Hotwire Ad Featuring 2 Gay "Dads"

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

How is it your Baptist views allow you to openly support the state of Israel and Jews, yet you cringe whenever you see two people of the same sex kissing (males I will assume more then females...lol).

Three words:

End times prophecy

[delayjf]

Poverty levels fell from 23% in 1964 to 14.4% in 1973. As soon as the Republicans took office in 1981 they soared to 22.7% And continue in that range today.

Not according to Wiki - and by the by who was it that signed welfare reform in 1996?

In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.[7]

[cj's dad]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Note that I wrote terrified OR angered...wasn't trying to say you were terrified...but your tone seemed angry

Nor am I angry. I am offended, big difference. I am offended by a lot of things:

• Those who text while driving
• Those Liberty Mutual TV commercials which depict white folks as total idiots
• The Family Feud TV show with Steve Harvey- EVERY show has a black family vs. a white family-why?
• TV sitcoms that are just so hip I can't keep up
• Lying politicians
• Excessive fees for auto tags $175 here
• Abortion

The list is endless.

What angers me is the intolerance of those who claim to be the most tolerant, and you know who you are !!

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Wait a second here. You absolutely with self-righteousness asked a member to take a test. I turned it around and asked you to perform the same test in reverse, and guess what, I get an ad hominem attack. Maybe you're just intolerant of other people's opinion when they don't jive with yours. See how that works? Since you don't know me as well as you think you do, it may surprise you to know that I have a gay brother as well as a gay nephew.

I don't follow the logic of your responses. You reversed my "dare". And, what do you think would be the result of me saying, I have no problems with gay rights, interacting with minorities or religious freedom? I think you need to re-read my post#47 and my explanation in #66 and try and comprehend what I wrote. The fact your brother and nephew are gay reinforces my contention that intolerant individuals will just have to realize that people of diversity are "everywhere". Get used to it and leave them alone.

I have a question for you. I like to discuss handicapping and racing but I've never noticed your handle (you have 3000+ posts) until this thread. Why is that?

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I don't follow the logic of your responses. You reversed my "dare". And, what do you think would be the result of me saying, I have no problems with gay rights, interacting with minorities or religious freedom? I think you need to re-read my post#47 and my explanation in #66 and try and comprehend what I wrote. The fact your brother and nephew are gay reinforces my contention that intolerant individuals will just have to realize that people of diversity are "everywhere". Get used to it and leave them alone.

I have a question for you. I like to discuss handicapping and racing but I've never noticed your handle (you have 3000+ posts) until this thread. Why is that?

For someone who jumps into a thread guns blazing, you don't seem to want to take your own advice. Don't challenge people unless you are willing to be challenged back. You have no idea what my views are on gays. None. Zero. So stop presuming you know. As for your last question, I'm not sure, but probably half my comments since I joined have been in the racing section. I suggest you pay better attention.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by CurtisontheBay

What angers me is the intolerance of those who claim to be the most tolerant, and you know who you are !!

Are you suggesting the tolerant should extend the courtesy of tolerance toward the intolerant?

[Marshall Bennett]

I'll never believe their lifestyles (gays) are anything other than abnormal. It certainly isn't normal within our natural order of existence.
That said, I'm willing to look the other way, but I don't want their crap shoved down my throat. I'd consider this ad as their crap being shoved down my throat if I weren't warned in advance it would be aired.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I do not recall Mike ever complaining about anyone post a link or graph. The reason you don't post those things is because you are too lazy to do the research.

As to the article you linked, it makes a lot of comparisons that are either wrong or misleading. For instance it states that from the mid 1960's to the mid 1970's the amount of money spent on food stamps increased ten fold. The Food Stamp Act was passed in 1965. You would expect that there would be an increase from zero.

The article makes mention of the fact that the economic fortunes of blacks were improving in the years prior to the passage of the War on Poverty legislation and implies that this improvement stopped upon passage of the legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The various bills of the War on Poverty passed in 1964 and 1965. From 1967 to 1980 the average wage of a black worker went up 51.2%. Then Reagan took office and the era of benign neglect began. Over the next twelve years that average wage increased only 16%. The Republican administrations ignored or actively fought against many of the provision of the equal employment opportunity act.

Poverty levels fell from 23% in 1964 to 14.4% in 1973. As soon as the Republicans took office in 1981 they soared to 22.7% And continue in that range today.

The War on Poverty was working until the Republicans dismantled it. It is a shame that short sighted people such as yourself can not see that it would have been a benefit to everyone. The money we now spend on welfare programs is totally the result of the anti union pro business policies of the Republican Party.

I could care less if you believe me or not in my opinions, convictions, etc. I don't care because you're a joke, a clown and significantly insignificant. And while you claim I am simply lazy, I do care about costs to PA Mike in providing this wonderful web site. I know you don't care because selfish, left wing moochers like yourself have no respect for other people's property or money. PA Mike may not complain because he's a mensch but I am cognizant of costs running a small business.

What do you know about such details since you've been nothing but a gov't employe mooch, sucking capital out of the system and contributing nothing in return. But, then again, we all know that by now.

I know it's against your best interest to learn something, but just try once to read true black educators, economists and self-made success stories such as Dr. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Dr. Benjamin Carson, Herman Cain and Jason Riley.

Their stories plus anything written by them will tell the history of Civil Rights movement in this country and how it was the Democrat Party, then as now, that have stopped the progress of the black middle class.

These gentlemen have true street cred and are self-made success stories, unlike the charletans, race hustlers and pimps such as Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, and others, that scared, white, left wing weenies like yourself bow and cower to.

[reckless]

Here to tie up some loose ends brought to the fore by mostpost...

It is important that we understand the truth and facts pertaining to the history of the Civil Rights Acts in the USA and how the racists on the left wing and in the Democrat Party attempt to distort 'their true role' in history.

Point One -- mostpost referenced the 1960 Civil Rights Act while ignoring the 1957 Civil Rights Act that Ike and Nixon initially sought to pass. Was mostpost lazy in his omission? You be the judge; I say he ignored referencing 1957 to fit his agenda -- lying, obfuscation and distortion, not to mention his attempt to bore us silly once again.

Point Two -- Let's start with the 1956 National Election, incumbent Republican Party war-hero Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower against Democrat Party and left wing pansy, Adlai Ewing Stevenson.

In the 1956 Republican Party National Platform, the GOP included and wholeheartedly supported the important Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Board of Education.

The 1956 National Democrat Party Platform did not make any such endorsements.

Point Three -- That same year, 99 members of Congress signed a "Southern Manifesto" denouncing the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. The "Southern Manifesto" scorecard reads like this: just 2 Republicans signed this while 97 Democrat Party signed it!

Point Four -- Despite the Brown v. Board of Education ruling this decision was still openly defied by Democrat governor Orval Faubus, who still refused to admit innocent, American citizen black students to Little Rock Central H.S. To all you left wingers and liberals on this board, I am sure you know that this racist Faubus was a Bill Clinton advisor and confidante.

Point Five -- Racists, liberty haters and history revisionists on the left have often claimed that Eisenhower's 1957 Civil Rights Act was 'weak' in an attempt to belittle its importance to history and to civil rights in this country.

Well, according to author and historian Robert Caro, the bill was, in fact, weak. It was weak because of the behind the scenes threachery of Senate Leader Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat and liberal icon, who stripped the bill of its very important and needed enforcement provisions.

Point Six -- Still, despite this admittedly 'weak' bill, 18 Senators did vote against the 1957 Civil Rights Act -- and all 18 were members of the Democrat Party!

Point Seven -- A good number of these Democrats came from Northern states, such as Wayne Magnuson of Washington; both Montana senators, Mansfield and Murray, and the Wyoming senator whose name escapes me. They joined life-long bigots J. William Fulbright (oh vey, another Bill Clinton mentor and confidante), Al Gore Sr., Harry Byrd, Robert Byrd (the KKK grand pooh bah), Richard Russell and Russell Long -- all members of life's Hall of Shame.

And there were some others, but I am too lazy to type the rest of their names in. There's Saratoga tomorrow to handicap. The rest were also Democrats, by the way, save two.

[JustRalph]

Bravo!

[incoming]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Are you suggesting the tolerant should extend the courtesy of tolerance toward the intolerant?

Great example of "Dim's Logic." Who gets to decide who is tolerant.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

JBS,

As a devout Christian, I must say that I completely AGREE with your post. Thanks for saying it so directly.

Our beliefs are such that we believe that God is against homosexuality. He is also against adultery, stealing and a whole bunch of other things. We... every one of us has committed many sins in our lives. God does not give us a weighted list indicating that some sins are worse than others.


Personally, I am not enamored to homosexuality. Guess what? That's because I am hetero and I was brought up in a different age.

However, if one of my children announced that they were gay would I reject them? Absolutely not. Would I go out of my way to make them feel inferior or disappointing? Absolutely not. Quite the opposite.

When I reached a point of understanding (to some reasonable degree) what Christ had in mind when he said "Let he who is without sin...," I realized that God also said, "Love your neighbor as yourself." That sounds pretty clear to me.

I have a question for the Christians here. My understanding is that as a Christian, one is to try to avoid sin and when you do sin, genuinely repent for that sin and try once again not to sin. If homosexuality is a sin(and I believe the bible claims it is), how can one in a homosexual marriage genuine repent of this sin, when he/she obviously is going to "sin" again and again.......

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I have a question for the Christians here. My understanding is that as a Christian, one is to try to avoid sin and when you do sin, genuinely repent for that sin and try once again not to sin. If homosexuality is a sin(and I believe the bible claims it is), how can one in a homosexual marriage genuine repent of this sin, when he/she obviously is going to "sin" again and again.......

Here's a place to start

http://www.openbible.info/topics/repeated_sin

The topic is pretty well covered in the quotes on the page above

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I have a question for the Christians here. My understanding is that as a Christian, one is to try to avoid sin and when you do sin, genuinely repent for that sin and try once again not to sin. If homosexuality is a sin(and I believe the bible claims it is), how can one in a homosexual marriage genuine repent of this sin, when he/she obviously is going to "sin" again and again.......

What Christians think is immaterial to the question of civil rights granted by the constitution. Homosexual behavior is not a crime.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by TJDave

What Christians think is immaterial to the question of civil rights granted by the constitution. Homosexual behavior is not a crime.

I am confident you missed the point of the question. It is why Dave, a christian father, would love an unrepentant sinning son. There are other religions and Christian sects, in which the father would act differently towards the son.