1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Anus Monologues

gb22 Wrote: Dec 31, 2013 5:46 PM
It is not inappropriate to point out that the First Amendment is not involved simply because people who ought to know better - Sarah Palin, Bobby JIndal and Ted Cruz, to name three - referred explicitly to the First Amendment when they discussed the issue. One can criticize A&E and defend Phil Robertson without reference to the First Amendment.
The President believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women.... This is a remarkable argument. If I do not pay for something that you want I am dictating that you cannot do it. My employer does not pay for my gas so I can drive to church? Is he dictating that I cannot worship?
The Times's editorial was interesting, but the commentary was more so. It is interesting and somewhat disturbing to see how many Times readers buy uncritically the president's baseless assertions about "substandard" health insurance policies.
I do not want blacks to "remain obedient" or to work only as waiters. I want more black Americans to get married, raise their children properly, place value on education, lead law abiding lives free of dependence on government handouts.
Excellent parody. Thank you for the comic relief.
The breakdown by education gives guidance as to the level of information possessed by the people polled. Now we need O'Keefe or someone like him to do some man on the street interviews. Ask people whether they agree with the verdict, the follow up with some questions to determine how ignorant they are. Questions like: "Is your opinion influenced by the fact that all the witnesses agree that Trayvon was shot as he was running away?" And by the autopsy that proved he was shot three times in the back?"
In response to:

The President's Take on Race

gb22 Wrote: Jul 23, 2013 9:10 AM
It would be interesting to know the circumstances of all the times Obama was watched with suspicion in stores etc. I doubt it ever happened. Unfortunately he can't be challenged to give details.
In response to:

The President's Take on Race

gb22 Wrote: Jul 23, 2013 9:08 AM
I hope you are right. All the TV lawyer pundits see it this way. Holder said he will be guided by the facts and the law. He has no respect for either of course. He cares about what he calls "my people." And he is not talking about the American people.
In response to:

The President's Take on Race

gb22 Wrote: Jul 23, 2013 9:05 AM
Blacks interpret the violence in historical context. Well, some, maybe. Not the black woman who works for me. She is thinking about the here and now. A black co worker joked once that this woman is prejudiced. Against whom? I asked. "Black men" was the answer. The woman was not thinking on the president's lofty plane. She is just down to earth, unconcerned with historical context, thinking of when she was car jacked, stalked, and robbed of her purse with a gun pointed at her head. They here and now context is that all three perps looked like Trayvon. She worries about them, not about people who look like George.
I see she is speaking to "teens" and "young people." About violence in "gang infested neighborhoods." I guess the "teens" look like the president's if-he-had-one-son only when they are the alleged victims of violence allegedly perpetrated by people who don't look like the president's son.
1 - 10 Next