicting-info-a...

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4845 Jun 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>lides might ask herself the same question. I posted the stolen 2008 Schedule B from Huffington Posts website, what more does she want? Isn't that proof of the Huffington Posts' own claims, confidential IRS applications were leaked to political opponents?
The citation above is about Representative Darryl Issa, not NOM or the IRS. The citation comes from a partisan source that assumes conservatives lie, no wonder lides uses it:
"Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads."
http://www.addictinginfo.org/addicting-info-a...
You shared a link to a Schedule B, but there is no link to that document in the article you also linked to, and when you follow the link to the HRC website listed in the Huffington Post article, you get an article that expressly states that HRC had FEC filings that show a donation from Free and Strong America.

You are, once again, full of crap.

What is more, if we are to believe this document, Romney donated from free and strong not just from Alabama, but also from Massachusetts. Apparently just $10K wasn't enough bigotry for Mitt.

I don't really care if HRC DID uncover confidential IRS documents, which to be fair, you haven't concretely proven on any level. If money is being spent on political groups and to influence voters, they have a right to know where that money originated. And if a politician is using a PAC to make blind donations on their behalf, we have a right to know what they are doing.

I love that, in addition to being able to put together a fundamentally sound argument, you also hate accountability.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4846 Jun 20, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people realize that KKK members were (and still are) respected members of the community by day and put sheets on their heads at night.
But you have completely avoided my point: Is it appropriate for a business owner who is uncomfortable with interracial marriage to refuse services for that marriage? If so, why stop there: Shouldn't he also be able to refuse them service at a restaurant? Could a bus driver deny them boarding?
You avoided my question because you know that you are a hypocrite who advocates discrimination against gay people. You know that we have tried to end blatant discrimination against minorities in this country for good reason. You know that applying the logic you wish to use for gay people to all minorities would result in a divided and oppressive society.
We either protect all minorities, or we invite the Balkanization of America.
you were the one who brought up the absurd example of a kkk businessman.

barry wrote:
<quoted text>"really, why would an interracial couple go to a known kkk business man for flowers?
in fact why would anyone go to a kkk business man for flowers?
in fact do you even know of a kkk business man in the flower business?
seems to me like free enterprise has taken care of that issue.
so next time try to come up with a real viable example to make your point."

i don't know of any kkk business men and i live in the heart of the old kkk country. well i take it back. there was one over in another town who sold confederate stuff, and t shirts, guns etc, but funny thing is... he's no longer in business. not enough business to stay in business. free enterprise took care of it. the real point is you also don't know of any kkk businessmen so your illustration is not based on reality in today's society. talk about being a hypocrite.

so to answer your question, yes it is ok for a businessman who is uncomfortable with gay marriage to refuse to do business and participate in something that they personally feel is immoral. that would be tantamount to forcing your religious values on them. there are plenty of other business people who would gladly have their business. let freedom ring. freedom to live by our conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and free enterprise.

there are two types of minorities. some claim to be minorities because of behavioral choices that they feel free to make. that doesn't necessarily make them a minority. we also don't protect all minorities other wise we would be treating pedophiles differently.
some say that serial killers are born that way. does that make them a minority that needs to be protected?

my whole position is not about how we treat people but how do we protect our freedoms. if we protect our freedoms then all will be protected. i should be free to not have to rent an apartment to those whom i believe are living immorally. i also should be free to rent to them if i want to. however the day is coming when we give up that freedom that the government will also tell us who we can not rent to. if they can tell us who we must do business with they will one day tell us who we can't do business with.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4847 Jun 20, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
...
But you have completely avoided my point: Is it appropriate for a business owner who is uncomfortable with interracial marriage to refuse services for that marriage? If so, why stop there: Shouldn't he also be able to refuse them service at a restaurant? Could a bus driver deny them boarding?
You avoided my question ...
so, to avoid confusion let me answer this specifically. the case in question involved a florists in the state of washington who was asked to make the flower arrangements for a homosexual customer who was an established customer with her who was getting married to a same sex partner. the news says that she refused. however her lawyer claims that she was willing to make the flowers she just would not deliver them to the wedding and set them up as is the custom of such services.
this customer with whom she had no problem doing business with in the past basically wanted her to become a participant in the wedding. that is a whole lot different then a homosexual customer who would ride a bus or chose to eat at a restaurant. nether of which would be a participation in the celebration of their life style.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4849 Jun 20, 2013
lides wrote:
You shared a link to a Schedule B, but there is no link to that document in the article you also linked to, and when you follow the link to the HRC website listed in the Huffington Post article, you get an article that expressly states that HRC had FEC filings that show a donation from Free and Strong America.
^^^That's convoluted. I cited NOM's 2008 Schedule B leaked by the IRS and posted by the Huffington Post.

.
lides wrote:
You are, once again, full of crap.
I see the confusion; the HRC's BS is, they got the story from another source so the leaked tax form doesn't matter. As if there was no crime, no felony disclosure of confidential tax forms. HPo didn't play along and post the same story, they cited the "whistleblower" and admits access to confidential tax records such as the posted Schedule B.

.
lides wrote:
What is more, if we are to believe this document, Romney donated from free and strong not just from Alabama, but also from Massachusetts. Apparently just $10K wasn't enough bigotry for Mitt.
That's defamation, not rational argument. Keeping marriage one man and one woman isn't bigotry, whoever says it is uses fascist political rules.

Romney has the right to donate as he pleases, whether lides or the IRS likes the recipient.

.
lides wrote:
I don't really care if HRC DID uncover confidential IRS documents, which to be fair, you haven't concretely proven on any level.
If you don't care about the crime, how could it be fairly proven? The victims complain and sue, lides doesn't care. The IG discovers a pattern of harassment and lides doesn't care. The documents HRC published contains IRS processing artifacts and lides doesn't care.

The "I don't really care" argument doesn't work in court.

.
lides wrote:
If money is being spent on political groups and to influence voters, they have a right to know where that money originated.
Some states and federal laws apply to election spending and other laws apply to tax filing; one is designed for disclosure and the other for privacy. Different jurisdiction, different laws. You don't get to make them up to win political disputes.

.
lides wrote:
And if a politician is using a PAC to make blind donations on their behalf, we have a right to know what they are doing.
And Romney followed FEC law and filed every donation. Romney didn't break the law, the felon on the federal payroll who gave NOM's Schedule B to the HRC broke the law.

That still didn't stop the Democrats from using it against Romney on 2012.
.
lides wrote:
I love that, in addition to being able to put together a fundamentally sound argument, you also hate accountability.
I like accountability, the FBI should investigate the IRS leak and hold the perpetrators accountable in a court of law. I've never said Romney's donations should be hidden,they weren't and they aren't important.

The issue is criminal tax law violation, not who gave what to whatever. If it had been a leftist group, it would make no difference.

Stop blaming the victim, prosecute the accused.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4850 Jun 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^That's convoluted. I cited NOM's 2008 Schedule B leaked by the IRS and posted by the Huffington Post.
.
<quoted text>I see the confusion; the HRC's BS is, they got the story from another source so the leaked tax form doesn't matter. As if there was no crime, no felony disclosure of confidential tax forms. HPo didn't play along and post the same story, they cited the "whistleblower" and admits access to confidential tax records such as the posted Schedule B.
.
<quoted text>That's defamation, not rational argument. Keeping marriage one man and one woman isn't bigotry, whoever says it is uses fascist political rules.
Romney has the right to donate as he pleases, whether lides or the IRS likes the recipient.
.
<quoted text>If you don't care about the crime, how could it be fairly proven? The victims complain and sue, lides doesn't care. The IG discovers a pattern of harassment and lides doesn't care. The documents HRC published contains IRS processing artifacts and lides doesn't care.
The "I don't really care" argument doesn't work in court.
.
<quoted text>Some states and federal laws apply to election spending and other laws apply to tax filing; one is designed for disclosure and the other for privacy. Different jurisdiction, different laws. You don't get to make them up to win political disputes.
.
<quoted text>And Romney followed FEC law and filed every donation. Romney didn't break the law, the felon on the federal payroll who gave NOM's Schedule B to the HRC broke the law.
That still didn't stop the Democrats from using it against Romney on 2012.
.
<quoted text>I like accountability, the FBI should investigate the IRS leak and hold the perpetrators accountable in a court of law. I've never said Romney's donations should be hidden,they weren't and they aren't important.
The issue is criminal tax law violation, not who gave what to whatever. If it had been a leftist group, it would make no difference.
Stop blaming the victim, prosecute the accused.
Give it up Brian. There is no scandal within the IRS, the office in Cincinnati acted locally and without intervention from Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line...

You keep linking to an article in the Huffington post that claims HRC leaked a form 990 Schedule B, but links to an article by HRC that clearly cites an FEC filing for Free and Strong America, and never mentions a form 990 Schedule B.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line...

Your argument is in a shambles.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#4851 Jun 20, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you were the one who brought up the absurd example of a kkk businessman.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"really, why would an interracial couple go to a known kkk business man for flowers?
in fact why would anyone go to a kkk business man for flowers?
in fact do you even know of a kkk business man in the flower business?
seems to me like free enterprise has taken care of that issue.
so next time try to come up with a real viable example to make your point."
i don't know of any kkk business men and i live in the heart of the old kkk country. well i take it back. there was one over in another town who sold confederate stuff, and t shirts, guns etc, but funny thing is... he's no longer in business. not enough business to stay in business. free enterprise took care of it. the real point is you also don't know of any kkk businessmen so your illustration is not based on reality in today's society. talk about being a hypocrite.
so to answer your question, yes it is ok for a businessman who is uncomfortable with gay marriage to refuse to do business and participate in something that they personally feel is immoral. that would be tantamount to forcing your religious values on them. there are plenty of other business people who would gladly have their business. let freedom ring. freedom to live by our conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and free enterprise.
there are two types of minorities. some claim to be minorities because of behavioral choices that they feel free to make. that doesn't necessarily make them a minority. we also don't protect all minorities other wise we would be treating pedophiles differently.
some say that serial killers are born that way. does that make them a minority that needs to be protected?
my whole position is not about how we treat people but how do we protect our freedoms. if we protect our freedoms then all will be protected. i should be free to not have to rent an apartment to those whom i believe are living immorally. i also should be free to rent to them if i want to. however the day is coming when we give up that freedom that the government will also tell us who we can not rent to. if they can tell us who we must do business with they will one day tell us who we can't do business with.
This is an argument for an American caste system.

You should not be free to refuse to rent to people you think are living "immorally". You should only have the freedom to refuse people who are living CRIMINALLY. You can define anything you want as "immoral". Everyone has different definitions for that. But if someone isn't breaking the LAW, then they should be treated the same as any other renter. This will solve your problem with serial-killer and pedophile tenants, while still keeping you in legal compliance, and will allow you to treat law-abiding citizens with equality.

There are not ALWAYS plenty of other businesses willing to accomodate those that you would choose to throw out your doors. A business may be the only one of its kind in town. There may be more than one, but they may all band together to block certain (law-abiding) citizens. That could easily happen in a small, insular town.

Can ANY business get away with this kind of "freedom"? Banks? Realtors? Hotels and motels? Gas stations? Hospitals? Day cares? What kind of businesses must help everyone, and which may discriminate? By what standard should we choose which businesses may discriminate and which may not?

If someone shops at a business where they aren't allowed, can the business owner bring legal action against the customer for violating their right to ban certain citizens? How personal is the owner allowed to get, while finding out which groups you might belong to that they don't approve of? Can they ask you for your dating history, medical history, or political views?

This is not a workable system. There are good reasons why we have the non-discrimination laws we have.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4852 Jun 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd go somewhere else. Was that the only baker on town?
It's quite easy for someone who has not been victimized by discrimination to pass it off as a minor nuisance. Did the people who started the Watts riots consider such things as sitting at the back of the bus but not at the lunch counter a minor nuisance? No, they were affronts to basic humanity.

Now let's look at your statement again: The baker was merely asked to bake a cake. He wasn't asked to bless the wedding. He wasn't asked to participate in any way. All he had to do was mix the flour, sugar, and eggs, just as he does every day.

But he refused to offer the services that he advertises for only one purpose: To make sure those damned gays knew he didn't approve of them.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4853 Jun 20, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so, to avoid confusion let me answer this specifically. the case in question involved a florists in the state of washington who was asked to make the flower arrangements for a homosexual customer who was an established customer with her who was getting married to a same sex partner. the news says that she refused. however her lawyer claims that she was willing to make the flowers she just would not deliver them to the wedding and set them up as is the custom of such services.
this customer with whom she had no problem doing business with in the past basically wanted her to become a participant in the wedding. that is a whole lot different then a homosexual customer who would ride a bus or chose to eat at a restaurant. nether of which would be a participation in the celebration of their life style.
Presumably, the flowers would be set-up before the wedding began. She was not forced to participate, although it sounds like she got herself removed from the guest list.

Doing your job does not imply approval. How is setting up some vases any more participatory than letting a passenger of whom you disapprove sit beside you while you drive the bus? How is feeding an interracial couple in your restaurant--who may very well be celebrating their own anniversary or who may exhibit mild affectionate behavior in your restaurant--less participatory than dropping things off at an event you don't even need to be at?

Again, would it be okay to refuse flowers to an interracial couple if you didn't like interracial marriage? You conveniently avoided answering that one. Because you know that that refusal is against the law in the United States. And it would force you to admit that you want to treat gays and lesbians differently than everyone else.

“Obsidian Princess”

Level 8

Since: Sep 09

louisiana

#4854 Jun 20, 2013
fk the church.
Insufferable

San Jose, CA

#4855 Jun 20, 2013
the light has come wrote:
I have seen this push for marriage is not the end of the gay community trying to force and acceptance in today`s society. Free speech is in jeopardy even with a Constitutional right to speak freely. Hate speech is the next step. Even now if people speak out against the gay agenda, they back peddle in fear of losing their popularity. People in public office finding they can not openly speak against the gay agenda without putting their job in jeopardy. The law makers may be trying to to do the right thing to be PC but not looking at inconsequential results in their decision.
Being allowed to marry is not forcing acceptance dumbass. You can still hate gays even when they marry. You are the one forcing your beliefs on others. If you believe marrying a gay is wrong, don't marry a gay. What business is it of yours if others do though. It effects you in no way, yet you will attempt to control their lives all the while screaming that they're the ones trying to control yours. How does someone elses marriage effect your life?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4856 Jun 21, 2013
lides wrote:
Give it up Brian. There is no scandal within the IRS, the office in Cincinnati acted locally and without intervention from Washington.[URL deleted]
That's contradictory, the Cincinnati office is within the IRS. I don't know which office processed NOM's form 990, do you?

This is more than a scandal, we're writing about a felony violation of federal tax law.

.
lides wrote:
You keep linking to an article in the Huffington post that claims HRC leaked a form 990 Schedule B, but links to an article by HRC that clearly cites an FEC filing for Free and Strong America, and never mentions a form 990 Schedule B.[URL deleted]
Don't blame me for the Huffington Post writing: "The Human Rights Campaign shared the filing with The Huffington Post." That quote from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/mitt...
contains this leak to NOM's illegally leaked 2008 Schedule B.

lides would rather believe HRC's cover story than the real story of a IRS 'whistleblower' published by the Huffington Po. I blame the criminals in the HRC and IRS, perhaps they conspired. I've never blamed the White House, Obama's involvement isn't important.

The real issue is tyranny, the government's tax collectors selectively leaking tax filings in contradiction to law. This is what happens when leftists lead.

.
lides wrote:
Your argument is in a shambles.
One of the best arguments against same sex marriage is keeping the government as small as possible. When we argue with same sex marriage supporters they claim to want federal tax and spending benefits; another fine example of wasteful government spending. Giving government the power to treat marriage as if citizens are unisex is too much power. The government should be restrained to treat us like men, women and children, not asexual imaginary beings.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4857 Jun 21, 2013
Insufferable wrote:
Being allowed to marry is not forcing acceptance dumbass. You can still hate gays even when they marry. You are the one forcing your beliefs on others. If you believe marrying a gay is wrong, don't marry a gay. What business is it of yours if others do though. It effects you in no way, yet you will attempt to control their lives all the while screaming that they're the ones trying to control yours. How does someone elses marriage effect your life?
Changing the laws for gays to allow same sex marriage changes the law for everyone, not just gays. I don't believe marrying a gay is wrong, gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else; I cite Meredith Baxter and Oscar Wilde for examples. Changing marriage law for everyone is wrong; that's why we have this argument.

The issue isn't how marriage law affects your marriage; the issue is how it affects society and the greater good. Same sex marriage law hasn't existed more than one single generation; why don't we wait a few hundred years to see how it works? We've seen what fifty years of Great Society welfare benefits has done to marriage and the family of poor people, let's look before we leap.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#4858 Jun 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems like the dictator wannabe looks at you from the mirror every morning.
As someone pointed out, if pissing others off were a crime, you'd have been sentenced to death by now.
You're more right than you know in suggesting that ASSdurratin is a "dictator wannabe." In a thread titled "I Hate White LIberal the Most", he actually esteems the so-called "superstate" such as existed under Stalin and Hitler--and speaks of it as a model for ggoverning the continent of Africa. In "Islam and the Black Race," he repeatedly esteem Joe Stalin. Let's us simply suggest that he is a foe of freedom. And if he came to power, it is not only our gay neighbors who have to be worried. All of us would be in danger.
ASSdurratin is an enemy of the people.
anonymousofcours e

Honolulu, HI

#4860 Jun 21, 2013
I am not homosexual, so I would probably feel out of place in a gay bar, but that does not mean that homosexuals are excluded from everyone else's rights. To each their own as long as they do not take away MY freedom! I hate no one and don't feel superior to anyone.

I believe most religions in general teach against homosexuality. But, remember.....state separate from church laws in this scenario. Those boundaries should not be crossed.

I may not practise certain behaviours, but I must know MY place in society and obey THAT position. I will leave the judging to God. He knows better! My job is to have a pure heart and have love for all, and then life and nature surprisingly will follow suit. I've seen it happen! Challenges? Yes. Sometimes some challenges take longer to overcome.....mine?...The dirt left by white supremacy.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#4861 Jun 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That didn't accurately address my post:
Pietro Armando wrote:
Broseph
If any consenting adult relationship is designated "marriage" by the state, what is the point of licensing it at all. Why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who.
However, I'll take a shot at yours. The state encourages marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife because it is that union that is the means by which the next generation is created and reared. That is what is crucial to a stable society, and why marriage is privileged, regardless of whether the individual marriage can, or will, generate children.
Should any consenting adult relationship be designated marriage by the state?
Anyone can have children. You don't have to be in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship to have or raise kids. And you don't have to have kids to get married. Your statement doesn't make sense. And I feel the government should encourage gay marriage. It can only help gay people, and their families, and it hurts no one.
anonymousofcours e

Honolulu, HI

#4862 Jun 23, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone can have children. You don't have to be in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship to have or raise kids. And you don't have to have kids to get married. Your statement doesn't make sense. And I feel the government should encourage gay marriage. It can only help gay people, and their families, and it hurts no one.
I have no issue personally with any sexual orientation and their rights.

One thing I struggle with is the children part. Only reason, is that a child comes from a man and a woman. How does that affect a child who has been raised from birth in a homosexual household? Have they done studies on this? What is your take on this? BTW: i'm being sincere....thanks. Also, BTW: if I knew of a homosexual couple raising a child, I would not hate them or try to take away their rights. I would just still being mulling over whether or not it is healthy for a child. Anyway....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4863 Jun 23, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone can have children. You don't have to be in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship to have or raise kids. And you don't have to have kids to get married. Your statement doesn't make sense. And I feel the government should encourage gay marriage. It can only help gay people, and their families, and it hurts no one.
How does it not make sense? Societies have recognized and favored marriage, as either a monogamous union of husband and wife, or a polygamous union of husband and wives, for the obvious reason that sex between men and women makes babies. The American legal concept of marriage, which is rooted in English common law, is very simple. One man and one woman, of age, not currently married, and not closely related by blood.

The state benefits, as does society at large when men and women marry, and both sex, and conception take place within the marital relationship. Of course there's no legal requirement to marry first in order to have children or sex. Why would there need to be?

If gay marriage is such a help to gay people, why then do so few, that can marry, same sex, actually do? Why do more female couples marry than male? Why do male relationships tend to be less monogamous than female ones?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4864 Jun 23, 2013
I don't believe there are extensive studies done on same sex parenting in which the child was raised from birth by a SSC, who were together the entire time. There aren't enough children under those circumstances, to fully study.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The "cunning" Caucasian and its tricks. 4 min Absimil 1
Ugly little white girls coming onto my son 13 min Dan Snow 2
U S A , Whiteys & Jews, We Wont ALLOW You to ha... 21 min Non-white Supremacy 2
why do black people have so soft skin? (May '12) 31 min Cautious Black mo... 21
How black people lost Egypt. ------------------... 36 min Redefined 50
why do white people steal from other cultures (Jul '12) 42 min No to Imperialism 1,066
Are Papuans from New Guinea considered Blacks? (Feb '08) 44 min Chizzo 173
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 1 hr suppiluliuma 134,412
Hookers say "Sorry no black men" I think that's... (Oct '09) 1 hr dreamhunk 462
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 2 hr Moses 44,935
New Racist Chinese Ad 8 hr Redefined 49
More from around the web