The left won't let you make fun of people and discriminate against them. Guilty as charged. We won't.This is pretty much indicative of why I feel the far right is more dangerous than the far left but both are absolutely wrong.
The far left says you can't make fun of black people who act in a stereotypical manner. You can make fun of swishing gay guys. I say you can make fun of a swisher just as you can make fun of a redneck. Neither are a blanket condemnation of anything except making fun of those who are idiots. The far left has no sense of humor about anyone or anything (unless of course you're making fun of a white man.) The left is trying to take away our right of free speech.
The far right on the other hand want our money for the rich (amazes me how people can be stupid enough to support the redistribution of wealth to just a very few people, NOT including themselves). The right wants to kill people off by throwing seniors off of medicare, the poor off of medicaid (they don't want workfare, they just want them in the streets), stop vaccines, give "vouchers" for one visit to the emergency ward and then you're on your own for the rest of the year.
That's the basic difference in the left and right. The left want to muzzle freedom while the right want to kill you off.
#22781 Jul 10, 2012
Since: Apr 10
#22782 Jul 10, 2012
More than 20 years ago Bob Newhart, the Canadian Comic said that America needed to lighten up. That we had lost our sense of humor. He was right. What you call discrimination is nothing of the sort. To make fun of a redneck is not to make fun of all white men. To make fun of a swishing, pouting, prancing swisher is not to make fun of all gay men. Both are the lunatic fringe of their particular genre. To make fun of ghetto black thugs is not to make fun of all black people. It's no different than making fun of white trash tweekers. There are people who are so far outside of anything reasonable in their actions and behaviors.
Black comedians have long made fun of whites. I don't take offense when they're right and they usually are. Same for Latino comedians. We whites have a large number of ridiculous well earned stereotypes among us and it's not wrong for non white comedians to point these things out. Nor is it wrong for a white comedian to point this out about other races. We are a world of tribes and we will intermingle but we will never be one and the same culturally nor should we be.
Your left wing extremism sucks the life out of equality. Making fun of each other for laughs is not discrimination. It's equality. It's not racism, it's not bigoted, it's not wrong. It's EQUALITY. I want to be able to laugh when Eddie Murphy talks about white people walking like they have a board up their butt. But I want to be able to laugh when someone says a swisher prances like he's auditioning for one of Santa's reindeer. You have no right as a political party to take my constitutional right to EQUALITY.
Since: Apr 10
#22783 Jul 10, 2012
The link below is Chris Rock speaking to his own race. This is one of the funniest comedy routines I have ever heard. It ranks right up there with Monty Python's "parrot is dead" routine and Who's on First by Abbot and Costello. Watch the entire clip and you will notice he takes off on white people for about a minute of the routine. What he says is preposterous and based on the southern stereotype. I know he's not talking about me and it's just as freaking funny as the remainder of the routine.
Now imagine a white man doing that routine. It would not be allowed. So what are you saying Minute? You will allow black comedians to say what you won't allow by white comedians? Because that is exactly how it is in America today and that's not equality. Does your version of equality have different rules for different races on stage? Or would you stifle Chris Rock on the same grounds you stifle white comedians? You either censor all races or you censor none. There is no other ground with equality in terms of free speech. You cannot, in all conscience, legislate humor. It won't work anymore than the right trying to legislate morality. It is the SAME EXACT issue yet you leftists won't stop doing what you're doing anymore than the right will stop doing what they are doing and you're both violating my constitutional rights.
Since: Apr 10
#22784 Jul 10, 2012
#22785 Jul 10, 2012
When we discussed gay marriage here before you definitely took the anti-gay side. Or how easily you and Heat through gay aspersions at each other. You sure don't read like a guy that has no problem with the 'gay.'
So are you saying equality for you and not for them?
So when your not for gay marriage and equality in all things it's kind of hard to see it as telling a joke. Everyone got a laugh at the TV show 'Will & Grace' and the over the top antics of 'Jack' who you would probably classify as a 'swisher.'
It's the same with old white guys that classify John Wayne as the all American Hero. Except he played one in the movies as was no way one in real life. He loved playing soldiers in war movies but did every thing he could to NOT be a real soldier in WWII. If you bring that up to white males in a certain age group it's HERESY to the memory of the Duke. Do not jokes about the Duke! And he was a known racist to boot. In all of his Viet Nam movies you would never know that there was a lot of black guys fighting in that war because Wayne never had one black face in any of his movies. Never. Ever. In fact a Black comic brought this up in front of an older audience. Not one laugh. Every one has their taboos. Not just liberals.
So humor is fine but when it's combined with actual discrimination in other ways it just looks like your excusing discrimination with 'it's just a joke.
That's why everyone laughed at and with Archie Bunker.
Since: Apr 10
#22786 Jul 10, 2012
1.) John Wayne couldn't act. I don't see your point there. Some people think he was special. I do not and never did.
2.) Being against the word marriage being used by gays is what I was against. My philosophy has always been if I'm not sleeping with you I don't care who you're sleeping with as long as they are legal age. Neither I or WMCOL are against gays having the same legal rights in union as everyone else. We simply prefer the word marriage to define a man and a woman. That's hardly anti gay over one single aspect of the entire gay movement. You're doing the same thing as the right wing. Throwing stones over a single fragment of a larger issue. That's wrong of you.
3.) I watched the first couple of seasons of Will and Grace but it quickly became a stereotype of the swisher gay guy and the drunk old secretary and was no longer funny.
4.) I don't throw gay accusations at Heat. He throws them at me and I laugh them off. I make the suggestion that he is romantically involved with pigs which I suspect he is. You're making things up now.
5.) As usual you duck the question. Humor should be the same for all to see it as they see it regardless of race. I support the right of black comedians to make fun of white people. I also support the right of white comedians to make fun of black people. You are not the arbitrator of what is funny and what is racist. The public at large has to decide that. It's called free speech. There are laws against inciting to riot, influencing to incite violence and bullying. If one doesn't cross those lines they should be allowed to say anything they like. If I'm offended as I often was in Oklahoma by the rednecks then I have the right (and to my thinking, obligation) to walk away and often did.
Chris Rock has a routine about what white people can say and I find it quite funny. Dave Chappelle does a routine on the same subject that I find quite stupid. But both have the right to say what they say. As does any white person. Or Asian. Or Latino. You continue to duck the issue of equality. And that's why the far left is so full of it. You refuse equality while demanding it.
#22787 Jul 10, 2012
Your against gays using the word 'marriage?'
Your okay with them but this is just a line too far. Then you are in fact not giving them equal rights with you.
It's just that using a race as a stereotype to play jokes off of makes liberals to not feel like laughing. Especially right now in what we are dealing with the craziness in wingers with our first black president. Especially on a political board in Oklahoma that doesn't seem to hardly have any black posters. Especially in a state that was famous for their race riots and intolerance of blacks. In a state that the President didn't carry one county.
So if we were in a comedy club in LA surrounded by Blacks and listening to Chris Rock or watching him on TV together and laughing is one thing. But on this particular blog with people who are more than willing and often do love to cast out their racist dog whistles love to latch on this. In this particular place and this particular time I feel it just feeds them.
#22788 Jul 10, 2012
I think may of the Republicans on this board don't know why we think Mitt has something he's hiding in his tax returns. Maybe you guys didn't know this or put it together. Your just need to cast your memory back to the Republican debates.
Because if Barak Obama did this you would be screaming to high heavens. That's why.
Romney changed his Financial Disclosures that every candidate had to fill out that was running in the Republican presidential race. Every one.
All this tax haven stuff can get complicated. But this is not:
Romney did relent under party pressure and release his 2010 returns. That forced him to amend the personal financial disclosures he had filed earlier in the year because those documents DIDN'T mention a Swiss bank account or a series of funds that were set up in foreign countries.
The simple fact is that Romney was forced to release the 1 tax return he has released by Republican opponents, earlier in the primary.
After being pressured to release the tax return, evidently something he hadn't planned to do, Romney had to amend his financial disclosure documents to mention things in those returns that he had purposely left out of disclosure: ie his Swiss bank accounts and other shady tax havens.
He lied about them.
Mitt Romney is the most dishonest man to run for president in decades.
He lied to you, his base. He didn't want YOU to know. If he thought the tax havens and accounts in Swiss banks were on the up and up he would have put in the financial disclosure.
I really think for a man that is completely familiar with the political process, especially if he recalls his own father's race for political office and not think that this would come and deliberately tried to push it under the rug, says one thing:
He never thought you would elect him as the Republican candidate. But you did and now he has all this baggage. And we're just getting started.
Let's see the rest of those returns Mitt. Your the one that wanted to run. Man up.
#22789 Jul 11, 2012
You know Republicans:
If you found out Michele Obama while her husband was in office, had just sold an expensive car but it was found out that she had approved turning the odometer back a 100,000 miles on that car, and got caught. You would have been screaming and posting all over the boards and it would be leading news all over Drudge and FOX news and the rest of the channels would have picked it up.
Yet frankly that is comparable to what Ann Romney did when she sold the dressage horse as ready for the ring but in reality it's fit just to be horse put out to pasture.
Nothing said by you or Fox or Drudge. If the people that had been ripped off by Ann and others in the know we wouldn't have known. Like the dog on top of the car.
Then we have Mitt being forced to amend his financial reports because he was FORCED to show his returns. Then guess what, he's got money, a lot of money outside the country. And he says we have to take his word that he paid taxes on it.
In a court of law, if your caught lying One time, the rest of your testimony can be disregarded.
And you want Mitt and Ann to be the President and First Lady.
I know that looking at all the candidates running for the Republican ticket you might have been desperate.
But we are not. He's your candidate but he's never going to be our President.
#22790 Jul 11, 2012
Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office — though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the last few years.
CBO looked at 2007 through 2009 and found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.
The top 1 percent, who President Obama has made a target during the presidential campaign, earns 13.4 percent of all pre-tax income, but paid 22.3 percent of taxes in 2009, CBO said. But that share was down 4.4 percentage points from 2007, CBO said in a finding likely to bolster Mr. Obama’s calls for them to pay more by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire.
The big losers over the last few years were the rest of the well-off, especially those in the top fifth, who saw their tax burdens go up.
“Specifically, between 2007 and 2009, the share of taxes paid fell for the bottom three income quintiles, was close to flat for the fourth quintile, but rose for the highest quintile,” CBO said.“Within the top quintile, however, the shift was uneven; the share paid by the top percentile fell, and the share paid by the rest of the top quintile rose.”
The tax fight has risen to the top of this year’s presidential campaign, with Mr. Obama calling for the wealthy to pay more money both to lower the deficit and fund his new spending promises. He wants households making $250,000 or more a year to see their rates return to Clinton-era levels, though he has proposed a one-year extension of the rest of the Bush-era rates.
Republicans have countered that they want a one-year extension of all current rates in order to have breathing space to tackle a broader overhaul of the tax code.
CBO, the nonpartisan agency that serves as Congress’ official scorekeeper, said the current tax code is progressive chiefly because of the income-tax structure. On average, the lowest 40 percent of earners actually get money back through the income-tax code because of refundable tax credits.
Overall, the federal tax rates in 2008 and 2009 — at 18 percent and 17.4 percent — were the lowest in the last three decades, suggesting at least part of the reason the federal government has run record deficits in recent years.
In terms of actual earnings, the top 1 percent suffered the most in the recession, with their average earnings dropping from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. The lowest 20 percent saw their incomes drop from $23,900 to $23,500 during that time.
CBO included a wide range of measures of income including wages, employer-paid health insurance premiums and capital gains.
CBO said the top 1 percent earned an average of $1.9 million in pre-tax income in 2009, while the top 20 percent as a whole averaged $273,000. The fourth quintile averaged $98,400, the middle quintile averaged $67,600, the second quintile averaged $45,600 and the lowest quintile averaged $23,900 in income.
#22791 Jul 11, 2012
Factcheck.org - completely unbiased source
You can read the rest here. I'll give you the summary part.
The truth about Romney's Bain outsourcing
Obama accuses Romney in a series of TV ads of being a “corporate raider” who “shipped jobs to China and Mexico,” asking if voters want to elect an “outsourcer in chief.” But some of the claims in the ads are untrue, and others are thinly supported.
Bain Capital, the venture capital firm founded by Romney in 1984, is the focus of the Obama campaign’s attacks. There is no question that Bain invested in some companies that helped other companies outsource work and that some of that work went overseas. That was the core business for Modus Media and SMTC Corp.— two outsource companies featured in a June 21 article in the Washington Post that has been the basis of recent Obama TV ads. Bain also invested in U.S.-based companies that sold goods manufactured here and abroad, and some of those companies closed U.S. facilities and eliminated U.S. jobs.
But after reviewing numerous corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, contemporary news accounts, company histories and press releases, and the
evidence offered by both the Obama and Romney campaigns, we found no evidence to support the claim that Romney — while he was still running Bain Capital — shipped American jobs overseas.
One TV ad, called “Come and Go,” claims that Romney “shipped jobs to China and Mexico.” But two examples cited by the Obama campaign occurred after Romney left Bain. There’s no clear evidence that a third company shipped jobs to China under Romney.
A second ad called “Revealed” mocks Romney’s tough talk about cracking down on China’s trade practices by saying “all he’s ever done is send them our jobs” and citing the Washington Post article. But the newspaper article contained no examples of U.S. jobs being shipped to China while Romney was working at Bain.
The “Come and Go” ad casts Romney as a “corporate raider,” but that term, loaded with negative connotations, is simply inaccurate. Bain didn’t engage in hostile takeovers when Romney was at the helm.
That ad also repeats the claim that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney was “outsourcing state jobs to India.” But it wasn’t the state that outsourced contracts. Rather, Romney vetoed a measure that would have prevented the state from doing business with a state contractor that was locating state customer-service calls in India.
#22792 Jul 11, 2012
Democrats are still hammering an old, and since replaced, GOP proposal, claiming it would “end Medicare,” and cost seniors $6,000 more a year for their health care. The newest Republican budget, proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, keeps traditional Medicare — unlike his plan from 2011 — and the increased cost claim is no longer applicable to it.
The latest string of “end Medicare” claims comes from the liberal Patriot Majority, a 501(c)(4), a nonprofit advocacy group, that was founded by a Democratic strategist, and that does not have to disclose its donors. Its ads, which began airing June 18, support Democratic Reps. John Barrow of Georgia, Ben Chandler of Kentucky, David McKinley of West Virginia and Jim Matheson of Utah. Another late June ad, from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, echoes the Medicare theme, attacking Rep. Rick Berg, who is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Kent Conrad in North Dakota. The ad says Berg voted for “essentially ending Medicare.”
House members voted along party lines on the Ryan budget last year (which included the Medicare proposal), with all Democrats and only four Republicans voting against it.
Battle-Tested Claims Never Die?
Democrats have jumped on Ryan’s budget proposal since he first presented it in 2011. His plan called for a massive change to Medicare — stopping the current Medicare system in 2022 for new beneficiaries and instead launching a so-called “premium-support” system, where seniors would pick from a choice of private plans on a new Medicare exchange with the help of government-provided subsidies. Claims that this would “end Medicare”— claims that were usually accompanied by images of elderly individuals — left the false impression that the Ryan plan would get rid of any kind of insurance program for seniors.
Furthermore, this plan didn’t pertain to the seniors pictured in the attack ads — they would remain on traditional Medicare, with only new beneficiaries in 2022 and beyond joining the private system. The claim made our list of the “Whoppers of 2011,” and so far, Democrats are making a good case for its inclusion in our 2012 list. A Democratic super PAC used the claim again in an Iowa congressional race in February, and now Patriot Majority and the DSCC are joining in.
The Patriot Majority ads say that “some in Washington want to end Medicare” and that the lawmaker featured in the ad “opposed those who’d increase costs on seniors by $6,000 a year.”
But the ads dig up that old claim about Ryan’s 2011 proposal. It’s true that an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that seniors on the private plans would pay more than they would under traditional Medicare. And the CBO analysis indicated that a 65-year-old in 2022 could pay about $6,000 more than he or she would for the year under traditional Medicare. The government subsidies would increase with the rate of inflation, which critics argued was not much when dealing with health costs that, for years, have risen much faster than the general inflation rate. Ryan did say that low-income beneficiaries would get more money from the government to help cover costs, but the details on how much and who would qualify were not yet fleshed out.
But Ryan’s new plan, released this year, is more generous in terms of what it would provide for subsidies, and it keeps traditional Medicare as an option for all beneficiaries, both current and future.
#22793 Jul 11, 2012
Continued from last post
Here’s a quick rundown of the latest Ryan plan:
For seniors who are now in Medicare, nothing changes. They can stay with the traditional program as it is.
Beginning in 2023, 65-year-olds would have their choice of insurance plans — private and traditional — on a new Medicare exchange. A premium-support payment, like a subsidy, would be sent to the plan of their choice.
If the chosen plan costs more than the premium-support, the senior would pay the difference.
The Medicare eligibility age would be slowly raised to 67 by 2034.
All plans on the Medicare exchange would offer a base level of benefits, and they would be regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The premium-support payments would be tied to the second-cheapest plan, which can’t grow more than gross domestic product plus 0.5 percentage points. If the cost does grow faster, Congress would be required to step in and take some action to keep costs down.
CBO didn’t conduct an analysis that shows what seniors might have to spend out of pocket under the latest plan. But it said that “beneficiaries might face higher costs,” adding that there was uncertainty in making such predictions. CBO said that both the Ryan plan and current law could lead to the same consequences —“reduced access to health care; diminished quality of care; increased efficiency of health care delivery; less investment in new, high-cost technologies; or some combination of those outcomes. In addition, beneficiaries might face higher costs, which could in turn reinforce some of the other effects.” And some of the effects would be greater under the Ryan plan because government spending is lower. But there was no estimate of seniors paying $6,000 more, or any other amount, under the latest GOP plan.
The ads ignore the updated Ryan plan, choosing instead to highlight an old, and misleading, claim. The ads feature images of seniors, who wouldn’t be affected by either of Ryan’s proposals — the changes to Medicare wouldn’t be put into place until 2022 or 2023, and would only affect new beneficiaries at that time.
The Patriot Majority ads also say these lawmakers “fought against raising the eligibility age for Medicare” and “prevented a new Medicare doughnut hole.” Those are both references to the Ryan plan, which raises the eligibility age and repeals the Affordable Care Act provisions that slowly closed the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage, known as the “doughnut hole.”
‘Essentially’ Out of Context
The DSCC ad throws in the line that North Dakota Rep. Berg voted for “essentially ending Medicare.” But the line is a reference to an April 4, 2011, Wall Street Journal article, and it’s not the full quote from the newspaper.
The Journal actually said that the old Ryan plan “would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills”(our emphasis added). And that’s true of the old Ryan plan, which would end traditional Medicare for future beneficiaries (those who turn 65 starting in 2022). But as we explained above, the latest Ryan plan even keeps traditional Medicare as an option for future seniors.
#22794 Jul 11, 2012
Factcheck's report on Obama and Romney's falsehoods about Obamacare
Factcheck: Obama Twists Romney’s Economic Record
Obama campaign ad takes aim at Romney's time as Massachusetts governor.
Factcheck Stretching on Romney’s Fees
Since: Jul 10
#22795 Jul 11, 2012
No matter how it is spelled out,
Romney get 90% of his donations from the ultra-rich while Obama gets 47% of his donations from the ultra-rich.
Obama has to look out for that 53% grassroots who donate to him, as well as the 47%.
Follow the money. Their allegiance is where their money is. Romney has little room for grassroots people.
Since: Jul 10
#22796 Jul 11, 2012
Gay men have "equal rights" to marry a female, just as does Dusty.
Male marrying male is asking for a special right for humans that is abnormal, unnatural.
#22797 Jul 11, 2012
You couldn't find any sources but the ones that took a measure "CBO looked at 2007 through 2009" in what the wealthy were paying in taxes? What happened in that time period? Oh yeah, we were at the start of our financial meltdown. It's quite a bit different now the rich own about 83% of the nations wealth and yet pay 70% in taxes. They can afford to pay 13% more. They didn't suffer under the Clinton tax rates. That's what we want to return too.
Since: Apr 10
#22798 Jul 11, 2012
This is exactly what irritates me to death about you far left liberals. You claim I'm not for giving gays equal rights because I want to retain the world marriage to mean a man and a woman. Somewhere, sometime, someone made up a word to describe a union between a man and a woman. It was called marriage. Someone, somewhere, sometime a word was made up to describe the one with the external genitals and it was called man. Yet the one with the internal genitals were called woman. You can support (and I do) equal pay for equal work. You can support a woman's right to vote, to own her own home, to drive a car in Saudia Arabia. But she is still called a woman. How absurd would it be for women to claim they do not have equal rights with men unless they are allowed to call themselves men? The issue is equal rights in those things that men are allowed to do, not in the usurping of a word, i.e. the word man.
To claim that I deny gays equal rights because I wish to retain the word marriage for a man and a woman is to say I deny equal rights to men for them not being allowed to call themselves women and to women for not being able to call themselves men.
If you wish to get beyond the names of men and women then you use the word people. If you wish to get beyond the heterosexual word marriage and whatever word the gays used otherwise, then you would use the words civil unions because that's what they all are on the bottom line just as we are all people.
This is not a perfect world, there is no way to please everyone, there has never been and there will never be. YET while some like me support legal protection of civil rights for all, you liberals name call me, attack me and defile me worse than I have ever defiled a gay person in my entire life simply because I wish to retain the word marriage for a man and a woman. You make no distinction between myself and Packing Heat who thinks gays are sub humans.
You extremists on both sides are your own worst enemies. Those of us in the center who do not follow a party line rhetoric use common sense and everyday logic. I worry about this nation's financial situation. About overpopulation. About the ultra rich picking the bones of the middle class if Romney is elected. I worry about the situation that the ultra rich are intent on turning this country into the socioeconomic equivalent of another Mexico.
I realize my kind has lost the "marriage" designation battle in the courts of our land. But I will never lose it in my mind. Marriage defines the civil union between a man and a woman. That's my constitutional right to feel that way. But there are bigger issues to worry about. Just not to you extremist liberals who will alienate otherwise sympathetic moderates on other issues, because just like right wingers, you never compromise on ANYTHING. If Obama loses it won't be because of him. It will be because you libs won't give an inch and moderates are sick of you people.
Since: Apr 10
#22799 Jul 11, 2012
You continue to duck the reality of equality. Chris Rock doesn't just do his thing in a comedy club in Los Angeles. He plays all over the country. The public decides if he is worthy of supporting. I doubt he could fill a large venue in Oklahoma. But that's Oklahoma's problem not Chris Rock's. If you watched much of Rock on Utube you would see that his audience in the early days was almost all black. Today it's strongly mixed. His humor is very funny to my mind. And pretty darn accurate observations most the time. I support Chris and other black and minority comedians to say what they think is funny. If I find a comedian not that funny as I think Dave Chappelle stinks out loud I simply do not watch him. I don't think Adam Sandler is funny any longer and won't waste my money on him. Not because he's Jewish but because I'm tired of his schtick. Will Ferrel, to my knowledge is white and I can't tolerate his drivel.
But the issue of equality is not race but equality. If Chris Rock can talk about white people (and he should be able to) And George Lopez (my favorite stand up comdeian) can talk about both whites and Latinos, then any white comedian should be able to talk about other races.
You want to penalize the nation for rednecks. You want minorities to have freedom of speech but white guys don't. That's just wrong. Everyone should be held accountable for their own speech but that accountability should be by society, not by government, not by laws, not by "outraged liberals" on a political agenda. Hold the rednecks responsible for the laws they break of violence and physical abuse. I'm from the sticks and stones may break my bones but words never hurt me contingent. I'm more worried about equal rights for minorities in job hirings, home loans, redlining, disproportionate prison sentences and so on. I don't take offense when someone jokes about my having thin lips. You shouldn't take offense if someone says most black people have thick lips. Chris Rocks speaks to it. So should I be able to without you left wing zealots getting all worked up.
#22800 Jul 11, 2012
Your world did not end when Barney Frank and his husband got married last week.
As more and more research is funded and shows that being homosexual is something that it's a condition that a person is born with this, the marriage brouhaha will be in the dustbin of history were it belongs.
Extremism is in the eye of the beholder. Many would say you are an extremist on equal rights for gays.
So if you think I am an extremist because I want equal rights for gay Americans, I'll just have to live with that.
Oh, and Dusty, centrism is not always the right place to be. During the battle for civil rights the centrist position was separate but equal.
That's why I don't believe Americans should be able to vote whether another citizens can have the same rights as they do.
It was us libs that put Obama up there in the first place Dusty.It was us libs that marched against the war in Iraq while you moderates went along with it.
Your either for equal rights for all or your not, there is NO moderate or central position in a yes or no answer, some times you have to choose.
Add your comments below
|Jody benge||5 hr||jodybenge||3|
|important discovery||Dec 23||Jimmy bill||9|
|A new low in anti-Muslim American bias||Dec 22||muslim hater||53|
|Former mayor||Dec 20||Lisa Wilcox||3|
|New Mayor a Mistake (May '14)||Dec 14||Regina||96|
|Where is John||Dec 11||Jenks||68|
Find what you want!
Search Sallisaw Forum Now
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC