That is perfect.Related??
Santorum To Give Out Free Jelly At Ames
Eric Kleefeld August 3, 2011, 3:34 PM 11528
Rick Santorum may not have raised a lot of money or attracted much support in the polls, but his campaign for the presidency will be trying a new tack for votes at the Ames Iowa Straw Poll: Some delicious homemade peach jam.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/santorum-to-give-out-free-jelly-at-ames.php
Rick Santorum The Origins of the Nick Name "Frothy"
- Thread starter jsingh1022
- Start date
Indeed. Savage is, like many other liberals, someone who may agree with Dr Paul on a few issues (Bill Maher qualifies in this category), but disagrees with the vast majority of what we stand for.
Savage is no angel. He tried to give a bigot the flu, illegally voted in the 2000 Iowa caucuses, lots of other stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Savage#Political_advocacy
But what can I say, I still like him.
But what can I say, I still like him.
Santorum is by no means a saint, and I don't agree with his marriage stance, as the government should not play any role in marriage at all, but I will never sing the praises of a person like Savage who thinks that he can force people via the government to not only accept, but embrace, his lifestyle choice, and who wants to outlaw any criticism of homosexuality as a 'hate crime.' Savage and Santorum are from the opposite end of the spectrum, but both are very wrong, and I don't see the point in taking sides or in laughing at one's immature insults towards the other.
Echoes
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2011
- Messages
- 750
Yet, if somebody said the same thing about Santorum.....
"he does A, B, and C and other rotten things. But, what can i say. I still like him"
.....You'd probably think he's a demented idiot.
Why dont you hold yourself to the same standards !!
Oh, come on. Legalizing gay marriage no more forces you to accept it than you have to accept a man who beats his wife. You don't have to agree with a marriage, you just have to allow it.
Either legalize gay marriage, or abolish government recognition of marriage. Either is fine with me, but the former is more politically tenable, I think.
Either legalize gay marriage, or abolish government recognition of marriage. Either is fine with me, but the former is more politically tenable, I think.
Well, Santorum holds the reins of government, and wants to use those reins to harm homosexuals, among others.
Latter for me. Whether we like it or not, there will always be people who disapprove of the gay lifestyle, just as there will always be racists, etc. We can't just put a gun to their head and force them to accept it. That's why government shouldn't be involved in marriage. People like Savage, however, want just that, not only for the government to legalize gay marriage, but also to use government to force people to embrace the lifestyle.
Echoes
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2011
- Messages
- 750
If Savage was a politician, would you agree with him if he acted this way?
Last edited:
Certainly wouldn't agree with his pro-Iraq war stance. But wouldn't care too much if he encouraged people to make a definition for someone's name.
Would you agree with him if he started rumors and badmouthed his constituents who disagree with him? People like this guy, Representative Pete Stark of California?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUpW6lM958M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qVpMwqv7QM
Attempting to make Gary Bauer sick with the flu was not a rumor. How is Savage ANY DIFFERENT from the media commentators who continuously make fun of and criticize Dr Paul?
amy31416
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2007
- Messages
- 22,978
I doubt he'd protest against a black business refusing to serve a white nationalist, or a female business refusing to serve a racist or pedophile. <---- And this is the reason why we should ALL agree with Ron on his philosophical stance on the CRA, no matter if you're right wing/left wing/white/black/gay/straight.
Another thing that's disgusting about the CRA is that it assumes that all minorities are innocent, good people and whitey is bad. What about a white person who was abused/harmed by a black person (it does happen!), now that black/minority person has MORE recourse against the white person? That's asinine. And yet, it was also asinine when the gov't instituted TONS of laws on gun control, marriage, etc. that are racist in origin--and now minorities are fighting for them.
World's all effed up.
You're absolutely right.
eduardo89
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2009
- Messages
- 21,295
Echoes
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2011
- Messages
- 750
Or that blacks are the only group that have been ever discriminated against. That's how it seems when you hear 'civil rights' activists like Sharpton and Jackson.
As late as the 40's, you'd still see signs up on busness fronts "no dogs, no irish, no catholics allowed", or the hundreds of thousands of japanese thrown in internment camps during the WW2. Yet, you dont hear a peep from these groups today.
Historically, the treatment of blacks was relatively mild compared to say the Nazi, Communist and Ottoman genocides. What ill never get is how is anyone liable today for crap that happened a hundred yrs ago, some folks actually want restitution LoL
