Previous 11 - 20 Next
This might be the best thing John Hawkins has written. It's a more honest insight into his character than his usual hokey lists and sarcasm. No, I don't think you (or other conservatives) hate any one group, if by hate you wouldn't wish or cause them direct harm. However, I think that you favor your own views and prosperity over the prosperity of others and cause them indirect harm as a result. Your values trump their marriage rights. Your values trump abortion rights. Your privilege trumps their affirmative action. Your accumulation of wealth trumps their need for a social safety net. You're a conservative, you care about yourself (and to an extent, those like you). I'm neither gay, a woman, a minority, poor or an immigrant. But the priorities of these groups sometimes trump my own because I am also an unapologetic Christian that learned that what I do unto the least of God's creatures I do unto Him. If you wonder why people think you don't like them, ask yourself, what are you doing to make them think otherwise?
"I'm a guy. I wish I was married and having sex all the time." You don't know a lot about marriage.
Good arguments, reciprocity between states should be automatic, not conferred by select states. This is the basis of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. So I hope the author of this article and those who agree with him will also logically conclude that a marriage license held between two men and legally conferred in Illinois should also be recognized in all 49 other states. Because a state's laws on the issue do not trump the Constitution or the full faith and credit clause. Marriage license, drivers license, concealed carry permit: recognize all three equally across state lines. Townhall magazine just Constitutionally proved there is no legal basis for a state not to recognize a legally performed gay marriage, nice job.
Brent Bozell is pathetic. His life's work was an attempt to sanitize the media and free it from what he deems obscene has had no effect. None. He has wasted his entire professional life. He is the Chicago Cubs of influential media pundits. What has the Media Research Center changed? Nothing. How have they "cleaned up" movies, TV and music? They haven't. Great job, Brent, you have done nothin with your life.
I don't like this being all about the Kochs, that's hypocritical. But I support anything that reduces the influence of money in politics. Much as I don't like what Citizens United created, it was a sound ruling based on what we view as Constitutional speech. That's why an Amendment is the only realistic way to reduce monied interests. I imagine the heart and goal of this Amendment would poll extremely high, Republicans might not want to dismiss it so swiftly.
The Bible endorses slavery, polygamy and holy wars, but it doesn't make them right. BTW, I'm a Christian and I don't eat meat, but I have no problem with hunting. I just don't like the premise of "the Bible says it's ok, so it is" to make a point.
If you want to know why the GOP has an image problem when it comes to compassion towards the issues effecting the poor, immigrants and minorities, study this article. Nowhere mentioned is a push to do immigration reform because it's the right thing to do for other people. This is about the political calculus of those who support reform because it might please the business community and solve the GOPs demographics problem. Those opposed just don't want immigrants to earn any rights, no matter the cost. Democrats get the votes Republicans will never get until people see that they are motivated to help them for the right reasons.
Can a true conservative tell this guy that he just made the exact same argument that liberals do when we argue that you can't always interpret the Constitution as it was written in the 18th century and sometimes it's interpretation needs to be updated for the times? Antonin Scalia and other strict constructionalist conservatives would tell you that the only way to interpret the words and actions of the founding fathers is to do so without context, that the Constitution is not a "living document" that changes with the times. But you and I disagree with strict constructionalist conservatives because "to understand that the unique circumstances surrounding events in history are not simply transferable to present day such that you can claim to speak for what George Washington would or would not do."
Bundy was clearly referencing American slavery and so am I. The inter-African portion of the Atlantic slave trade existed because whites showed up with guns and said "bring us some people and we'll give you some guns. If you don't, we'll make your rivals the same offer."
My Bachelor's Degree in History? But that's irrelevant, this event is any high school text book, you don't need credentials to know about Shay's Rebellion. If you've never heard if it before, go look it up. Then question why you've never heard of it before and think about what else you might be ignorant about.
When I hear someone say, "white people owned slaves and were terrible, etc." I don't get offended as a white person. I own the fact that it happened and accept its lingering effect on race relations even today. I don't get all touchy like you when someone points out that it was white people doing something horrible. Why, when I state a fact like "white people could rape them and sell their kids to other white people for profit" does it hurt you as a white person? Stop searching for victimhood in statements, black people were the victims in slavery, not you.
Previous 11 - 20 Next